Sitting of 24 June 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

CIVILIAN WAR INJURIES (WOMEN, COMPENSATION).
Mrs. Tate: I beg to present a Petition signed by 822 hospital nurses of Northern. Ireland showing that the civilian women of this country who face the same dangers and are liable to the same injuries from enemy action as civilian men suffer great hardship by reason of the unequal rates of compensation for war injury payable to injured women civilians. The Petition concludes:
"Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will be pleased to grant them such relief as to your honourable House may seem fit."

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (FAR EAST).
  Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to report further progress in the negotiations by the Protecting Power with the Japanese Government towards the identification of, and despatch of supplies to, British prisoners of war in the Far East?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The names of a small number of those captured at Hong Kong, and also of a number of interned civilians in Japan, have recently been received by cable from the Japanese Government viâ Geneva.
  As regards relief supplies, I regret to state that the Japanese authorities have not yet given permission for neutral ships under Red Cross auspices to proceed to the Far East. They have, however, agreed on a reciprocal basis that relief supplies may be placed on board ships which will be used for the proposed exchange of officials and non-officials between the United States of America
  1946
  and Japan and the British Empire and Japan. The International Red Cross Committee at Geneva reports that with the consent of the governments concerned the ships will be accompanied by Swiss nationals chosen by the Protecting Power, and that they will supervise the handing of relief cargoes to the delegates of the Committee at destination. The Japanese authorities have also promised that lists of names of prisoners of war will be sent by these ships. It is reported that the first exchange ship has left an American port with a cargo of supplies which have been collected by the Canadian and American Red Cross organisations. These are intended for Allied prisoners of war and civilians in enemy-controlled China, the Hong Kong area and the Philippines.
  So far as the British-Japanese exchange is concerned, negotiations are still proceeding and the possibility of sending further supplies by the ships selected for that exchange will depend of course on the successful outcome of these negotiations. But the British Red Cross, in co-operation with the Red Cross organisations in the Dominions and India and with the approval of the respective governments, are collecting supplies including medicines from various centres for despatch to the neutral port. These are intended mainly for Malaya and the adjacent areas.
  The International Committee also report that their delegate in Shanghai has taken over 50,000 sacks of cracked wheat, rice and flour in Shanghai as well as 2,000 tons of similar supplies together with a substantial quantity of medical supplies in Hong Kong for local relief. These have been bought from the American Red Cross with funds voted by the British Red Cross.
  Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they are dealing with correspondence from prisoners of war, and is there any hope of getting any information from that source?
  Mr. Eden: I am not sure that that is a matter for me. What I have been trying to get is the full list of prisoners of war from the Japanese. We have received some lists in respect of Hong Kong, and they have now promised to send the full list in respect of Malaya with these ships when the exchanges take place.

  PERSIA.
  Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any official intimation from the present Government of Persia as to the name by which they wish their country to be known in future?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir.
  Sir L. Lyle: Would it not be better if we could make some arrangement regarding what is to be the name of what the Prime Minister calls Persia and the right hon. Gentleman's Department calls Iran?
  Sir Herbert Williams: As we call Belgique "Belgium," is there any reason why we should not call any other foreign country by its Anglicised name?
  Mr. Eden: It has been our habit to call foreigners any name we like. I think in this particular case there is a rule that in our documents we call it Persia among ourselves, but call it Iran in communications to the Government there, as they desire.
  Mr. McGovern: What do you call Hitler?

  ANGLO-SOYIET TREATY (RATIFICATION).
  Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the ratification of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty by the Soviet Government, when it is proposed that the British ratification should take place?
  Mr. Eden: It is the practice to lay treaties requiring ratification for 21 Parliamentary days in all cases where the continuance of the Parliamentary Session makes this course practicable. when it does not, or when considerations of urgency require earlier ratification, the treaty is ratified and Parliament notified as soon as may be afterwards. In present circumstances, the 21 Parliamentary days are spread over seven weeks. The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. has already ratified the Treaty. Therefore, since the statement which I made in the House on nth June about the Treaty has, I think, commanded general assent, I propose now to submit the instrument of ratification to His Majesty for signature.
  Mr. Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will give very
  1948
  great satisfaction, because it is the unanimous desire of the people of this country that the Treaty should come into operation as soon as possible?

  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

    FACTORIES (LITERATURE AND MEETINGS).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that certain workers in an aircraft factory which had been declared a protected place, were prosecuted on 26th May for distributing literature in the factory which entailed dismissal upon the grounds of serious misconduct; and whether the customary right of the workers to distribute literature and to hold meetings will be preserved in such protected places in future?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): Yes, Sir. The Directions which my hon. Friend has in mind are of common application to all factories which are protected places, and they have been made in the interests of war production. They prohibit the distribution of literature with certain exceptions, such as works notices, works magazines, trade union journals and publications and Government publications. They also prohibit the holding of meetings in protected places without permission.
    Mr. Adams: Is it a matter of serious urgency to stop the old privileges of the workmen to have a meeting and distribute their own literature relating to shops stewards?
    Sir A. Sinclair: These orders have long been in operation. They are in the interests of war production, and they have never been challenged.

    SELF-PROPELLED BOMBS.
    Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether his technical departments are still experimenting with self-propelled bombs; and whether inventions connected with this principle continue to be encouraged?
    The Minister of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): It would not be in the public interest to give this information.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: May I ask that my right hon. and gallant Friend should not forget this important issue?
    Colonel Llewellin: My hon. and gallant Friend can rest assured that I shall not.

    FACTORY (PLAY PRODUCTION).
    Mr. Neil Macleanasked the Minister of Aircraft Production, how many players took part in the rehearsals of a play in the canteen of an aircraft factory of which he has been given the location; if, as only one employee of the firm took part in those rehearsals, proper supervision was made over the outsiders who came into the factory to attend those rehearsals; and why his Department is not concerned with how long the rehearsals took when they were held in an aircraft factory from which the public is ordinarily excluded?
    Colonel Llewellin: The Answer to the first part of the Question is 15 to 20; to the second "Yes," Sir; and to the third, because neither production nor security was affected.
    Mr. Maclean: Is it not a fact that in any' factory under the supervision of the Department a lot of outsiders can be brought into the factory in order that a play can be given there on a Sunday?
    Colonel Llewellin: The canteen of this factory is just within the entrance gates, and there is a considerable space between the canteen and the factory itself. It was in the canteen that these play rehearsals took place, and there were security arrangements made to see that unauthorised persons should not go beyond the canteen.
    Mr. Maclean: Were these security arrangements made by a security officer who was later dismissed for being incompetent?
    Mr. Macleanasked the Minister of Aircraft Production the number of 20-seater coaches and other motor vehicles used in connection with the production of a play rehearsed and produced in an aircraft factory, the location of which he is aware of; what total mileage was travelled by these vehicles on this business; what quantity of petrol was used; who authorised the use of motor vehicles and petrol on a play that had no bearing on the repair or production of aircraft; and whether he will order an investigation into the reason for these abuses and the punishment of the culprits?
    Colonel Llewellin: One 20-seater coach. was used on 2nd April, one on 4th April and two on 5th April. The total mileage
    1950
    covered by these coaches and other vehicles used was 528 miles; 42 gallons of petrol were used. The use of the coaches and the petrol were authorised by the management. The last part of the Question is a matter for my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.
    Mr. Maclean: Had these journeys anything whatever to do with the production of aircraft, and will the Minister report the matter to the Minister of Fuel and Power so-that the necessary steps may be taken to see what is to be done with those who were responsible?
    Colonel Llewellin: I do not think in every case we should say that it is a waste of fuel to take entertainments of this sort to a service station or to some of our factories and canteens. It may be a matter of opinion whether this play was a good one, but I think, in general, it is good to have entertainments for the workers in the factories.
    Mr. A. Hopkinson: Is not the Minister aware that the Home Secretary dismissed an eminent public servant for exactly the same offence?
    Mr. Macleanasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether, when the managing director of the aircraft factory, of which he has been informed, gave his assurance that there would not be present so many executive officers at similar meetings, he was given to understand that meetings to discuss future plays were contemplated by the managing director?
    Colonel Llewellin: No future plays were mentioned, but I have no desire to limit the power of the management to organise plays, entertainments and social functions for their employees where these do not interfere with production or security.
    Mr. Maclean: If executive officers absent themselves from the necessary work of producing aircraft to attend the production of a play, is that not an entirely different matter from sending E.N.S.A. to entertain the workers?
    Colonel Llewellin: On the last Question day I gave my hon. Friend the assurances I have received from the general manager of this staff.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    OFFICERS (TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT, LEAVE).
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for Air whether Royal Air Force officers, compulsorily retired on the sole ground of age, receive 42 days' leave on full pay and allowances the same as Army officers?
    Sir A. Sinclair: During the war, the employment of officers is not being terminated solely on grounds of age but only when they are unsuitable for further employment or when no further employment is available for them. The question whether there should be any increase in the amount of leave with full pay which is granted to officers whose employment is being terminated is at present under consideration.

    LIBYAN OPERATIONS.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Air who was responsible for the officially inspired statements, issued last week, to the effect that the Imperial Air Forces in Libya had retained superiority over the enemy throughout the recent campaign; that the greatest concentration of enemy dive-bombers never exceeded 30 and that the Royal Air Force were now using a new antitank aircraft; how did the enemy succeed so swiftly in bringing up troops, guns and transport and establishing forward air bases on the heels of our retreating forces; and, in view of the conflicting evidence and the unexpected defeat suffered by our arms, whether he will institute an immediate inquiry into the facts and report the results to Parliament with the least delay?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the full Debate promised yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, when these and other questions can be dealt with.
    Mr. Stewart: Surely my right hon. Friend is instituting urgent inquiries into this matter so that the House may be informed in the Debate as to the facts of what appear to be a series of disastrous misstatements?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am in constant communication with the Commander-in-Chief, who keeps me very fully informed, and if the
    1952
    opportunity is afforded me I shall be very glad to make a statement on the subject,
    Earl Winterton: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will then be prepared to answer the specific question as to who is responsible for issuing these misleading communiqués? Is he aware of the deplorable effect upon Service men of being told things which they know not to be true?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot be held responsible for newspaper correspondents' articles, but for anything which is issued with official inspiration I am fully responsible.
    Sir Hugh O'Neill: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is or is not a fact that we had air superiority during the Libyan campaign?
    Sir A. Sinclair: My right hon. Friend must have heard General Auchinleck's testimony to that effect, which the Deputy Prime Minister read out in this House yesterday.
    Mr. Stewart: But surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape responsibility for officially inspired statements which were reported in the Press by military or air correspondents, and it is that question which I put to my right hon. Friend which he has not answered?
    Sir A. Sinclair: There is no question of escaping responsibility. I have just asserted in reply to the Noble Lord opposite that I am responsible.
    Captain Peter Macdonald: Is it not the fact that quite independent sources of information outside General Auckinleck's statement have testified to the fact that we did have air superiority, and that there was the utmost co-operation between the Royal Air Force and the Army in Libya?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right.

    AIR TRAINING CORPS (STAFF).
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Air the total strength of the staff employed full time, both at headquarters and in the regional areas, in running the Air Training Corps; and what is the annual budget?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The total full-time staff is 199, of whom 20 are employed in the Air Ministry and 98 at the headquarters

    1953
    of the Corps and 81 elsewhere. The total annual cost of their pay and allowances is about £63,000.

  POSTAL PARCELS TO SOUTH AFRICA.
  Sir Granville Gibsonasked the Postmaster-General to what extent there has been, since September, 1939, a progressive increase in the weight and number of parcels sent to South Africa; whether these parcels require any South African essentiality import permits, such as apply to freight cargo; and whether shipments of freight cargo have been materially reduced as a result of any large increase in the shipment of post parcels?
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The number of postal parcels despatched to South Africa in the three months ending March, 1939, was 87,126 and for the same period in 1942, 123,545. I have not exact particulars of weights but the shipping space occupied was, respectively, 95 and 240 tons per week. This traffic has recently increased materially and the shipping space now required is of the order of 600 tons per week. I am given to understand that no import permits are necessary for the importation into the Union of South Africa of goods from the United Kingdom whether sent by parcel post or as cargo. I am informed that the increase in the parcel post traffic does in present circumstances result in the exclusion of other cargo, and the whole position is being examined in concert with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of War Transport.
  Sir G. Gibson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is developing into a ramp, and that large numbers of people are exporting goods to South Africa through the Post Office? Is he aware that recently on one ship there were 10,000 tons of cargo taken on by parcel post from his Department and that one firm alone sent 4,000 parcels by parcel post, thus holding up other people who had to get export permits?
  Mr. Morrison: The figures I have given certainly seem to support the inference that use is being made of the parcel post to evade the Regulations, and I am examining the matter with the Board of Trade to see whether we can devise a remedy.

  CAMPS (CONSTRUCTION AND LETTING).
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he can give an assurance that all suitable firms will be given an effective opportunity of tendering for the construction of all future camps?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): Subject, of course, to the necessary limitation of competition to reasonable dimensions in individual cases, I can give the hon. Member the assurance that opportunities to tender for these works will be spread as widely and as fairly as possible over the whole field of suitable firms.
  Sir H. Williams: Will the Minister give me an approximate idea of the number of firms which have been given an opportunity of tendering, say in the last month or six weeks?
  Mr. Hicks: That depends upon the type of job. We do not usually invite more than half a dozen firms for one job of a limited value. We could not invite 50 or 60 firms, because the industry would object to so many firms being in the running.
  Mr. Bossomasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (1) the form of contract proposed for the camps now being, or about to be, let; are the tenders that are being prepared based upon complete plans and specifications; and is the site in each case definitely settled and defined; and
  (2) how much time was allowed to contractors who were invited to prepare estimates on contracts for camps now being, or about to be, let; are contractors invited to visit the sites; and, approximately, how many pages comprised the bills of quantities upon which they were asked to prepare their tenders?
  Mr. Hicks: I assume that these Questions relate to contracts of three camps which have recently been let. The tenders were required as a matter of extreme urgency, and normal procedure could not be followed. Complete plans and specifications were available, but bills of quantities had not been completed.

  1955
  Tenderers were therefore asked to quote a percentage reduction or addition on the Ministry's Standard Schedule "of Prices. The. contracts are in the Ministry's standard form. The sites had been settled and all tenderers had the opportunity of visiting them. Documents were handed to selected firms on 6th June and tenders were returnable on 9th June.
  Mr. Bossom: Can my hon. Friend say whether the contractors were shown or given copies of the plans and specifications from which to make their estimates?
  Mr. Hicks: Yes, I assume that they were. The bills of quantities, as I have informed my hon. Friend, were not available for these three camps, but the contractors were given the general plans and specifications and were asked to agree to a figure above or below the Minister's standard schedule of prices.
  Mr. Bossom: Has my hon. Friend forgotten the troubles we had with the militia camps, and are we receiving sufficient information on these matters?
  Mr. Hopkinson: Can we have an assurance that the Ministry will debar from tendering any firm which another Department has found, on similar work, to be unsatisfactory?
  Mr. Hicks: I can only answer that by saying that I have now established an advisory committee which will have access to the general information. I shall be guided very largely by their recommendations.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that such firms will not be asked to tender for any further camps?
  Mr. Hicks: I cannot give an assurance of that kind.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REBUILDING).
  Mr. Hannahasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, whether, in rebuilding the House of Commons, he will consider so enlarging the Chamber as to include the space occupied by the old Division Lobbies, new ones being provided over arcades to be constructed in the adjacent courts?
  Mr. Hicks: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his suggestions, which will be borne in mind when plans for rebuilding the House of Commons are under consideration. I would, however, refer to the Reply given by the Prime Minister on 19th June, 1941, to the hon. and gallant Member for West Leeds (Major V. Adams) in which he indicated the desirability of reconstructing the Chamber with only minor alterations in its size, shape or character.
  Mr. Hannah: Would it not be an encouragement to Members to attend better if they were sure of comfortable seats?
  Mr. Thorne: Have any opportunities been offered to the various architects to submit designs for the new House?
  Mr. Hicks: No, Sir, not at the moment.

  BUILDING INDUSTRY (CONTRACTS).
  Major Lyonsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, whether he will state, in relation to both post and future buildings for service or supply requirements, respectively, what are the selective principles upon which suitable firms are invited or allowed to tender; and for what reasons any such firms are refused that opportunity?
  Mr. Hicks: My Department endeavours to confine invitations to tender for its building contracts to firms experienced in the organisation of work of the size contemplated, adequately equipped with key personnel, plant and finance, and not fully loaded with other Government work. A limited selection is made in each case and, subject to the desirability of spreading invitations as widely as possible, firms established in the vicinity of proposed schemes are given first consideration. I have recently set up an advisory committee of representatives of the building and civil engineering industries, one of whose functions will be to advise on the best methods of spreading contracts in an equitable manner.
  Major Lyons: Is it within the province of any one of my hon. Friends directors, some of whom are associated with the building industry, to say which firms are to be invited to tender and which

  1957
  disallowed, although these may be quite suitably equipped and sufficiently nearly located to do the work properly and well?
  Mr. Hicks: I would not accept the implication that firms are nominated in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. At the present time I am looking over the whole of the list of contractors that are invited to tender and seeing that none of them are overloaded.
  Major Lyons: Who refuses the right to tender to suitable firms?
  Mr. Hicks: The hon. and gallant Member will have to give an instance in order to get a reply. I have stated already that the number of firms invited to tender for a given contract has necessarily to be limited. We could not invite 50 or 60 firms, because only one could get the job, and the industry would object to our making the list too long. Every list is varied, and firms are not invited to take on a second job until they have done the first.
  Major Lyons: Will the Minister be willing to look into individual cases?
  Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir. I will take up individual cases.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MALTESE CIVIL SERVICE (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. William Brownasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to give a reply to the request made to his Department, on 26th March last, on behalf of the locally-entered clerical staffs at Malta, for their claim for war bonus to meet the increased cost of living in Malta to be referred to the arbitration tribunal?
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to him on 19th May. It is not possible to reach a decision on this question until the reply from the Governor of Malta is received.
    Mr. Brown: Is not the Minister aware that unions have a right to go to arbitration on matters of this kind whether the Department agrees or not? Is he aware, secondly, that the Government pledged themselves when this agreement was made for arbitration that cases would be referred to arbitration within one month, and will he take steps to see that the establishment
    1958
    division conforms to the agreement made by the Government with the Civil Service organisations?
    Captain Pilkington: I think my hon. Friend will agree that there is not very much to be gained by going to arbitration before the reply is received from Malta, because that reply may mean that no need for arbitration arises.

    W.R.N.S. (MEDICAL TREATMENT).
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements have been in force and are now in prospect for the treatment in hospital or otherwise of members of the Women's Royal Naval Service at home ports and elsewhere in order to prevent cases of various types of infectious diseases, such as infantile paralysis, measles, &c., being treated in the same ward and sometimes in neighbouring beds?
    Captain Pilkington: Members of the W.R.N.S. are entitled to the same medical treatment as other naval personnel. When a member of the W.R.N.S. is diagnosed as suffering from an infectious disease, she is admitted for treatment to the zymotic department of a naval hospital or sick quarters, where cases of different infectious diseases are segregated from one another in separate wards or cubicles. If suitable accommodation were not available at a naval hospital or sick quarters, she would be transferred to an Emergency Service hospital or isolation hospital.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is it not a fact that there have been instances recently of people suffering from various types of infectious disease being placed in beds alongside other beds?
    Captain Pilkington: I do not think so, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any case I will inquire into it.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Cannot something be done to increase the accommodation which is required for the observation of these cases, because it was omitted when the hospitals were first built?
    Captain Pilkington: I will consider that.

    CAPITAL SHIPS.
    Mr. Caryasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any major change

    1959
    is contemplated in naval building programmes in regard to the future construction or conversion of capital ships?
    Captain Pilkington: The naval programme is kept under constant review in the light of operational experience. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will not expect me to give in public any details of the programme as now constituted.

    SEA CADET CORPS.
    Mr. Lindsayasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers are now employed full time in organising the sea cadets; and what is the approximate cost involved?
    Captain Pilkington: At the present time 14 officers are employed full time in organising the Sea Cadet Corps. Of these, four are attached to university and school units and are for temporary duties only; nine are regional and area officers for open units, and one is at headquarters. These 14 officers draw pay and allowances at the rate of approximately £9,000 a year.

  WEST INDIES.

    RICE PRODUCTION.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the urgent measures taken in March to bring rice production in British Guiana to a maximum to meet the needs of the West Indies; whether he is aware of complaints from that Colony that the measures taken to expand production are inadequate; that the committee appointed to increase and supervise rice production does not command public confidence; and that owing to the unsatisfactory policy in the past, rice exports have fallen from 29,000 tons in 1933 to under 9,000 in 1941, whereas the demand for rice in the West Indies is-at least 40,000 tons?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The measures taken to increase the production of rice in British Guiana included the fixing of remunerative prices to growers, the growing of rice on sugar estate lands and the commencement of further large irrigation works. The committees entrusted with the task of encouraging food production have recently been reorganised on
    1960
    a regional basis, and the question of further cultivation of rice and other food-stuffs on sugar lands has been discussed with the sugar interests both here and in British Guiana. The small crop in 1941 was due primarily to drought, and it is expected that production henceforth will be on an adequate scale, having regard to the importance of growing also in-creased quantities of other foodstuffs and fodder crops.
    Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that the Press of British Guiana, together with statements by public persons there, indicate the necessity for some alteration, failing which the desired crops will not be obtained?
    Mr. Macmillan: We are pressing this matter forward with the greatest possible urgency.
    Mr. Sorensen: How far now does the supply of rice fall short of the actual needs?
    Mr. Macmillan: Does my hon. Friend mean in that particular Colony or having regard to the possibilities of export?
    Sir F. Fremantle: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of improving health measures in British Guiana in order to improve production?

    DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE.
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, what opportunities the local legislative councils and local organisations in the West Indies are given to keep informed of, and to express their opinion on, the development schemes proposed under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: Schemes pro-posed under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act are drawn up on the advice of the Comptroller and his expert advisers, who will have consulted the Colonial Governments and local interests. The financial aspects of the schemes, when approved, come before the Legislative Councils of the Colonies concerned in connexion with the annual estimates.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the West Indies, and will he endeavour to see that the intentions of the Government are more generously fulfilled?
    Mr. Macmillan: As a matter of procedure, I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The procedure is very much the same as ours; the annual Estimates are the occasion when the Legislative Council naturally discuss these matters.

    TRINIDAD (HOUSING).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the barrack dwellings in Trinidad, which the 1937 Commission recommended should be swept away, have been demolished and alternative accommodation provided; and what proportion of workers and their families have been transferred to better accommodation?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: I regret that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not available in the Colonial Office: but the Trinidad Government has made considerable progress in its housing schemes. I Would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the reply given to a Question by him on I2th May. If my hon. Friend desires, I should be glad to send him a copy of a recent report from the Governor on housing in Trinidad.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would it not be possible at least to inquire from the Governor of Trinidad exactly what progress has been made, so that we might have some idea as to whether a certain portion of these barrack houses has been demolished?
    Mr. Macmillan: That is why I suggested sending this recent report to my hon. Friend.

    FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Trinidad legislature has rejected a motion to subsidise imported foods for the poorer classes; the result of Government consideration of means of maintaining and, where possible, reducting price levels; and what action has been taken in the West Indian Colonies either to subsidise foodstuffs or secure reasonable price levels for the benefit of the Native population?
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. On 27th April, the Legislative Council of Trinidad rejected a motion recommending such subsidisation of the price of certain foodstuffs as would bring
    1962
    price levels back to those prevailing at the outbreak of the war, and adopted unanimously a resolution recommending careful consideration of measures of subsidisation calculated to prevent further rises in the Erice of staple foodstuffs widely consumed y the poorer classes of the community. No report has yet been received from the Governor of the action taken in consequence of this resolution.
    Measures of subsidisation in respect of important foodstuffs and other essential commodities (e.g. cotton piece goods and fuel) have been approved and are either in force, or are to be put into force very shortly, in Jamaica, British Guiana and Barbados, and the attention of all West Indian Governors has been drawn to the possibilities of this method of meeting the rise in the cost of living.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman likely to take any action regarding other Colonial Governments, so as to keep an eye on the situation and speed up any necessary developments?
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir; I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for putting this question. It is a matter on which we feel very strongly.
    Earl Winterton: Has my right hon. Friend power in cases of this kind to compel the local Governments to act?
    Mr. Macmillan: As the noble Lord knows, the powers and the exact constitutional positions of the Colonies vary so much, that I cannot give a general answer to that question.

    LEASED PROPERTY, JAMAICA (UNITED STATES ENGINEERS).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that persons in Jamaica, leasing their property to United States engineers, on behalf of the United States Government, are required to sign a printed form of lease under which any dispute as to the amount of compensation for any damage found at the termination of the lease must be left to the sole decision of Washington, one of the parties concerned, and that this is not enforceable in court; and whether he will make representations to the United States authorities whereby such cases shall be heard by an independent tribunal.
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: No, Sir. Inquiries are being made, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result.

  WEST AFRICAN PRODUCE CONTROL BOARD.
  Captain Peter Macdonaldasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have yet been taken to set up a control board to regulate the West African export trade.
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: My Noble Friend has decided to reconstitute the West African Cocoa Control Board as the West African Produce Control Board. The Board will sit under my chairmanship and will consist of the members of the Cocoa Control Board, together with the following gentlemen: Mr. G. B. Spry, a Director of Messrs. Frank Fehr and Company, Oilseed Brokers; Mr. H. B. Balm-forth, of the Co-operative Wholesale Society; and Mr. A. J. Findlay, formerly Deputy Director of Agriculture, Nigeria. In addition, I am happy to say that it has been arranged that representatives of the Free French Colonal Commissariat shall attend meetings of the Board as observers in the interests of the Free French West African Colonies. The object of this change is to provide for the orderly purchase and handling of West African produce, and for the regulation of the trade in these commodities in the best interests alike of the African producer and of the Allied war effort. I am circulating the full list of members of the Board in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the list:

  Mr. Macmillan (Chairman).

  Mr. O. G. R. Williams (Colonial Office—Vice-chairman).

  Mr. G. H. Creasy (Colonial Office).

  Mr. J. Cadbury (Cocoa Controller, Ministry of Food).

  Mr. A. J. Findlay (formerly Deputy Director of Agriculture, Nigeria).

  Mr. G. H. Findlay (lately Resident Commissioner, Nigeria).

  Captain C. C. Lilley (lately District Commissioner, Gold Coast).

  Mr. G. B. Spry (Messrs. Frank Fehr and Company).

  Mr. H. B. Balmforth (Co-operative Whole-sale Society).

  Mr. E. C. Tansley (Marketing Director).

  NIGERIA (WAGES).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the increase in the mini-mum wage rate for unskilled labour employed by the Government and Native administrations in Nigeria falls far short
  1964
  of a reasonable wage level; whether there is likely to be an early increase beyond the present 10d. per day; and whether he has now discovered whether the tin workers will benefit in wages in view of the increased price of tin?
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: The whole question of the adequacy of the wages at present being paid by the Government and Native Administrations throughout Nigeria is under review. So far as the Lagos area is concerned, the report of the Cost of Living Committee is expected to be available in the very near future, and an early decision will be taken upon its recommendations. As regards the last part of the Question, the regulations governing the wages of the workers in the tin mines are being applied on the principle that the persons selected for work under the compulsory service arrangements will be in the same position as those normally employed in the same occupation.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that review is likely to come to an end and when the report will be made?
  Mr. Macmillan: Very soon.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (COMPULSORY NATIVE LABOUR).
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the report which the Governor of Northern Rhodesia was asked in March to furnish on the question of compulsory native labour, has yet been received; and whether further information is now available as to the working conditions and as to the progress of the arrangements?
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: As the answer is of some length, I will, with the permission of my hon. Friend, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  Seven hundred and thirty Africans have been conscripted to meet the immediate needs of approved farmers under the increased production drive. Labourers compulsorily recruited were obtained by the District Officer working through the native authorities and only adults under 45 were enrolled. No distinction has been made between single and married

  1965
  men. Provision is included in the Regulations for appeal to the District Officer or to the Labour Officer on grounds of hardship. The labour contract is for two 30 day tickets, thus allowing conscripted labour to return to the villages in time for the harvest. Compulsory labour is paid at a rate not less than the average rate of pay for labour recruited under voluntary arrangements and rations as laid down by Government. The arrangements include regular inspection by the Labour Officer and the District Officer.
  The conscripted labourers have been very satisfactory, have had no complaints and have in every way behaved and been treated as voluntary workers. This farm labour scheme is due to expire on 30th June and it is not proposed to renew it. With the approval of my Noble Friend, the Governor has recently formed a small labour corps of 400 to 500 men who will be used for any work in furtherance of the war effort that the Governor may direct. This scheme is, of course, quite separate from the farm labour arrangements which, as stated above, are to be discontinued. The labour recruited into the corps will be at the disposal of Government and under the complete control and supervision of the Government officers.

  MOTOR OMNIBUSES, YORKSHIRE.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he can give any information about the 90 single-deck motor-omnibuses in the West and East Ridings of Yorkshire being converted to carry more passengers?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): The seating in 95 single-decked omnibuses in the West and East Ridings of Yorkshire has been re-arranged in order to permit the carriage in each vehicle of between 20 and 30 standing passengers. This conversion has been effected in response to an appeal made by my Noble Friend to operators of Omnibus Services throughout the country. My Noble Friend has asked operators to convert as many single-decked vehicles as possible which are working on appropriate routes, provided they are mechanically fit. In selecting routes and vehicles. Regional Transport Commis-
  1966
  sioners keep in close touch with the local officers of the Transport and General Workers' Union, whose co-operation has-been most helpful.
  Mr. Leach: Will the Minister be able to break the restriction which now exists with regard to the width of road vehicles of this character so as to facilitate the acquisition of whatever is on the market?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I should not like to answer that without notice. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question, I will inquire.

  RAILWAY FACILITIES, WORKINGTON—BARROW-IN-FURNESS.
  Mr. F. Andersonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that passengers travelling on the 11.38 a.m. train from Whitehaven on arrival at Barrow-in-Furness have found the connectional services for the South have already departed thus causing passengers to wait on an open platform for long periods before the next train departs; and whether he will arrange to have this matter put right?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have asked the railway authorities to consider whether it is-possible to retime the 11.5 a.m. train from Workington to give a greater margin at Barrow for connection with the 1.35 p.m. train from Barrow to Euston.
  Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that there is very serious dissatisfaction over this matter, and that as many as 120 passengers sometimes miss their connection at Barrow-in-Furness? Is there any reason why suitable steps should not now be taken for through trains all the way from Workington to Carnforth instead of passengers changing at Barrow, when there are hundreds of passengers weekly who have to change at Barrow-in-Furness?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will inquire into the-possibility of through trains, but my hon. Friend will realise that it would not be practicable at present to put on extra trains owing to the pressure on locomotives.
  Mr. Anderson: I hope that meanwhile steps will be taken to see that that train is held at Barrow until the connection is, made.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The express is held for five minutes if that will make the connection possible. We cannot hold it longer, because it would upset the whole working of the train to the South.
  Mr. Anderson: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

    BROADCASTING (MOSLEMS).
    Captain Alan Grahamasked the Minister of Information whether, in the interests of our national reputation for fair dealing amongst Oriental peoples and to diminish opportunities for Nazi propaganda amongst them, he will consider the appointment as co-head with Mr. Hillelson of the Near-East Department of the British Broadcasting Corporation of one of the two distinguished Orientalists and British Moslems, whose names have been sent to him?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): I cannot accept the implication that our national reputation for fair dealing amongst Oriental peoples will be enhanced by an unnecessary duplication of duties in the B.B.C. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me for reminding him that one of those whom he calls the two most distinguished Orientalists is already engaged on full-time work for the British Government.
    Captain Graham: Is the Minister not aware of the necessity there is at the present time for doing nothing further to offend Moslem opinion, that we must take that into account, and that in order to do that it will be very worth while to bring back from abroad one of the two distinguished British Moslems whose names I have already sent to him?
    Mr. Bracken: All these points have been taken into account. May I give the hon. and gallant Member this advice: that it also upsets Moslem opinion if encouragement is given from time to time to the belief that the B.B.C. or the Minister of Information shows too much favouritism to other races?
    Earl Wintertonasked the Minister of Information whether any Moslem is included in the staff of the British Broad-casting Corporation which is responsible
    1968
    for the broadcasting of news and information to Islamic countries; and, if not, whether one, or more, will be appointed as a mark of appreciation of the support to the Allied Nations given by Moslems everywhere?
    Mr. Bracken: I am grateful to my Noble Friend for giving me an opportunity to publish the fact that rather more than half of the B.B.C. staff concerned are Moslems.
    Earl Winterton: Is-the Minister aware that there is a most unfortunate impression which is quite untrue, and which should be dissipated, in certain Moslem countries that in any dispute with Congress Hindus or Palestinian Jews there is a bias in favour of Hindus or Jews in this House and the Press? Is it not most desirable to correct that by speaking rather frankly to some hon. Members who tend to give that impression in this House?
    Mr. Bracken: I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.
    Miss Rathbone: Is that not due to the fact that Jews have enlisted in far greater numbers—[Interruption].
    Earl Winterton: That is quite untrue.

    BRITISH WAR EFFORT (INFORMATION TO RUSSIA).
    Major Sir Edward Cadoganasked the Minister of Information what steps are being taken to provide the Russian people with any information as to the British war effort, more especially in its relation to the assistance in munitions and supplies, which has been rendered by this country to the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bracken: The Ministry have had their share of the misfortunes of war in their publicity activities in Russia. The ship carrying the newly-appointed Press Attache and his staff was torpedoed and, though they were happily saved, the large consignment of books and other printed publicity which they took with them was all lost. Since their arrival a month ago they have reached agreement with the Soviet authorities, on various new measures. These include the publication of an illustrated weekly in Russian and the establishment of a British library in Moscow. A steadily increasing number of British films is being regularly despatched. My hon. and gallant Friend will appre-

    1969
    ciate that our activities are hampered by the long and difficult journey-between this country and Russia. However, the despatch by wireless of Press matter about the British war effort has been steadily increasing and has now reached an average rate of nearly 20,000 words a day.
    Sir E. Cadogan: Could our Embassy in Moscow do something rather more original than has been done?
    Mr. Bracken: I do not think so. The Ambassador is very publicity-minded. He is working against very difficult conditions at the present time. Both the Ambassador and the Press Attache, I am certain, are doing all in their power to increase knowledge of English ways of life in Russia.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Are there any facilities for printing British propaganda in Russia in the same way that there are ample facilities for printing Russian propaganda and information about their war effort in Britain?
    Mr. Bracken: I thought I had dealt with that in the answer which I gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There are facilities in Russia, but I do not think they are the same facilities as exist in England.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Has any printing machinery been placed at the disposal of the British propaganda officials in Russia?
    Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir. We could not print a weekly paper if we had not the use of machines.
    Captain Plugge: Has my right hon. Friend considered radio, and has he given consideration to the suggestions I made in my two speeches on this subject on 3rd July last year and 17th February this year, namely, that transmissions on the short wave in English from Russia should be broadcast on the medium wave band in this country, and vice versa, so that the great masses of listeners could receive them instead of limiting this to the very privileged few who possess short-wave receivers?
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not time we had some other propaganda than Russian? What about Australia, Canada, America and the rest? I think we are making a great mistake.

    WAR COMMUNIQUÉS.
    Commander King-Hallasked the Minister of Information whether he will consult with the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretaries of State for Air and War with a view to making arrangements whereby once or twice a day there shall be issued a brief comprehensive British war communiqué embodying the official news from all fronts, land, sea and air, thereby ensuring equal publicity for all three services?
    Mr. Bracken: I am obliged by my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, and I shall gladly discuss it with the Service Ministers.
    Commander King-Hall: Will my right hon. Friend regard it as a matter of urgency in order to put a stop as soon as possible to the unregulated competition of publicity which has been going on between the Service Departments, a competition in which the Admiralty and the War Office have so often been left badly in the rear?
    Mr. Bracken: I will certainly start these conversations as soon as possible, and I shall be helped, I suppose, in conducting them by the statement just made by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir Percy Harris: Does not the Admiralty stand for the old idea that the Navy is a silent Service?
    Mr. Bracken: I should think that that is probably true.

  WAR CABINET (AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATIVE).
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to appoint a representative of the Australian Government to be a member of the War Cabinet?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As has been announced, the Commonwealth Government have appointed Mr. Bruce to be the Accredited Representative of Australia at the War Cabinet. In this capacity, Mr. Bruce attends meetings of the War Cabinet on the same footing as did Dr. Evatt during his stay in this country, and, before him. Sir Earle Page.
  Mr. Mander: Is it the case that Mr. Bruce is a member of the War Cabinet, or is it not?
  Mr. Attlee: I have explained that he is a member of the War Cabinet, in precisely the same position as that—which has been already explained in the House—of Dr. Evatt and Sir Earle Page.
  Mr. Granville: Does that mean that Mr. Bruce attends the regular meetings of the War Cabinet, or that he attends only those meetings at which matters concerning the Australian war effort are discussed?
  Mr. Attlee: He attends meetings at which there is a general review of the war. Meetings dealing with purely domestic matters he does not attend.

  SHIPPING LOSSES (PUBLICATION).
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Prime Minister whether it is permissible for newspapers in this country to publish figures of shipping losses which have appeared in the American Press?
  Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir, but they are required to make it clear that they are only reproducing what has already been published in America.
  Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by permitting publication of these figures the impression is created that they are substantially accurate? Is it wise to refuse continually to publish official figures?
  Mr. Attlee: That is another question.

  MINISTER OF PRODUCTION (POWERS).
  Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Minister of Production (1) whether he will specify in more detail what were the powers for which he asked and which he was given;
  (2) to what extent he exercises authority over the Minister of Aircraft Production or the Minister of Supply;
  (3) whether he is aware that a certain amount of obscurity surrounds his position and powers in relation to the Minister of Supply and the Minister of Aircraft Production; that the absence of a clear definition of his powers, which it was hoped would make for smooth administration, is not working out that way so far; and whether, before serious friction
  1972
  develops, he will consider the advisability of making -a clear statement on this subject?
  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): There is nothing to add to the very clear statement made by the Prime Minister on 12th March, 1942, and my own statement on 24th March. As I said in my statement on 24th March, the powers which I have been given, as described by the Prime Minister and myself, are those for which I asked. There is no substance in the suggestion in Question No. 50 that the absence of a clear definition of powers is standing in the way of efficient administration.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Having regard to the fact that the Minister has perpetuated the confusion surrounding his powers by answering these three specific Questions with an omnibus reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising this subject on the Adjournment.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    WHOLESALE MEAT SUPPLY ASSOCIATIONS.
    Mr. Woodsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) the actual sums of money paid to each of the Wholesale Meat Supply Associations to date; the rate at which this commission is calculated; whether it is related to the pre-war trading of the wholesalers in these associations; and the number of men fully occupied in this work;
    (2) the services, other than invoicing of meat supplies, which are undertaken by the Wholesale Meat Supply Associations in return for the commissions paid to them; and what sum is purely compensation to the wholesalers who have ceased to function in that capacity since the commencement of the war?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate a statement showing the sums paid to each of the Wholesale Meat Supply Associations for periods up to 27th March, 1942, that is, to the end of the Associations' last financial year, and also showing the numbers of men employed by each Association. I regret that on grounds of public policy it is not possible to give information as regards the rates at which

    1973
    payments are calculated. Such particulars would indicate the quantities of meat consumed, and, therefore, the population in the different areas. The rates are applied to the through-put handled by the respective Associations and the-rates are established on a varying basis, to allow for necessary differences in distribution expenses in different areas and for the amount of pre-war trading grouped in each area, so that the balance available for net distribution to members in different parts of the country is kept approximately the same as would have been the case had only one national organisation been set up. The Associations are responsible for the physical handling and distribution to retail butchers of all frozen and home-killed meat and offals issued to meet the rationed needs of, civilian consumers. They also distribute meat to meat manufacturers.

    Cash paid to Wholesale Meat Supply Associations in respect of the period from commencement of Control to March, 1942.

    Total Male Staff of W.M.S.A.s

    W.M.S.A.

    13 weeks to 12.4.40

    50 weeks to 28.3.41

    Year to 27.3.42 (Provisional)

    £

    £

    £

    1,161

    LONDON

    …

    …

    372,948

    1,381,677

    986,267

    590

    SOUTH EASTERN

    …

    …

    202,125

    509,915

    453,135

    420

    SOUTH WESTERN

    …

    …

    117,887

    294,462

    276,185

    566

    MIDLAND

    …

    …

    185,501

    405,412

    374,170

    436

    NORTH EASTERN

    …

    …

    153,160

    353,565

    328,664

    595

    NORTH WESTERN

    …

    …

    183,442

    556,266

    508,753

    413

    SOUTH SCOTLAND

    …

    …

    87,957

    303,016

    231,248

    219

    NORTH SCOTLAND

    …

    …

    33,540

    75,925

    73,670

    4,400

    £1,336,560

    £3,880,238

    £3,232,092

    Total: £8,448,890

    HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (HOUSE CHARGES).
    Major Lyonsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in relation to the Metropolitan district, what principles have operated to fix the amount of house-charge in addition to the 5s. maximum meal charge at hotels and the like; in how many cases will this make the charge the same as before the new Order; and in how many cases will the present permitted additions make the total greater than before?
    Mr. Mabane: As regards the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, the principle which has in general been followed in granting licences to hotels and restaurants to make house
    They invoice purchases and collect cash for Government account and are responsible for any bad debts. No part of the sums paid to the Associations is in respect of compensation for loss of business. Payments are only for services rendered in the wholesale distribution of meat.
    Mr. Woods: Is the hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied that the scheme is functioning satisfactorily? Is there not a good deal of redundancy and of unnecessary expense, which is added to the cost of meat?
    Mr. Mabane: I have no evidence to that effect.
    Mr. Woods: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to review the whole scheme?
    Mr. Mabane: Certainly.
    Following is the statement:
    charges is to approve a greater maximum charge for a meal than 5s. only where this appears to my Noble Friend to be necessary to enable an establishment to meet its necessary overhead charges. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, the licences granted are provisional only and are now being reviewed. On the figures as they stand, however, the maximum authorised cost of a meal will in nearly all cases be less than the average cost before the operation of the Order, in a few cases the maximum charge will be equal to the previous average cost, while in a few cases the authorised maximum charges will be greater than the previous average cost.
    Major Lyons: Would my hon. Friend speed up this review, because this Order, which was intended to reduce prices has given Government sanction to an increase which is entirely unjustified, and of which everybody is taking advantage?
    Mr. Mabane: My Noble Friend is most anxious to pursue the review speedily.
    Mr. Thorne: What is to prevent a per-son who is not satisfied with what he gets at one hotel going to another?
    Mr. Mabane: Probably time and money.

    LIVESTOCK AUCTIONEERS.
    Mr. Woodsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the total amount of money paid by the Government to livestock auctioneers by way of compensation and for any other services rendered by them, respectively; the number of livestock auctioneers fully occupied in the service of his Department, and the total annual remuneration paid to them?
    Mr. Mabane: No payment is made by my Department to livestock auctioneers by way of compensation. Livestock auctioneers have acted as county chairmen of auctioneers, district chairmen of auctioneers. Government buyers and certifying officers. The sum of £498,968 has been paid in respect of salaries and expenses of these part-time officers. In addition, the sum of £2,382,504 has been paid in respect of headage charge on the number of stock handled at the markets. The number of livestock auctioneers fully occupied in the service of the Ministry in connection with the Meat and Livestock Control Scheme is nine. The total of their salaries is £6,890 per annum.
    Mr. Woods: Is any other Department—the Ministry of Agriculture, for instance—paying sums to these people?
    Mr. Mabane: I have no knowledge of any other Department doing so. If the hon. Member has any information, perhaps he will let me have it.

    CATERING FACILITIES, LLANDUDNO.
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether he is aware that visitors to Llandudno, where most of the hotels have been requisitioned for Government purposes, have to stand regularly in queues,
    1976
    outside and inside for a considerable time before they can be served with meals at cafés and restaurants; and will he take steps to remedy this, either by opening a British Restaurant or otherwise.
    Mr. Mabane: It is true that a number of hotels in Llandudno have been requisitioned for Government purposes and that the normal catering facilities for visitors have been reduced. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are urging the population to restrict travel to a minimum in present circumstances. There would, therefore, seem no proper reason for making special provision for holiday visitors to Llandudno. In reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, my hon. Friend is no doubt aware that British Restaurants are provided to meet the requirements of workers who, owing to war conditions, experience difficulty in obtaining hot, nutritious meals at a reasonable price.
    Mr. Davies: Is. the hon. Gentleman aware that Llandudno is peculiar in this respect; that the facilities for meals there are worse than in any other town in England, Scotland, and Wales; that people who travel on business through Llandudno cannot get meals; and that workers actually employed in the town cannot get meals without waiting half an hour for them?
    Mr. Mabane: I know that there are special conditions in Llandudno; but the Question referred to holiday visitors, and it is clear that special facilities should not be provided for holiday visitors.

    BAKERS (SUBSIDY).
    Mr. Banfieldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the difficulties which may arise as a consequence of the almost total withdrawal of the subsidy to the 23,723 small producers of bread in England and Wales; and, in view of the importance of a widely-distributed system of bread production, which must not be made uneconomic to the producer, will he undertake to review within a reasonable time the effects of the abolition of the subsidy on the small producer?
    Mr. Mabane: All bakers receive a subsidy of 7s. 9d. per sack. This subsidy remains. The only subsidy which has been withdrawn is the temporary additional subsidy which was granted last October

    1977
    at rates varying from 4s. to 2s. per sack. The continuation of this additional subsidy was dependent upon the results of an inquiry into the cost of manufacturing and distributing bread. The inquiry has now been completed for England and Wales, and a careful examination of the figures shows that bakers as a whole would receive an adequate return on bread without the additional subsidy. Appreciating the special difficulty of small producers, my Noble Friend has decided to pay 2s. per sack on the first eight sacks of weekly output for a further short period, and to collect data as to costs in a week in July. The reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Banfield: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is true that large bakers do not require any further subsidy; but that he is paying this 2s. to large bakers, who do not want it, and to small bakers, to whom it is a tremendous help, enabling them to keep their businesses going?
    Mr. Mabane: It is important to bear in mind that a costings examination was made by an accountant of the Department and an accountant appointed by the bakers. That examination showed that there is no justification for the subsidy, but, in deference to further representations, this subsidy is being continued in this form until further costings can be obtained.

  EX-ARMY VEHICLES (SALE).
  Major Lyonsasked the Minister of Supply the circumstances in which ex-Army vehicles have been sold by auction, or by unrestricted tender, this year; and the numbers involved?
  The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): No ex-Army vehicles have been sold by the Ministry of Supply by auction; but, before the existing arrangements for controlled disposal were made, 1,550 ex-Army motor cycles and 1,259 motor cars had been sold this year by unrestricted tender.
  Major Lyons: Do the assurances given, and the elaborate machinery explained by the former Parliamentary Secretary about the end of last year, still hold good in regard to the operating machinery for such control?
  Sir A. Duncan: I shall have to refer to that answer before I can reply.
  Major Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend answer a Question on those lines at some convenient date, and say whether any alteration has taken place?

  FUEL AND POWER.

    HIRED MOTOR CARS AND TAXI-CABS (RADIUS LIMIT).
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that hirers of motor cars and taxi-cab drivers in the provinces have no radius limit for journeys such as obtains in the Metropolitan area; and will he apply a similar maximum mileage to the provinces?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Radial restrictions on the use of private hire cars apply both in the Metropolitan police area and the provinces. As regards taxi-cabs I would refer to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Portsmouth (Sir J. Lucas) yesterday.
    Mr. Lipson: Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that taxi-drivers in Cheltenham tell me they are compelled at present by the law to take passengers to dog races from Cheltenham to Bristol and back again, a matter of 85 miles, and is that to be allowed?
    Mr. Lloyd: The answer given yesterday dealt with that point.
    Major Lyons: Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to implement the pledge which he gave on 17th March to Parliament contemporaneously with the ending of the basic petrol ration to put an end to the hire and driving of motor vehicles in this way?
    Mr. Lloyd: It has, been decided to include taxi-cabs in the Order.

    PETROL ALLOWANCES (RURAL AREAS).
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, as petrol allowances are made for motorists who are resident in the country to attend church and go shopping, he can state what allowances will be made for such residents to reach railway stations if they live a long way from them and if they have to come to towns for business purposes?
    Mr. Lloyd: Where, owing to the absence of adequate alternative transport an applicant is obliged for the purposes of his business or profession to drive to the local railway station, the Divisional Petroleum Officer has discretion to grant a suitable allowance.

  SCHOOL HOLIDAYS (CHILD CARE AND WELFARE).
  Major Procterasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the imminence of school holidays, and of the fact that many mothers are now employed on war work and unable to give much or any time to supervising their families, he will make special arrangements and invite the co-operation of local authorities and voluntary organisations to provide holiday camps, organised games and excursions for children during the vacation period, and to open the school playgrounds for this purpose?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): My right hon. Friend is aware of the importance of arranging during school holidays for the care and welfare of young children whose mothers are employed on war work, and he drew the attention of authorities to this point in a memorandum issued on the i8th May, 1942, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend. Many local education authorities are providing facilities in various ways, and my right hon. Friend is considering whether there is further advice and help which my Department can offer to authorities in the matter.
  Major Procter: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, unless something is done in industrial areas, many mothers will have to leave their jobs in order to prevent their children from running wild; and will he take immediate steps to see that local authorities do something for the children and that the help of voluntary organisations is enlisted to look after these children during the holiday period?
  Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend has communicated with the authorities, and our inspectors are actively taking up. the matter with the authorities where there appears to be a need.
  Viscountess Astor: As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, local authorities are not
  1980
  doing anything, and very likely they will not, and, as he is very short of inspectors, would it not be a good idea to try and get a really good person from outside to go round and see what is happening, because this is really a very grave danger and is taking a great many women from industry?
  Mr. Ede: I will report my Noble Friend's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DISUSED MILITARY CAMP, TUNSTALL PARK, MARKET DRAYTON.
    Major Leightonasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the derelict state in which the military authorities have left Tunstall Hall, Market Drayton, Salop; and what action he is taking?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the disused military camp in Tunstall Park. The site is in the process of being cleared, and I am informed that the work should be completed this week.

    VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Bolesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now give reasons for the suggested amalgamation of the Voluntary Aid Detachments with the Auxiliary Territorial Service; and does he realise that such amalgamation will be unpopular?
    Mr. A. Henderson: I regret that I have at present nothing to add to previous answers given recently on this subject.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that there will be a chance of debating this matter in the House before this comes into force?
    Mr. Henderson: I think we had better wait until the proposed deputation has been received.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give the date when it will be received?
    Mr. Henderson: I am not in a position to do so.

    SOLDIER'S DEATH, WINDSOR CASTLE.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information about a guardsman, G. H. Jones, who was shot at Windsor Castle, on Sunday, 14th June; and whether his wife will receive a pension?
    Mr. A. Henderson: As soon as I receive the findings of the Court of Inquiry which has been investigating the circumstances of this soldier's death I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

    CADET FORCE.
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers are employed full time in the Army Cadet Force; and what is the annual budget?
    Mr. A. Henderson: There are no officers employed on a full-time or paid basis in the Army Cadet Force.

    CLOTHING COUPONS.
    Sir Smedley Crookeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a sufficient number of clothing coupons to serving men who are about to be dis-charged before the discharge actually takes place, to be handed to them with their discharge papers?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I do not think such an arrangement necessary. The Army authorities hold stocks of the application form which has to be submitted to Collectors of Customs and Excise by persons in need of supplementary coupons. Thus, a serving soldier can get the coupons he needs in advance of his actual discharge.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (COMBINED PRODUCTION AND RESOURCES BOARD).
Mr. Greenwood(by Private Notice): May I ask the Minister of Production, of whose safe return we are happy to know, whether he is now in a position to make a statement on his recent visit to Washington?
Mr. Lyttelton: I wish to give the House some account of my recent visit to Washington, because I conceive that one of the most important duties which
1982
has been laid upon me in the field of production is that connected with our relations with the United States. Before the United States entered the war, the various British Supply Missions in America were largely in the nature of Buying Missions. After the passing of the Lend-Lease legislation, these Buying Missions were of course buying on credit terms. This period was followed by a transitional period, while the United States planning and production were getting into their stride. I may mention in passing that there is a body in Washington which has hitherto been known as the British Purchasing Commission.
Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I may be misjudging the right hon. Gentleman, but I imagine from the way he is taking on this job he is setting himself for a considerable oration, and I want to ask you, Sir, whether, having regard to the fact that this is the one day in the year on which we have a Supply Day on the Colonies, a most important topic at the present time, it is right and proper that, in reply to a Question, there should be a statement which will eat very heavily into the time available for the Colonial Debate?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think from the notes in front of the right hon. Gentleman that his speech will be very long.
Earl Winterton: Would it not be convenient, in view of the fact that a new procedure has now grown up by which Ministers make statements at Question time for you, Mr. Speaker, to consider, without giving a Ruling at the moment, whether, before this sort of thing is done, it would be convenient to the House, because it eats seriously into the time left for subsequent Debate?
Mr. Speaker: This is by no means a new custom.
Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not the fact that it is a new custom for Ministers to make statements upon their own initiative upon the length of which there are no limits at all? What possible safeguard is there against Ministers, at their own wish, taking up the time of the House to the extent of an hour on any important subject, if they so desire? Therefore, I support the request that has been made by the Noble Lord that you should, at your discretion, take this matter into consideration

1983
and inform the House what safeguards should be erected against this practice.
Mr. Thorne: Why is there an objection to the statement that is about to be made when statements have been made on previous occasions by other Ministers?
Mr. Ivor Thomas: Would not the time available to debate the Colonies be much greater if the right hon. Gentleman were allowed to proceed?
Mr. Speaker: This is by no means a new custom. It is a very old custom which lapsed for a certain time. It has become the practice again for Ministers, if they think fit, to make a statement.
Mr. Maxton: This a Supply day, when Private Members can speak, and the Colonial question has always a very limited time allowed to it in this House because of the necessities of the case. Could not the Minister say whether his statement will take, say, five minutes? I agree that this has become quite the practice, but there ought to be some time limit on this statement, and we ought to know it before he starts.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will have noticed that there is a Motion on the Paper to suspend the Rule, so there is plenty of time to-day.
Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think my statement will take as long as the interruption. I was saying that there is a body in Washington which has hitherto been known as the British Purchasing Commission. The title is clearly an anachronism, and with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, we are changing the name to the Ministry of Supply Mission. This transitional period to which I have referred has now been replaced by permanent arrangements. The President and Mr. Hopkins displayed great personal interest in these arrangements and gave me every assistance. Moreover, nothing could have exceeded the helpfulness, courtesy and co-operation both of the Services under General Marshall and Admiral King, and of the War Production Board under the chairmanship of Mr. Donald Nelson. The preliminary work done by the Missions had also greatly assisted me, and I am glad to report to the House that all the arrangements which I had hoped to bring about, have in fact been
1984
achieved. The Combined Chiefs of Staff, the War Production Board and I, representing His Majesty's Government, have come to the following arrangements:
First, a Combined Production and Resources Board has been formed and is now at work. I must mention that we use the term "Combined" to relate to any body representative of both American and British interests. This Combined Production and Resources Board has only two members—Mr. Donald Nelson and myself. I shall shortly appoint a deputy to act for me in Washington, and Mr. Nelson will appoint a deputy to act for him in London. Pending the appointment of my deputy. Sir Walter Layton is acting for me in Washington.
Secondly, the principal object of this Board is to integrate the production of the two countries so that the total available resources, as ascertained by the Board, are related to operations of war and to particular dates as laid down by the Combined Chiefs of Staff, rather than being related to a notional establishment of forces.
Thirdly, the size and distribution of British Forces in these operations of war and the date when they are to be ready having been agreed, the British will have a share in the components and finished munitions produced in the U.S.A. corresponding to that enjoyed by the United States Forces of equal strategical importance, and this implies that they also have a corresponding share in the raw materials and machine tools which are necessary for making munitions for this Force in the United Kingdom. This means, for example, that if American and British Forces of agreed size were operating in the same theatre of war, we should enjoy the same priority for such of our needs as came from the U.S.A. as the American Forces themselves. I regard this part of the agreement as of greatest importance.
Fourthly, it will be the duty of the Combined Production and Resources Board to plan production in such a way that the greatest economy is made in the use of shipping.
Fifthly, wherever possible, types of weapon should be interchangeable and manufactured in whichever country the facilities are most conveniently located.

1985
These are the main provisions. The Combined Production and Resources Board plans production upon a strategical directive, and the British participation is secured by what may be termed a firm contract. This arrangement by itself would, however, be too inflexible to meet the changing circumstances of war. There is consequently a body known as the Combined Munitions Assignment Board, which functions both in Washington and in London, and whose task is to allot finished munitions in accordance with the immediate operational requirements as opposed to the long-term strategical plan envisaged when the production of the munitions concerned was first laid down. Thus the programme having been planned, and the British participation agreed, the supply of components and munitions becomes a firm contract which can only be varied if the Munitions Assignment Board find that re-allocation of munitions is necessary to meet changing circumstances.
I must conclude by saying that the present arrangements cover only the production of the United States and Great Britain. The production of Canada is already integrated, but some further measures of co-ordination will be discussed regarding other Empire production.
Mr. Greenwood: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which I think the House, in spite of the previous interruption, has heard with considerable pleasure. May I now ask the Leader of the House whether it will be possible at a fairly early date, when the Minister is back in the saddle, to have a Debate on production whereby this statement of his, which we shall have had time to study, can be integrated with the whole of the offices the Minister is holding?
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is hoped to arrange such a Debate for the series of Sittings following our next series.
Colonel Arthur Evans: May I ask the Minister of Production who is the present head of the Ministry of Supply Mission in America, whether it is the intention of the Government to make a political appointment of someone with political responsibility to my right hon. Friend or whether he will be a servant of the Ministry of Production?
Mr. Lyttelton: The answer to the first part of the question is Mr. Taylor, and the answer to the second part is that it will not be a political appointment.
Mr. Maxton: Did the right hon. Gentleman happen to meet in America the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, who has been roaming about there for over a year?
Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.
Mr Maxton: Did the Parliamentary Secretary take any part in making arrangements about shipping, because I understand that that is his special problem?
Mr. Lyttelton: The arrangement I made was concerned with production. The Parliamentary Secretary is concerned with shipping.
Captain P. Macdonald: My right hon. Friend mentioned the various Boards. Is there any co-ordinating body responsible for the co-ordination of all these Boards in America? Further, who takes decisions on the spot?
Mr. Lyttelton: The British Supply Council is the co-ordinating body.
Captain Macdonald: Who makes the decisions? No Council ever makes a decision.
Mr. Lyttelton: I see no reason for saying that.
Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Are we to understand that my right hon. Friend's reply was intended to convey that he did not collaborate with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport in America?
Mr. McGovern: He is missing; nobody knows where he is.
Mr. Lyttelton: Somebody asked me whether I met the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, and I replied "Yes." My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) can draw what implications he likes from that.
Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport is doing very good and useful work?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill.
London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confer further powers on the South Wales Electric Power Company, and for other purposes." [South Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords].

SOUTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords].
Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business in Committee of Supply may be taken after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, and
2002
that the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir Stafford Cripps.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1942.

    COLONIAL AFFAIRS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for certain services connected with Colonial Affairs for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, namely:

    Civil Estimates, 1942.

    Class II., Vote 7, Colonial Office

    £10

    Class II., Vote 8, Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

    £10

    Class II., Vote 9, Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)

    £10

    £30"

    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): An Under-Secretary in charge of the Estimates of his Department is always in an anxious and delicate situation. If I may suitably adapt a well-known phrase, like the legitimate wife throughout the ages he enjoys responsibility without power. My difficulties are, I think, increased rather than diminished by the fact that there has been no Debate on the Colonial Office since June, 1939. How short the interval in terms of months. How vast the valley that divides us from those years in terms of events. Since that Debate the impact of war has fallen upon the Colonial Empire, and I think the Committee will expect me to make some reference to the losses that we have sustained—cruel, but I dare aver, not mortal blows.
    Meanwhile, I have fortified my memory by reading some of those Debates of former years, and I find that there is a kind of common form which it is expected that the Minister should follow. He has to tell the Committee that there are 55 territories, 60,000,000 people of different races, religions, civilisations, in different stages of development and so on. He describes the events of the year, singling

    2003
    out the more important developments, such as the foundation of a college, the building of a railway or the formation of a committee. He is always in the same dilemma. If he pitches his tale too high, he is accused of complacency; if he pitches it too low, he bores the Committee. After the Secretary of State has spoken. Members contribute in their divergent ways their meed of criticism or praise and my own memory of these Debates is that Members who stayed behind, usually stayed to contribute criticism. How different from those days are the vast and stirring events of three years of war. How puny seemed the problems then. How tremendous now.
    I have said that we have had grievous losses of our territories. We have lost Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, the Malay States, North Borneo, Sarawak, and now the march of war has taken in its devouring stride some of the smaller islands of the Pacific once renowned for beauty and for peace. Those places have been lost to us by military defeat. But it is not unnatural that, at the same time, such cruel disasters should have brought in their train criticisms of civil governments and of civilian populations. Who is to blame? Who is wrong? Whose head is to be put upon a charger? Those are the cries that naturally arise among people when things go wrong. But for my part I do not think the Committee will expect me to deal with those matters in detail. I" do not think we should prejudge issues on which the evidence is still very lacking. We did not train the populations of the Far' East for war. That is true. I wonder what would have been said had we done so. But do not let us forget that we brought to these territories peace, progress and prosperity, and at any rate, at this critical moment of the war, let us prefer to learn and apply the lessons, rather than to seek expiatory victims. What are these lessons? There are, of course, strategic and military lessons which do not come within my ambit. Then there is the task of the Colonial Office and the Colonial Governments themselves, which I can describe in a single sentence. It is the mobilisation of all the potential resources of the Colonial Empire, both of men and of materials, for purposes of war. Here, at any rate, I can assure the Committee there is no danger of complacency
    2004
    in my office in regard to that task. We know the tremendous size of our need and the character "of the difficulties.
    Let me first take materials. The loss of the Far Eastern possessions of the British Empire and of our Allies has meant an immediate loss of supply on an important scale. The present difficulties and dangers of the Indian Ocean threaten a potential loss of supply, or at any rate a serious interruption. We have lost 60 per cent. of the tin production of the world, 90 per cent. of the rubber production and a large proportion of wolfram, lead and other minerals. We have lost important sources of food supplies in sugar, tea, rice and oilseeds, and we are threatened with further interference with sources of supply. Therefore, we need to increase Colonial production for war pur-poses on an immense scale. We have to develop the mineral production. We have to push up the production of meat, hides, palm oil, groundnuts, and all the rest. Everywhere we must increase. In hardly any categories do. we dare slow up. Indeed, what might be alleviation proves only too often to be additional burdens. Added to the burden of increasing the production of what we most need, we have also to buy production which we may not need and cannot ship but must purchase for the good life and prosperity of the local inhabitants. Examples of such production are the citrus in Palestine, cocoa in West Africa and bananas in some of the West Indian Colonies.
    How can the Colonies best help? I think in three main ways. First, there is the stimulation of exports. We have agreed upon an export programme with our main customers, namely, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Supply and our American Allies. We have worked it out in detail. We have priorities arranged. Our supplies go to the United Kingdom, to the Middle East and to the United States, and in this programme we have the co-operation of our Belgian Allies and of the Free French. We employ a different technique for different purposes. As an example, we have set up the West African Produce Control Board, to which I made some reference in answer to a Question to-day. This has been developed out of the original Cocoa Control Board. It will arrange a steady and consistent buying and price policy for West Africa.

    2005
    It will deal not only with cocoa but with oilseeds, groundnuts and other commodities. It will fix the appropriate prices at which shippers, acting as its agents, shall buy from African producers and the prices to be paid by agreement with our main customer, the Ministry of Food. As I have just said, it may be necessary, from time to time, to buy large quantities of produce which at the moment we cannot use or ship and to store it against further needs. The policy of the old Cocoa Board will thus be continued. As much cocoa as is required by the United Nations will be sold to them. The rest will be stored until it can be shipped. With regard to oil seeds of all kinds, the policy is to encourage production to the maximum, for we need all we can get.
    I would like in passing to make some reference and pay a tribute to those engaged in the trade in West Africa. It has been a habit in the past to think that there is a necessary division of interest between the traders, the Government and the African people. I believe that to be altogether fallacious. I think all three can and should work together as partners in an enterprise which is for the benefit of West Africa generally. In all these new developments we have had every assistance from the "merchants, who are now acting as agents for the Board and assisting its operations in every way.
    Now I want to say a word about rubber. Output in Ceylon, already running at a high level, has been intensified. Steps have been taken to obtain the maximum "possible production in East and West Africa. Neglected plantations are being revived. Abandoned areas of Ceara rubber, mainly situated in Tanganyika, are being exploited. Special officers are being appointed, and here we are able to get the assistance of some of the Malayan planters. All types of wild rubber both in East and West Africa are being tapped-. Prices are being fixed which we think sufficient to attract the maximum production. AH territories are co-operating energetic-ally in the drive for rubber, and I hope and believe that by all these energetic means we may help to fill the gap before the great production of synthetic rubber in the United States comes to help the joint war needs of the Allies.
    Now as to minerals. Here we are the servants, and the Ministries of Supply and Aircraft Production are the masters. We minister to their needs, and what a list of
    2006
    these there is. Bauxite, wolfram, tin, graphite, copper, zinc, mica, manganese, chrome, iron ore, industrial diamonds. And what vast territories they cover. The Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Northern Rhodesia, Ceylon, British Guiana, Cyprus—all these are helping in the world drive. The Committee will not expect me to give the figures of additional production, but I can assure them that the chief anxiety I have is not so much to increase by every means the productive power of the territories, but to secure the transport to convey it internally to the ports and from the ports and harbours when it has been obtained.
    I have said that the first of the three main ways in which the Colonies can help is by stimulating increased production of all the things that we require. They can make their second main contribution by not importing. And the first item under this head with which I propose to deal is that of control of imports into the Colonies to stop unessentials. We had already instituted systems of import control, and we are now substituting for the old system of import licences what I would call the formation and formulation of a shipping programme for each territory. This, in fact, means the bulk purchase on Government account of such goods in order to make sure that they have the first claim on shipping space, using the import licensing system merely to control the import of innumerable small items of private need.
    The second is to increase local food production. This is necessary not only in war, but was already being proceeded with before the war, for two main purposes—the improvement of the diet of the inhabitants of tropical areas, and the preservation and conservation of the soil by the substitution of mixed farming for the single export crop, which is so dangerous to soil fertility. The needs of war and, in many cases, the maintenance of large armies, have immensely stimulated these needs. Therefore, in West Africa we are concentrating chiefly upon rice, vegetables and dairy produce. Here the chief task of the Agricultural Departments is to give advice and guidance and to provide demonstration plots, seeds, etc., for the peasant farmer. In East Africa, we have both the white planter and the African peasant economy. We must help both. Here we are increas-

    2007
    ing wheat, maize, rye and other foodstuffs, as well as rice.
    In the West Indies, where for so long agriculture has depended upon the production of a single export crop, sugar, and a large proportion of the people's requirements in the form of wheat, flour, meat, etc., has been imported, we are now trying to diversify agriculture both in large estates and in small holdings. Twenty-five per cent. of the estate lands in Barbados and some other territories are being compulsorily turned over from sugar to food production. The same thing is going on in British Guiana, Jamaica, and elsewhere. Suitable steps on similar lines are being taken in Mauritius, Ceylon and Palestine. Even in the rocky and barren territory of Aden, the cultivation of vegetables, fruit, and other crops has been promoted by the Agricultural Officer on a considerable scale for the benefit of the garrison and people of that vital outpost. In a word, to-day the farmer is the best shipbuilder. Every ton of food that can be grown in a Colony saves a ship to bring it. Every ton of food that can be moved from one Colony to a neighbouring Colony saves shipping. Every ton of food grown in East Africa and moved to the armies' of the Middle East saves the long haul round the Cape.
    The third way in which we can help is by local manufacture and repair work. When the Eastern Group Conference was set up in Delhi in the autumn of 1940, Ceylon, Palestine and the East African Dependencies fell within the area with which it was concerned. They are making every possible effort to increase their resources for local manufacture, as are all the other Colonial territories. Our most important activities are, of course, centred in the Middle East, where the Middle Eastern Supply Centre is charged with looking after the supply and production of Cyprus, Palestine, and Aden. In Palestine, spare parts are being made and repairs carried out in the railway workshops and in other engineering shops for the Armies of the Middle East. Wherever possible, we have tried to stimulate production, and I may say, with some little personal knowledge of the difficulties, that we are finding the same difficulties as we have had in England and are trying to overcome them by the same enthusiasm and effort.
    2008
    In order to help in the three ways I have explained—the increase of Colonial exports, the avoidance of the use of shipping, and the development of our engineering and repair work—we must have imports into the Colonies. We cannot increase our exports without having some increase in our imports, and those take two major forms. First, we must increase the imports of consumption goods. We must have more cotton piece goods for Africa if we are to have more production from Africa. Colonial peoples want things, not money. Englishmen must have fewer shirts in order that West Africans may have more cotton piece goods. That is the only way in which to get our additional production. We are getting a very good response when we go to the Board of Trade for our allocation.
    But, secondly, we must import capital goods. If we get increased production, we have to move it, and we have got to increase the roads, the railways, the internal transport facilities, in nearly every territory. As the House knows, it is not easy in this time of war to buy locomotives and railway wagons off the peg. The capacity of the great engine and wagon-building firms is now allocated to other purposes. We have somehow or other, in the familiar way in which one can somehow drive along a difficult road, to get additional production, and by simplification, modifications of type, standardisation of pattern, obtain what we need. Here we get great support and assistance from the authorities, and the' Ministry of Supply in particular. As regards roads there is the great problem of building up our road transport, and it is not easy nowadays to get lorries. But I hope that somehow or other we shall scrounge them off somebody to the extent we need. There is, then, the humbler-form of transport—the bicycle. Bicycles are badly needed in this country for munitions workers and other workers. But still more are wanted in the Colonies, where they are needed not only to take workers to and from their work, but also to take produce to the market. Many hon. Members, I know, have had the opportunity of visiting Nigeria and will have seen men on bicycles bringing in petrol tins their contribution of palm oil to the receiving centres. The bicycle is an important part of transport. Therefore, We have to fight with whoever allocates

    2009
    bicycles—the Board of Trade, I think—to get our fair share of bicycles.
    As for external transport—harbours, cranes, the development of the movement out of the territories—there are, indeed, problems to be faced. Hon. Members will be aware of the criticism that comes particularly from casual visitors. I know of one harbour which is now moving in a single day an amount of exports equivalent to what normally in peace-time it moved in a month. We have further developments to make. Here we have to co-operate and work with the Admiralty and the Ministry of War Transport. All this means careful working out of import and export programmes. It means system, order, an immense degree of detailed control, combined with an enthusiastic and unrelenting pressure.
    Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what he meant by capital goods?
    Mr. Macmillan: By consumption goods I meant cotton piece goods for daily consumption by the people. By capital goods I meant locomotives, wagons, and so on, for transport development. But apart from the claims of production, there are other very great claims upon the manpower of the Colonies, We have the Fighting Services, the Labour Corps, the Home Guards and irregular troops. Civil Defence and so on. Let me say something of the Fighting Services. The King's African Rifles, the Royal West African Frontier Force, and the Northern Rhodesia Regiment: their exploits in the East African campaigns which destroyed the Italian Empire are too well known to need further tribute from me. They were not subsidiaries, they were the main participants in those campaigns. These Regiments, like the British Army, have been multiplied many times over in strength since the outbreak of war. The Malta Regiment and the King's Own Malta Artillery have shared with the Imperial Garrison the proud distinction of this historic siege.
    Perhaps I may be allowed here to pay once more my tribute to the people of Malta. What a shining example of all the qualities most needed in dark days they have shown. The Ceylon Defence Force, the Mauritius Territorial Force, the Cyprus Volunteer Force, and similar Forces in St. Helena, the Falkland
    2010
    Islands, Fiji and Tonga are all proud of their record, and with good reason. The West Indies have sent large numbers of recruits to the Royal Air Force, and to the skilled trades in the Army. In Palestine, Palestinians, both Jews and Arabs, are serving with His Majesty's Forces, in the Palestinian companies of the Buffs and the Royal Artillery, in the Royal Air Force and many other units. For the Labour Corps, large numbers have been recruited from West and East Africa as well as from other Colonies, and they are performing splendid service. Home Guards and Irregulars are being formed in many of our Colonies.
    Earl Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt the thread of my right hon. Friend's discourse and I know that this is not a matter within the official competence of his Department, but can he mention the splendid war record of these indigenous inhabitants of Africa—the Southern Rhodesian African Regiment and the Basuto Labour Corps in Libya for example?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his interruption if it has cleared up any possible doubt of gratitude on the part of the Government. I am merely dealing with the territories which fall within the province of my noble Friend. As I was saying. Home Guards and Irregulars are being formed in many of our Colonies. We are starting where the need seems greatest and the danger most menacing. I welcome this method of associating our people directly with their own defence, and, should the necessity arise, they will develop the skill and resourcefulness of the Russian partisans. I think that I should say a word on Civil Defence. The new Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Colonial Office is Sir George Gater, and what he does not know about Civil Defence is not worth knowing. We are relying on him, and I want to thank my old chief, the Minister of Home Security, for the help which he has given us in every possible way in obtaining the necessary materials we need. We are, therefore, trying with all the means in our power to meet the needs of the Army and of Defence in its broader sense. We have had to use for this purpose the same methods adapted as used in this country.

    2011
    Naturally, We have special problems in each territory which have to be taken into account. We have not hesitated to apply conscription to Europeans and local inhabitants where it seemed desirable to do so. But, of course, we are finding that, if we are to perform all these duties and provide the man-power necessary, we have to have a balanced system of organised man-power as we have developed it in England. Hon. Members will know that in this work we have had to take powers, some of which have been criticised in this House. Whether for military service or for production needs, the war is paramount, and we have to do distasteful things. We have to introduce, as we have in England, all kinds of measures foreign to our normal administration. I defend them unhesitatingly on the only ground on which they can be defended—the over-whelming, insatiable, devouring demands of war.
    What is the machinery for all this effort? How can it be sustained, and how will it be achieved? First, there is the loyal spirit of the Colonial peoples. No machinery will be of any use without their acceptance of sacrifice, without their steady loyalty, and without their devotion to our cause. Without that, all these efforts would be in vain. I could tell the Committee of instance after instance, not only of gifts in money and kind, but also of pathetic, touching incidents of individuals desiring to help. These offers include, for instance, that of one chief and his three sons who proposed they should be dropped by parachute on Berlin to slay Hitler with bows and arrows, ambitious, but, alas, an impracticable plan.
    Against this background of enthusiasm we have tried to build an efficient organisation in London and in the Colonies themselves. In London, the Colonial Office has been extended, particularly its Economic Department, and I should like to pay special tribute to the staff of this Department—we too have our "boys in the back room." Their task is immense. They are working day and night, and we have had to expand both personnel and accommodation. For our expansion in personnel, the Treasury helps us, and for our expansion in accommodation we help ourselves—the Ministry of Works and Buildings also
    2012
    help us with this. To house this new Department we have had our first territorial gain since the black days of war. The Colonial Office has occupied the old Scottish Office. This, indeed, is a portent. It is contrary to nature. It is like a small cloud no bigger than a man's hand, and I trust it is an augury of things to come. I should like also to felicitate the local Governments in the various Colonies, and the staffs of those Governments, many of whom have had to be released for service in the Army. Those left behind have had a greatly increased amount of work to do, often in unhealthy climates, with little or no opportunity for leave, and separated for years from their wives and children. One sometimes hears criticism—to my mind often mean and ungenerous criticism—of the Colonial Civil Service. From what I have been able to see in a few months, they have shown the greatest devotion during these difficult times, and have been working in the interests of the Colonies they serve. Under the stress of war, they have responded magnificently to the demands made upon them.
    Now let me turn to organisation. In East Africa we have the East African Governors' Conference, comprising the Governors of Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika and the British Resident, Zanzibar, together with the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The G.O.C.-in-Chief East Africa attends its meetings. The Chairman is the Governor of Kenya. The Conference Secretariat, which is in permanent session at Nairobi, is, in fact, the focus where the common East African war effort is now coordinated. It conducts the affairs of the East African War Supplies Board and the Civil Supplies Board. Each Dependency has its own supply organisation, and these attempt to co-ordinate inter-territorially what each can give and what each needs, and the Supply Boards exercise a general control over the despatch of East African produce to the Middle East.
    Then we have the West African Governors' Conference. This is presided over by the Governor of Nigeria, and here again the potential resources and the needs of the four territories are co-ordinated. This Conference, which has responded ably to the calls made under the new stress of war, is now being reinforced, as the Committee knows, by a

    2013
    Cabinet Minister resident in West Africa. A statement has already been made describing in detail Lord Swinton's directive and functions. I should like to add my tribute to his patriotism in under-taking this task, and to say how fortunate we are to have secured for this position a man of his wide experience and long record of public service. The West African Governors' Conference has attached to it already a Supply Centre covering the four territories. It has a Secretariat which maintains liaison with West African merchants and the Ministries interested in African problems. We are now to have a Regional Shipping Control Committee in Lagos, under the chairmanship of an officer of the Ministry of War Transport. The Supply Centre operates through local boards in each of the four Colonies, with a view to increasing the production upon which our hopes are set. In Palestine, the Supply Centre operates under the Middle Eastern Supply Centre, and the Governments of Palestine, Cyprus and Aden keep in close touch with the Middle East Supply Centre on all economic matters.
    Mobilisation of the potential resources of the Colonial Empire, both of men and materials, for the purposes of war, as I said at the beginning, is our task. I have tried to describe—at too great length, I fear, but the subject is a very great one—what we are doing to achieve it. If hon. Members can suggest new ways, new means, new ideas, my noble Friend and I will accept them with readiness and gratitude. The problems that we have to face are new ones. In their solution we may well make mistakes. We may tread on many toes, and we shall certainly break eggs to make our omelette. We have not unlimited time to plan and think and study. We must act. Our task reminds me of the old story of the town council and the bridge. The town council after long discussion decided to build a bridge and passed the following resolution: "Resolved, that we shall build the bridge. Resolved, that the materials of the old bridge shall be used in the new bridge. Resolved, that the old bridge shall remain while the new bridge is being built." I say the same of ours. Some task!
    I feel that I must, after my attempt to describe our short-term needs, say something of the future. In the midst of the hurly burly of war it is refreshing: and
    2014
    stimulating to lift one's eyes occasionally to a further horizon. It is not for me to put forward a new Imperial policy. I can only give the Committee a few impressions formed in a very short tenure of office, with little respite from other pressing and urgent duties. The conception of Empire has had many different forms and. has passed through many different stages. There have been the, early explorers, dating from the Phoenicians in ancient times to the French, Dutch, English and Portuguese adventurers of the Renaissance. The explorer and the trader, sometimes alas the slave trader, have gone hand in hand. Then the phase has changed. The missionary—never let us forget what we owe to the missionary—the trader and settler, and then the chartered company under the genius of men like Rhodes and Goldie, have been the pioneers. In this phase the chartered company performed the rudimentary functions of government. What Mary Kingsley called the legitimate trader takes the place of the slave trader, and a new era begins. Time passes. The responsibilities of government, ever growing, can no longer be sustained by chartered companies. Government assumes them, and the functions of the Government and the trader separate. Perhaps the last great man to give dynamic conception to this new Imperial theme was Joseph Chamberlain. It was he who put before the country the conception of developing this great inheritance. By degrees this conception of development has become one of development in the paramount interests of the people of the many widely differing territories which go to make up the whole.
    This view, the product of the strong strain of idealism and humanitarianism running through British thought, has been expressed in practical form in the policy of the British Government. It is accepted and endorsed by public opinion. in the meantime, following the setting-up of law and order in the Colonies, the opening-up of communications, internal and external, the discovery and development of new raw materials, trade and commerce, it comes about that all these divergent interests which grow up in the Colonies have to be reconciled. The indigenous population, alongside them the administrator, the missionary, the trader, the planter, the settler and the immigrant population from other territories, all these varying elements must be welded

    2015
    together into a coherent whole. All must form members of a single body, material and spiritual. The Empires of the past have died because they could not change with the times. They were rigid. They conformed to a fixed pattern. By contrast our Empire has had the great quality of adaptation. By that it lives.
    There is, however, a frequently expressed theory that the Colonies, when they have grown to full stature, will drop off like ripe fruit. It is based upon an analogy which, to my mind, is quite fallacious and has done great harm. It is the common analogy between nations and families. It is said that children necessarily grow up, wish to start upon their own, and therefore separate them-selves from their parents. But this is a false comparison. Among men, parents necessarily age, wither, decay and die by the mere efflux of time. The sons look forward necessarily to stepping into their fathers' responsibilities. But this is not true of nations. There is no need for them to decay, and therefore the relationships between a mother country and other countries may not be the short ties of a generation but may be of a lasting character. It is true that nations themselves may decline. Perhaps before the war some pessimists might have said that of our country. Who can say it now? Is this country growing old like a stag-headed oak? Does the sap run stagnant now? Are there no young shoots left? If any man takes so petulant and depressing a view, I will tell him. the remedy. Let him seek, if he is so fortunate as to be admitted to it, the finest company in all the world, the boys in blue with wings. on their breasts. The war has shown us certain inescapable facts, of which we will learn the lesson. Self-government without security means nothing. Independence without defence is vain. The future of the world is in larger organisations and not in breaking up into a large number of small countries. It is in the light of these events that we should think of our future relationship with the Colonies as a permanent and not a transitory thing.
    The governing principle of the Colonial Empire should, therefore, be the principle of partnership between the various elements composing it. Out of partnership come understanding and friendship. Within the fabric of the Commonwealth
    2016
    lies the future of the Colonial territories. According to different needs and different conditions there will be the greatest divergence of local responsibility, but, however far these may be developed, there are broad Imperial problems which only admit of corporate resolution. Trade, currency and monetary questions, defence, transport by sea, land and air—all these are Imperial questions. Capital development itself, on which the future of the territories depends, must be thought of as a whole.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the right hon. Gentleman now enunciating a settled Government policy, and is the policy of the future which he is enunciating the Government's interpretation of the appropriate Clause in the Atlantic Charter?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am enunciating a conception of policy which is based upon the impressions that I have formed after a comparatively short tenure of office. In general terms it has the support of my noble Friend, with whom I have consulted before making it.
    Dr. Haden Guest: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "partnership," but the present relation between the Colonies and the Mother Country is not one of partnership. It is subordination, and the Colonies have not equality of government economically or politically. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean equal partnership?
    Mr. Macmillan; That was the conception I was trying to develop.
    Dr. Guest: But it is a new policy and not the policy of the Government?
    Mr. Macmillan: Not at all. Perhaps in the hon. Gentleman's own relations there have been junior and senior partners. What I was trying to convey was that this was an organisation that should not be broken up but should continue in a spirit of partnership.
    Dr. Guest: Is it real partnership or just another form of words to delude people?
    Mr. Macmillan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will develop that theme when he speaks and allow me to develop my theme. The Colonies depend upon capital development. Before the passing of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act there was too much tendency to think of each Colony as a separate financial proposition instead of thinking of the show as

    2017
    a whole. Some Colonies are poor and some rich. The estate must be considered as a whole. We want no depressed areas in the Colonial Empire. A start has been made in the West Indies with the appointment of Sir Frank Stockdale as Comptroller of Development and Welfare. This was one of the most fruitful results of Lord Moyne's Commission. Many proposals are being already carried out, even in war. Here another sort of co-operation in the field of advice and research is being brought about by our close relations with our Allies the United States in the Anglo-American Caribbean Conference.
    What more can we do at this stage of the war? I think there are two things we can do. We can make changes or prepare for changes in the organisation of the Colonial Service with two chief aims. First, we should seek increasing opportunities for the people of the Colonies to fill posts in the public service of their own countries. The organisation of the Civil Services, and, more than that, the whole structure of the educational system in the Colonies must be so devised that the peoples will be able to acquire the qualifications for service and the desire to serve. That is our first aim. But however much development there may be in this direction, the Colonies will still need help from outside. Few of them have or are likely to have for some time so large a reservoir of highly qualified expert technicians in administration, in science, in agriculture, in mining and so on to be able to supply all their own needs. Therefore, our second aim is to have a mobile force of such experts at the command of the Secretary of State to be posted wherever in the Colonial Empire they are most needed at a particular time. Of course, we have this to some extent now, but it is hampered by purely financial considerations. The mobility of the Colonial Civil Service is strained by these considerations because the poorer Colonies may need the best men but may not be in a position to pay the salaries for their services. Therefore, the unification of the Colonial Service which has been going on gradually since 1930 is now to be taken a step further. The last Secretary of State, Lord Moyne, had initiated a plan to achieve this purpose. The present Secretary of State is working out these proposals in consultation with the Colonial Governors. We shall then come to the House with a
    2018
    request for the necessary financial provision, and I hope that we shall be generously met.
    There is a second thing we can do. Our development policy must be thought of as a coherent whole and not in single compartments. The Secretary of State has the advantage of a number of advisory committees on a number of technical subjects. We have recently added to these the Colonial Labour Advisory Committee. I am much indebted to the Trades Union Congress for helping me to get two such good members as Mr. J. Hallsworth and Mr. A. Dalgleish, both of whom have considerable knowledge of international labour problems; and to the British Employers' Confederation for finding us Sir John Forbes Watson and Mr. C. W. Murray. We have also the advantage of Sir Frederick Leggett, the Chief Industrial Commissioner of the' Ministry of Labour. The healthy development of trade unionism on sound lines is one of the most urgent needs of many of the Colonies. During the last few months experienced trade unionists have gone from this country as colonial labour officers. Six men have been appointed to British Guiana, Trinidad, Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone and Palestine. With the help of the Minister of Labour we have now seconded for service in the Colonial Labour service 12 of his experienced officers.
    In addition to the technical Advisory Committee, we have Lord Hailey's unique gifts at our service. Post-war problems of all kinds affecting the territories are his daily task. With the help of eminent scientists he will advise on the organisation of research work over the whole field, and he has £500,000 a year to do it with. In addition, we must direct research not merely to nutrition, education and so on, but also to practical economic ends. I think it was Lord Swinton who stated once that sometimes there was not sufficient contact between the officers engaged on the spot in connection with forestry, agriculture, minerals and so on and the actual users of the products. Therefore, the practical application of science to industry is a form of specialised research which will be pursued and the slogan of it will be "the application of scientific research to market needs." That is the best way in which we can help to promote ultimately

    2019
    the increased prosperity of the peoples in the Colonies.
    Most important of all, we have the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. In the long run the standard of living and the expenditure on social services in the Colonies will depend on the economic prosperity of those Colonies. This means for the moment one thing. It means the promotion of long-term capital investment. The problem is too big for private investment alone. We need large-scale public investment on public needs. This should be accompanied by private investment publicly guided as well as by ordinary private investment as an adjunct and ancillary. The recent history of Palestine shows what can be done by capital investment on an ambitious scale. At present the only immediate return from investment in many Colonies has been the mineral resources. If the Colonies, and especially Africa, are to be raised to play their proper part in the world, we must have long-term capital investment which will not be expected to be profitable for the first years or even generations. The Colonial Development and Welfare Act gives us the instrument for long-term planning. Unless the plans are prepared now, they will not be ready for the period after the war. There is a long delay between the preparation of a plan and its execution. Schemes have to be drawn up, blue prints have to be made, and before the contracts are placed there is a great interval. We want, therefore, to prepare now our list of plans and of priorities, so that we can, probably competing in a very crowded post-war market for capital development all over the world, be ready to put forward on behalf of all the Colonies our demand for a fair share of reconstruction work.
    It is to this Act and the machinery accompanying it rather than to any new body that we should perhaps look for assistance. This Act will help to preserve continuity of policy. In administering it the Secretary of State for the time being will no doubt wish to fortify himself with advice from experts, and in choosing advisers he will be in a position to balance the claims of ripe experience and age with the claims of youth and enterprise. He will not look only to retired pro-consuls; the machinery must have room for young, active and even untried men. In this field, in fact, it will be already filling the
    2020
    place for which it has been suggested that a Colonial Council should be created. Nor must we neglect among our investments the development of local products, local markets and secondary industries. I should like in passing to mention the experiments at Achimota College. The ancient handicrafts of West Africa are being revived and the potter and the weaver re-established. These efforts are expected to do two things—to meet war needs and to make a contribution to postwar economy. At the same time we have to work out, in conformity with plans now being discussed in many quarters, how we can fit our commodity control systems into whatever become the world systems after the war. At any rate, in the West African Products Control Board, made for war, though I am not making a statement of policy, I think we have an instrument the value of which will not be lost.
    The Colonies are poor. Why are they poor? Because of capitalist exploitation or because of insufficient capital? Because they are too much governed, or too little governed? Because we interfere too much, or too little? Because there are too many white planters and settlers, or too few? Because there are too many European traders, or not enough? No. They are poor because they are just beginning. They are four or five centuries behind. Our job is to move them, to hustle them, across this great interval of time as rapidly as we can.
    Mr. Riley: In some cases we have had these countries under out control for three centuries already.
    Mr. Macmillan: I had mainly in mind Africa itself, many parts of which were not opened to human discovery until two generations ago, and I say that their real trouble is that they are, as it were, in the Middle Ages. To bridge this great gulf we must hold out to them the hand of friendship, of comradeship and of faith. We can devise new systems of government, new mechanisms of administration—that is necessary; but we shall not do the job by these means alone. We shall do it only in the way that all big jobs are done, by vigour, decision, imagination, ruthless and overriding zeal.
    "The lot is fallen unto me in a fair ground: yea, I have a goodly heritage."
    Captain Peter Macdonald: The right hon. Gentleman at the

    2021
    outset of his speech likened his position to that of the legitimate wife who needed responsibility without power. All I have to say about that is that wherever the power lies, he has not neglected his responsibility in the short time that he has been at the Colonial Office, and I should like to congratulate him on what he has achieved in that short time as well as upon his most magnificent speech. The right hon. Gentleman told us, and it is a fact, that there has been no Debate on the Colonial Office Estimates in this House since June, 1939. That is a serious reflection upon this House of Commons and its vigilance, and the only excuse that I and some of my colleagues can make for not demanding a Debate earlier is that for two and a half years we have been on active service.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In order to correct what may be a misapprehension, may I say that there have been a number of Debates upon Colonial policy and certain aspects of Colonial questions?
    Captain Macdonald: There have been, but this is the first Debate on the Colonial Estimates since June, 1939. For three years the story of the Colonial Empire has not been told in this House, and yet what a wonderful story it is. Even with the loss of Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak, which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, we still have some 50 territories and some 50,000,000 people for whom we are responsible. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reference to the loss of these Pacific territories, has asked us not to pre-judge the issue or try to cast blame upon any individual. I am prepared for my part to accept that advice. I think it would be very unfortunate if this Debate developed into an inquest without our being fully informed on the whole of the facts and having all the information before us. And yet there are lessons to be learned from these losses, and what the Committee would wish to know is whether those lessons are being learned by those responsible for the Colonial Empire and whether they are being applied to what remains.
    The right hon. Gentleman divided his responsibilities into three spheres: the strategic or military sphere, Colonial Governments and the Colonial Office. He did not deal adequately with the strategic side, because he said, it is a military
    2022
    problem. I am convinced that if there had been closer liaison between those responsible for the Colonial Empire in the past and the military authorities, we should not have had that vast concentration of essential commodities such as rubber and tin in the Malaya Peninsula, and the curtailment of the production of those commodities in other parts of the Colonial Empire. I remember on a visit to Ceylon some years ago seeing planters, on the instructions of the Government, tearing up enormous rubber estates and planting very inferior teas. Those estates were going through a difficult financial time owing to the vagaries of the Stock Market, but the fact remains that those lands were suitable for rubber production but not suitable for the tea which took its place. What would we not give to-day to have that rubber production in Ceylon? What would we not give to have rubber production in the East African Colonies? That shows that the question of balanced production and Defence were not considered by the Colonial Office in the past. There has not been sufficient liaison between the military and the strategic side and the production side of the Colonial Empire. That is one of the lessons which we should learn from the loss of those Pacific territories.
    As far as the Colonial Governments are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned various methods of dealing with his immediate problems, which is the mobilisation of all the resources of the Colonial Empire for war purposes, and he has mentioned as his machinery various committees and councils. He mentioned, for instance, the East African Governors' Conference and the West African Governors' Conference. The East African Governors' Conference, representing Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, has been in existence now for a very long time. Whatever functions these Conferences may have performed in the past, and however useful they may be, they are not suitable for war purposes. They are not in a position to make decisions on the spot, because they have no statutory or executive powers or responsibilities. In regard to the Governors' Conference in West Africa, the Colonial Office has seen the necessity for appointing Lord Swinton to co-ordinate their work and to take decisions on the spot. He is a man of great ability, and I con-

    2023
    gratulate the Colonial Office upon finding a Minister of such ability to take on. the job. Is it the intention of the Colonial Office to take similar measures concerning' the East African Colonies? Surely they are of equal importance. What about Palestine, Ceylon, Cyprus; and what about the West Indies? Is any coordination taking place there, and who are the men on fee spot to take decisions and put them into practice? These matters very much concern me and others at the present time. We have had a great deal of experience of committees and conferences, but certainly I have very little faith in their influence or their effectiveness excepting as a means of collecting information and making recommendations.
    At a later stage I shall make some suggestions, but in the meantime I would make some reference to another sphere of influence, and that is the Colonial Office itself. The Minister mentioned that the economic side of the Colonial Office has been greatly extended, but he did not tell us very much more about it. I want to know what men have been brought in from outside to build up a war organisation and what their experience of trade, industry, shipping, supply and native questions and other war problems have been. The Minister mentioned his back room boys. Who are they? What are they doing in the back room, and how long have they been there? What concerns many of us to-day is the fact that most of the staff of the Colonial Office have been in these back rooms far too long and have little practical knowledge of the Colonial Empire. Upon occasions there has been an attempt to make an interchange of Colonial civil servants between the Colonial Office, and the Colonies, but I do not think it has gone very far or nearly far enough.
    I have travelled, a great deal about the Colonial Empire. I have visited every British Colony in the last 25 years, and in the outposts of the Colonial Empire I have seen some of the finest brains and material and the keenest young men anywhere in the world. I have seen some who were left to rot there throughout the whole of their careers in the Colonial Civil Service, never being given a chance of promotion or brought home to recuperate, in spate of the fact that many of them had been out in tropical climates
    2024
    far too long. Some suffered from malaria and were in no condition to administer their posts. That is a serious reflection upon the policy of the Colonial Office in the past. I want to see young men who enter the Colonial Office have an opportunity to serve both at home and. abroad. They must certainly get practical experience in the Colonial Empire, and come home here for a period to direct the Colonial Office at home, making use of the knowledge and experience that they have acquired at first hand.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that the mobilisation of men and materials in the Colonial Empire for war purposes was his short-term policy. He mentioned very many commodities of which the Government are short at the present time and of which it was hoped to stimulate production. It was a very formidable list, and requires the utmost effort on behalf of the native people and administrators on the spot. What steps have been taken by the Colonial Office to deal with native problems? Without serious steps to look into such questions as the health, housing and nutrition of native peoples, it will not be possible to stimulate production very much. In the West Indies to-day, in spite of the urgency that exists, one cannot get more than 20 or 25 hours' work per week out of the natives, the reason being that they have not the stamina or physique to do more, in spite of increased wages. I think it will be found that the same applies in many of our other Colonies. The standard of living and the physical fitness and health of the natives are so low that the natives cannot put in what we consider to be a full week's work. This position must be tackled seriously at once. Some incentive must be provided for a native to work. I hope that that side of the problem is being watched.
    The Minister said that the Colonies are poor, I do not agree. The British Colonial Empire is rich beyond the dreams of avarice. The surface of the productive capacity and the riches of the Colonial Empire has only been scratched. If the Ministers tells us that the people of the Colonial Empire are poor and their standards of living, housing and health are poor, I thoroughly agree with him; but whose fault is it? The reason is that successive British Governments have been poor landlords. I want to know what the present Government are doing to put

    2025
    things right. I shall have a suggestion to make, I do not think that the machinery which the Minister said he was using for war purposes is sufficient. I do not think it is adequate or proper machinery. There are far too many councils, committees and other bodies without executive responsibility or power and they have no means of putting any of their recommendations into practice. We know what generally happens to the reports of committees and commissions. The archives of the Colonial Office are stuffed with them—if the Paper Controller has not taken them away. I know of one or two of them which are signed by myself, but I have never yet heard of any action being taken on them. The Minister mentioned another body, an additional committee, being set up to-day. This is not the right machinery to get the utmost productivity out of the Colonial Empire, in war-time or in peace. What is wanted is men on the spot with executive powers and responsibilities, who are not afraid to take decisions.
    I wish to make a suggestion, which I am afraid you may think is merely to set up another commission, but which is something more than that. To co-ordinate the work of the committees and commissions which have already been set up_ and the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned half of them; I could tell him of a great many more—I want to suggest that he should set up a Colonial Development Board. What should be the composition and functions of this Board? In The first place, it should be a statutory body, under the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It should have a full-time chairman and secretary and should deal with such questions as strategy, and as all the Services are involved it should have a representative of the Secretariat of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. There should be a full-time member for each of the following: economy and finance, health, education and housing, and all the Supply Departments. In addition, the Board should have power to co-opt business men from outside to serve on subcommittees to deal with questions of production, both for home and export, and also with imports, communications, ports, roads, railways, air and river transport. It should have someone responsible for electricity, irrigation and power. It should be directly responsible to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and its functions should be to co-
    2026
    ordinate and consolidate the work of all the various committees. It should take over the Colonial Department fund to which reference has been made, and with which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be quite satisfied, and should take over the spending of the money allocated to that body.
    I hope the Government will consider this proposal which is put forward by myself and some of my colleagues very seriously, because I think it is essential to have such a body in order to deal with the problems facing the Colonial Office at the present time as well as with a future Colonial policy for the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman himself has told us of the necessity for a Colonial policy. What is the long-term policy which he mentioned? For many years I have been trying to find out the long-term policy of the Colonial Office, but so far without success. The policy of the Colonial Office up to now has been nothing but makeshifts and expedients, and now that we have young men like the right hon. Gentleman and his chief at the Colonial Office there is a wonderful opportunity for them to show statesmanship, something which has been lacking in the Colonial Office since the days of Joseph Chamberlain. What a wonderful field they have, and what a marvellous opportunity, not only to evolve a policy but to put it into practice. There may be a great many excuses for not evolving a long-term Colonial policy at the present time because of the urgency of the war situation, but the time for a policy is now and the time for putting it into practice is immediately after the war is over.
    How is that to be done? We all know that a great deal of money is involved. The sum of £5,000,000 a year given to the Colonial Welfare and Development Board is a mere fleabite compared with what is required for the development of the Colonial Empire. In that connection I have a suggestion to offer. I suggest that the £5,000,000 a year should be used to pay the interest on a far greater loan of two or three hundred million pounds, which would really provide an opportunity of doing something. That loan-could be raised and extended over a long period of time, and by using the Colonial Welfare and Development Fund in that way the problems confronting us in the Colonial Empire could be tackled. They

    2027
    are of such magnitude at present that £50,000,000 spread over a period of 10 years is an infinitesimal sum and absolutely useless. What has happened in the past is that the people responsible for Colonial development found at the end of a year they had not even evolved a scheme or got anything worked out, and the money has gone back to the Treasury. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that that does not happen now.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these proposals very seriously. We cannot afford to waste time; the sands are running out, and we want a new conception of Empire. When this war is over the Colonial Empire will have a new conception of itself. The last war brought from the Dominions new demands for their place in the sun which eventually led to the Statute of Westminster, giving them complete and absolute self-government. The end of this war will lead to demands from the Colonial Empire, or from some parts of it, for greater responsibility and a greater voice in their-own affairs'. What are we to say to these people unless we can assure them that we are tackling their problems very seriously and intend to fulfil to the utmost the trusteeship placed in the British Government? I hope that the Government will take these proposals to heart and will evolve a policy which they can put into practice at the earliest opportunity. If they do not do so, the future will take its revenge and retribution will be severe.
    Mr. de Rothschild: Like the previous speaker, I should like to extend my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman who addressed the Committee on behalf of the Government. I have listened in this House for many years to speeches on the Colonial problem and the Colonial Empire, but I am prepared to say that I have never listened with greater satisfaction and pleasure than I have on this occasion, because the right hon. Gentleman has shown a real understanding of the problem. He has shown wide views and has made it quite clear that we are entering upon a new era in Colonial administration. I am not one of those who throw stones at our Colonial administration in the past, but there can be no doubt that the frequent changes which have been made in late years, both
    2028
    as regards the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, have not brought about a policy which has had any real continuity. In the Debates which have taken place in the House on India and other places lately it has been pointed out that it would be a useful thing if the Governors of Colonies remained there for at least five years. I am not suggesting that Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries at the Colonial Office should remain there for that period of time, but the too frequent changes which have taken place have been detrimental to continuity of policy.
    When, six months ago, I last spoke in this House on the subject of the Colonies I suggested that there should be appointed, with powers similar to those exercised at the time by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in Singapore and the present Minister of Production in Cairo, a Minister of State in West Africa to co-ordinate the vast problems affecting the war which were facing us. I am glad to see that this has now been put into practice by the Members of this House and the other House who are presiding now over our Colonial Empire, and I am pleased to see that Lord Swinton has been appointed. I think it is a useful appointment and that a man who has been Colonial Secretary should carry out the duties particularly well and satisfactorily. The only thing that worries me is that I wonder whether the terms of his jurisdiction are sufficient, whether he will have enough liberty of action. His will be an immense job. The Colonial territories over which he is to preside have a population of over 26,000,000 inhabitants, nearly half the population of the whole Colonial Empire, and the importance of Nigeria and the other West African Colonies at the present time, when we have lost the Empire in the East for the time being, has been clearly emphasised, and has been made quite patent by the speech, of the right hon. Gentleman. But in answer to Questions the other day he rather circumscribed the powers of Lord Swinton.
    I do not see how a Cabinet Minister can be responsible through another Cabinet Minister for his actions. If you want the greyhound to catch the hare, you must take him off the leash. I hope that in his administrative powers he will be able to take quick and urgent decisions, so important, especially in war-time.

    2029
    Among the questions he will have to deal with, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is the question of man-power for the Army. To my mind that is a very important question, and at the present time, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, a magnificent part is being played by the native regiments of Africa, whether from the East or from the West. They may well be called upon to play a greater part still. But I believe that in the recruiting of these forces, although they have shown wonderful patriotism, courage and loyalty, the full extent of the resources in Africa has not been taken into consideration. I do not know whether sufficient appeals have been made to the chiefs and to the sons of the chiefs. Of course, it is quite understandable that these young men will not be prepared to go into these regiments as privates when they hold these great positions and such influence in their countries. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he and his chief should get into touch with the War Office and that they should set up in West Africa a military college to which these young chiefs and sons of chiefs could go, as well as any other capable young men among the natives of these countries, where they can acquire military knowledge, where they can acquire the capacity to lead men, and from where they can go back as officers to their regiments. They will then be able to exercise their great influence, and I think it would be all to the good.
    In an article published yesterday in "The Times" the importance of the native chiefs was made quite clear, and that it would be a very good thing if they could be given greater influence in the Army. Such a college as I have suggested would also have a very happy influence inasmuch as it would bring together men from all parts of the Dependencies and would help to-knit together the whole of this great Continent. Men of all races and from different parts of Africa would come there, and it would foster a feeling of unity. In many Debates in this House and in another place we have heard and advocated that there should be a separate Colonial administration for Africa. The appointment of Lord Swinton may be a forerunner of this. He will work in co-ordination with the Governor's Conference, and I hope that the influence he will bring to bear will create a desire for federation.
    2030
    I should like to say a word about the white colonists in Africa and in other parts of the Empire. In a Question the other day to the right hon. Gentleman animadversions were thrown on them. I, am glad to say that he took up the cudgels on their behalf, and that he did so to-day. He is right to say that if it had not been for the attention and sacrifices on the spot and in this country by those interested in the economic development of the Colonies, perhaps we should be suffering very much more than we are to-day. We would not have to-day the tin mines functioning in Nigeria, and we should not have their equipment. The men who look after these mines, the men who spend their lives there, either as foremen or managers, and the men here who put in the money are responsible for the fact that to-day, although 60 per cent. of the tin in the world has been taken from us, we can still rely on mining tin in Nigeria which, at the present time, is of such vital importance. A Question was asked the other day on the subject of compulsory man-power. Certainly I am thoroughly against compulsory labour, as is every man in this House, and every Englishman, but we are up against a terrible enemy, and compulsion in necessary for all of us. We have to increase our supplies at the present time.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows well what are the deficiencies in our equipment. When he was appointed to this high office I thought it was a fortunate thing that he had come from the Ministry of Supply and would realise what were the requirements of this country in war-time. If we have now to put into practice compulsory labour in the mines of Nigeria, I feel sure that we are doing it with the greatest reluctance. I hope that he will stick to what he said the other day in his assurance that the greatest care will be taken that the men concerned are well looked after, properly paid for their services, properly housed and properly fed. Those are duties which are incumbent upon us. I am not going to follow the hon. gentleman who the other day criticised this policy on purely ideological grounds, because it would resound to the profit of certain individuals, on the spot and in this country. It is owing to those people that we can to-day employ native labour, and it is because of their sacrifices that we can indulge in the hope that our resources in tin and other materials

    2031
    will not be absolutely destroyed, as were those in Malaya and elsewhere.
    The right hon. Gentleman did not limit himself in his speech entirely to what it was proposed to do for the war. I certainly think that because of the war the utilisation of man-power and supplies in the Colonies is of great urgency, but I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman looked to the future, and did so with what I may term Liberal eyes. As early as December, 1939, this country realised that it was of the utmost importance that some understanding should be reached with other countries, to enable exchanges to be made between the products of our own Colonies and those from elsewhere. The Anglo-French Agreement was then drawn up. Its aim was to pool all raw material resources of the two countries and to establish monetary stability between them, to enable war purchases to be made. Do not let us forget the clamour which was raised before the war by Hitler and his confederates about free access to raw materials. Of course this was camouflage, but there is an answer to it. There must be a fair distribution of Colonial products throughout the world. "Unless something is done after the war to solve that problem, the cry will be raised again, either from that quarter or from another quarter. The Anglo-French Agreement, which I believe worked quite well until the collapse of France, was thought by those who framed it likely to lead to a more general system of economic collaboration. It was thought that it might lead to the formation of some sort of club of which the member nations Would have facilities to purchase raw materials from each other. It meant an elaborate network of credit, currency, and adjustments, but it was thought that it would put countries without Colonies in a position of equality with those which possessed them. I am not prepared to advocate that scheme: I only mention that quite early on it was thought necessary to create such an organism.
    The Anglo-French Agreement was based on exchange control and fixed parities. Such controls are shackling us at present—and it is necessary that they should. They will last long after the war, I fear. The expansion of Colonial trade, will take place within the ambit of these controls. It will require all the planning
    2032
    talents of the right hon. Gentleman to establish a system of international trade for the Colonies through these controls. Already, I believe, we have accumulated vast supplies of material for distribution after the war to the hungry countries of Europe and to China. But that will be only a temporary measure. The resources of the Colonies must be prepared for far greater expansion. The task of the Colonial Office, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, is to find sources of production which will compensate for our losses in the Far East. His policy-is a policy of expansion, but the postwar policy must be one of far greater expansion still. To achieve that will mean a different policy, of specialisation. At present we are gathering our supplies from wherever we can. After the war we shall have to specialise in the Colonies, as elsewhere. This cannot be done without a broad exchange of goods and of services. Specialisation means, better conditions not only for the individual but for countries at large as well. In order to achieve that, there must be freedom of exchange for raw materials, as well as for-finished goods. Let us hope, for the sake of the welfare of the universe, of our own country, and particularly for the happiness of the Colonies, that not only we but others as well will have realised this truth when peace at last lays her healing hand on the bleeding brows of the world.
    Squadron-Leader Donner: Together with the last two speakers, I should like to offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, not only for the matter of his speech, but for the spirit which animated it. War brings changes of circumstance and of outlook; but it does more: it speeds up tendencies already in existence, and brings them to quicker fruition. In the midst of the sorrows, privations, and sufferings of war, it is possible to foster and stimulate the best of what we may call the inevitable developments of this world. It is as a signatory of the Motion on the Order Paper, asking for the establishment of a Colonial Development Board, that I rise to plead for it. I believe it is necessary to create such a Board to coordinate policy and foster the enthusiasm which animated the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
    But let me first deal with two other matters. There has been criticism, as

    2033
    the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) said, about the compulsory powers taken in Nigeria over manpower. I agree that these powers must be taken. We should bear in mind that similar legislation governs labour in this country in war. When we judge these we must do so to judge them justly against the background of the loss of our Far Eastern possessions, particularly Malaya, and realise the extent to which we must replace the loss of natural resources and supplies. Before the war the Nigerian mines supplied 6,000 tons of tin per annum under the International Tin Agreement, compared with 37,000 tons supplied by Malaya—in other words, approximately 15 per cent. It follows from that, in view of the existence of the International Tin Agreement, that the Nigerian production, freed from any restriction, is capable of a great excess of production over and above that figure. If one mentions these figures one realises how important the Nigerian tin production is to us to-day.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald mentioned the gallantry of the West African Regiments in this war. If we remember that gallantry, surely, then, we cannot believe that their brothers, friends and cousins in Nigeria will misunderstand the compulsory powers we have been forced to take. When we think of the German massacres of the Herreros in South-West Africa before the last war, those of us who have travelled in Tanganyika and know the German record towards the natives in that territory and the treatment of the natives in the former German Cameroons surely must realise what treatment the Africans could expect if Hitler were to win this war. The Germans of to-day regard them as sub-humans. If we realise it, surely it is in our power to make the Africans of Nigeria realise it too. It was because we know what that German attitude has been in the past and is to-day that some of us before the war, in addition to other considerations, both moral and military, were fortified in our resolution in opposing the propaganda which was widely disseminated at that time of transferring part of the Colonial Empire to Germany. If those in authority in Nigeria have done their job properly, there will be no misunderstanding of what we have done in that Colony, and there will be no grievance. If the
    2034
    people of the West African territories come through the convulsion of this war without any greater inconvenience than that surely they will be more fortunate than many Europeans. What a hue and cry would there not have been, if the right hon. Gentleman and His Majesty's Government had failed to mobilise the potential resources in men and material which we need. It is not difficult to imagine the perfervid protestations made by certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House. The same arguments apply to what has been done by the Government in the East African territories in order to save shipping and to produce the greatest amount of food and so feed our armies in the Middle East. That position has been gone into in great detail in another place and I will only, therefore, remind the Committee that what has been done in East Africa was unanimously agreed to by a committee, the members of which included the Labour Commissioner and Archdeacon Owen, who is so well known as the champion of the native cause.
    The right hon. Gentleman, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, spoke of the need of greater State investment in the Colonial Empire, and my hon. and gallant Friend said that we must consider future State investment not in terms of a few millions but in terms of hundreds of millions. I believe that that is so. Lord Moyne has said in another place that we shall have to replan Colonial economics in production and commodities. But can you do that unless you have an instrument through which to work out plans and carry through such ideas? I do not believe that that is possible without the establishment of a Colonial Development Board. This is no new idea. The Royal Commission which reported in 1917, under the chairmanship of Lord D' Abernon, on the natural resources of the Empire and which, I admit, deals largely with the Dominions and Dominion territory, put forward a more ambitious suggestion, but, nevertheless, a similar suggestion. That Commission emphasised the influence a wise investment of British capital could have on the development of natural resources. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of private investment publicly guided. I hope that in future measures will be taken to ensure that private investment in the British Empire rather than in speculations in foreign countries will be encouraged. But to-day

    2035
    British capital will have to be directed, and should be directed, towards the multiplication of resources, in particular, raw materials both of economic and military importance. The right hon. Gentleman said that we can devise new mechanisms of administration and new instruments of government, and here is an opportunity to devise such an instrument. How can you fulfil these ideas and take the action which you desire unless you are provided with accurate information and have a medium through which you can act?
    The Royal Commission of 1917 suggested that the Imperial Development Board, which I am not now proposing, but a Colonial Development Board, should have four principal functions. The Commissions suggested, firstly, that it should promote new sources of supply, secondly, that it should promote measures for the prevention of waste, thirdly, that it should investigate the possibility of finding substitutes, and fourthly, it mentioned scientific research. Such a Board should and could survey the relations between our requirements and our production. It would stimulate the production of those commodities which we most needed in time of war. It would advise and guide the Colonial Office in this matter. The war only emphasises and underlines our needs of a permanent institution which will smooth the path of development, remove causes of delay and will result in speedy and effective action. It is for these reasons that I urge the establishment of a Colonial Development Board.
    Criticism of the past is perhaps too easy to be of any advantage or of any avail, but I welcomed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman when he said that Malayan planters were to-day investigating the possibilities of increasing rubber production in West Africa. A case came to my notice a few days ago. It is a plantation at Tiko, near Mount Victoria, in the British Cameroons, of some 5,000 acres where there are mature rubber trees in the third year of bearing to-day. This was German-owned property before the war, and to-day a civil servant-with no practical knowledge and no previous experience of either the planting of rubber or of the planting of bananas keeps an eye not only upon this particular plantation, but upon all the confiscated German plantations in the British Cameroons. This particular plantation
    2036
    has a turnover of £200,000 a year. With rubber scarcer: than gold such a plantation should be looked after not by a civil servant without experience, but by men who could manage it expertly. I suggest, therefore, for the consideration of the Government that, if they have not already done so, Malayan planters should be sent out there to see what they can do and see how far they can replace the banana plantations by the planting of rubber. That is only a single instance, but I think it shows that there is both scope and need for the establishment of the Colonial Development Board, for which I am pleading to-day and which, in the words of the Royal Commission of 1917, would "Watch for every opportunity and be alive to every possibility." It is impossible to exaggerate the influence and significance which such a board would have. It would be concerned with economics, and, that being so, I would like to put forward one other suggestion, namely, that there should be Dominion representation upon it.
    Again, upon this matter and in connection with the problem of research the Royal Commission of 1917 states:
    "The technical departments of the Dominions are better equipped than those of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates for investigation and research. They have officers for assaying minerals, analysing substances and testing material and their equipment in this respect is being constantly strengthened."
    Those of us who have travelled in the Dominions, Colonies and Protectorates know that that is true. Such a Board and the establishment of Dominion representation upon it would have many advantages. May I briefly enumerate some of them? We know that in many parts of the Dominions the climate approximates more closely to that of the Colonies. Dominion minds are, therefore, more accustomed to deal with the kind of problems that arise as a result of that analogy. They are familiar with the problems which are connected with the opening up of new territories and new countries. They know the importance of building roads and understand perhaps more fully than we do the connection between building roads and the growth of new trades. The staff of such a Board, in my submission, should be not so much civil servants as men of public responsibility and particularly men with intimate knowedge of the Colonial Empire. In another place Lord Hailey and a former Secretary of State for the

    2037
    Colonies, Lord Harlech, have both emphasised what we in this Committee know only too well—that the civil servants of the Colonial Empire have very often considered that their job of administration is their sole duty, or at any rate their main function. The weakest sign of our Colonial administration has been that much has had to deal with economics and development.
    I believe, therefore, that a Colonial Development Board would not only assist the Government materially, but would electrify development, not only after the war but now, in the middle of the war. Dominion representation upon it would increase Dominion interest in the Colonies which would be beneficial to the Colonies after the war since it would increase the trade between the Dominions and Colonies and so give the Colonies what they need—a steady market and greater security. That tendency has already begun. I believe that if we could invite Dominion participation and interest, particularly in the economic side of the Colonial Empire, the Colonies would benefit immeasurably. Let me give a single instance. Someone mentioned in the Debate the dependence of the Gold Coast on cocoa. But Gambia is dependent on ground nuts, and we know how dependent the West Indies are on sugar. How many of us really believe that that over-dependence on a single market could ever have taken place if the Dominions had had any say whatever in the development of these Colonies? The most noticeable thing about the Dominions' use of tariffs in the past has been the very ingenious way in which they have created secondary industries and used them to diversify trade. It is the lack of diversity which is the fault in many Colonies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) once said that the future direction of trade lies in the marriage of the products of the temperate and the tropical zones. If we could foster Dominion interest in the Colonies, great benefit would ensue. I believe that this is an inevitable if at present slow development, and that unless the Dominions are invited to participate in the economic side of the Colonial Empire the result must be misunderstanding of our actions, aims and purposes in the Colonies and must lead to friction whereas, if we invite co-operation in the economic field, it will give us the benefit of that co-operation and at the same time remove
    2038
    misunderstanding. Finally it would encourage Dominion capital to go into the Colonies for the development of their natural resources rather than into foreign countries.
    I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on what he said on the subject of permanent partnership between ourselves and the Colonial Empire and on the subject of the unification of the Civil Service. Partnership, to be a happy-one, must depend upon knowledge, and that brings me to education upon which. I should like to say a few words. Like the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), I had the privilege of serving on the Advisory Committee on Education in the Colonies for three years. Unfortunately, during the last two years, I was unable to attend, as I volunteered for service in the Royal Air Force, but during the year I did attend it became perfectly clear to me that what was said in another place last month is only too true—that our education, particularly in African Colonies, is too literary and too classical. In the Gold Coast, I think it was, Africans were taught to act the great Greek tragedies if not the comedies of Aristophanes but not so much hygiene or how to grow crops. I submit that much greater stress should be laid on the practical scientific and agricultural side of education. Our teaching should include not only the ethical, spiritual and moral side, but we should do our utmost to develop secondary industries and the ancient traditional craftsmanship of West Africa. We should teach Africans to develop to their utmost their natural resources. Nothing could be more deplorable than to see what many of us have seen with our own eyes, even in Uganda, the ideal gradually growing up in the minds of the natives that the finest possible life is to become a typist in a country where there is very little to type. Such a policy, whether in Uganda or Sierra Leone, must lead to the creation of discontented and redundant Africans. By teaching that, we are doing them no service. Surely our aim must be to try and teach the West African to be a good African, and not a bad European, to teach him to develop along his own traditional lines rather than to become a poor imitation of the European.
    Most Members have read "New Imperial Ideals," that great constructive work by Robert Stokes, who develops in

    2039
    it the noble future that could be built up in West African territories. Finally, I would like to add that I think there should be teaching of English on a far greater scale than at present and that we should try to identify the natives not only with the country in which they were born, bred and live but with this Empire of ours. If we could make them feel that they are citizens of our Empire we would not get an article such as that which appeared in "The Times" yesterday written by a West African who speaks of the need to remove the misconception that this is a white man's war.
    Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Finance Act, 1942.

  2. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act, 1942.

  3. Minister of Works and Planning Act, 1942.

  4. London County Council (Money) Act, 1942.

  5. Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children Act, 1942.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Major Sir EDWARD CADOGAN in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding£30, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for certain services connected with Colonial Affairs for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, namely:

  Civil Estimates, 1942.

  Class II., Vote 7, Colonial Office

  £10

  Class II., Vote 8, Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

  £10

  Class II., Vote 9, Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)

  £10

  £30"

  Squadron-Leader Donner: I fear that Black Rod must disapprove of my
  2040
  speeches, because lately whenever I address the House he interrupts me. I believe part of our troubles in the Colonies during the last 20 years has been that at home there has been a loss of faith and a loss of conviction that we have a mission to fulfil and a part to play. I should like to see a new spirit in the House of Commons. I should like to see us rid ourselves of the mistrust and suspicion of our own folk and settlers overseas which have been so prevalent. That mistrust reminds me of the old South African story -of the two men who had had a great number of drinks. One suddenly noticed the hand of the other lying on the table between them, and jumped up crying out, "There is a snake on the table," and broke a bottle of whisky across his friend's hand, whereupon his friend shouted, "Hit it again, it's biting me." Some hon. Members have been seeing a great many snakes in the House, and snakes that do not exist. It is my hope that the Government in their attempt to build up an African civilisation in West Africa will foster and stimulate the efforts of "our own people and settlers in East Africa.
  I believe that we can do a great deal of good by stimulating emigration after the war. I hope that the abuse and vilification which have been showered upon our own people there will cease. After all, the white settlers in East Africa have been the main dynamic and progressive force, and it is thanks to them that law courts and justice were introduced and roads, harbours and railways were built. It is they who have brought peace and prosperity to the people, brought an end to internecine feuds and stopped the Masai killing the Kikuyu and all the rest of it. No doubt the settlers have made some mistakes, but so have we all. I read the other day severe criticism in another place of what is being done in Southern Rhodesia. It has been suggested that parallel development is something to be looked upon with suspicion, and something to be sneered at. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of parallel development, at least it must be admitted that in Southern Rhodesia the standard of living, the medical and social services and the general prosperity of the natives are on a higher level than in Northern Rhodesia under the Colonial Office. As has been said to-day, the last war brought about a revolution, and when this war is over we must realise there will be demands for

  2041
  greater autonomy in Africa and elsewhere in the Colonial Empire. There are those who are very keen to propitiate subversive and disloyal elements in India, but you cannot promise greater self-government to the peoples of India, particularly to the disloyal elements, and at the same time withhold greater self-government from those who have contributed so much to our war effort in Rhodesia and Kenya. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of merging smaller units in larger, and that tendency is, I believe, inevitable. It is the task of the Government to ensure that it will be carried out with foresight and vision, and not too quickly. Our purpose must be to establish in East Africa and in Rhodesia the maximum local autonomy, maintaining in our own hands the responsibility for foreign affairs and defence. If we do that, history will not condemn us.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Hon. Members are labouring to-day under two disadvantages. Firstly, they have hot before them the customary annual survey of Colonial affairs, and, secondly, there is a doubt as to the degree to which the right hon. Gentleman has identified himself with the policy of the Secretary of State, or vice versa. It is perplexing, because one would like to know whether the assumptions of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of Colonial policy are the assumptions of the Secretary of State. He has given, in eloquent terms, an extremely interesting survey of the Empire, as if it were an Imperial organisation; he is conscious of its past defects, and anxious now in all haste to make substantial economic improvements. It seemed to me that he was curiously obtuse in regard to the great human problems in the Empire.
  I want to strike a different note from the one that he struck in his excellent survey, because it seems to me that the time has come when he must gear our Colonial policy to meet the changes that are going on in the world, and even to anticipate them, creating a policy which stands up to the challenge of free men and withstands the disintegrating forces at work. For the hammer blows of war, and imponderable ideas disturbing men's minds everywhere, are compelling us to make a re-examination of the assumptions of our present policy. Our own ideas move, too. There is no longer vain glory
  2042
  in the romance of Empire. Economic and political domination over other peoples no longer enthuses any of us. Imperialism of the old order passes, toughest perhaps in its economic grips. To-day, much in our Empire moves us to pity for the suffering and distress that we see there, moves us to shame for our past neglect. Depressed areas are calling for our strength and resources in order to fight disease, ignorance and poverty.
  The awakening of peoples, seen after the last war, is happening again in this. The challenge of Russia, the renaissance of China, the demand for independence by India, are all symptomatic of the ferment that is going on in the minds of men the world over. We cannot estimate the effects of the dynamic of new political ideas, economic doctrines and social creeds on the Colonial peoples to-day. The war has also added a new significance to the facts of geography, economic relationships, political groupings and social development. So that events are outstripping us, and even trusteeship must be transformed into a positive principle of co-operation of equals in the forward march of men.
  The idea of trusteeship has justified many proposals. It still is the safeguard of many peoples moving forward in this troubled world. But in some respects, the word is beginning to wear, perhaps because, besides achievement, it has been associated with a certain amount of cant and failure to fulfil the hopes of the Colonial peoples. Nor has this word "trusteeship" the same meaning everywhere. It is irritating in some places, and it is unpopular in others. Lord Hailey—I need not quote what he said in another place—has admirably expressed, what some of us have been saying for a long time on this matter. Indeed, some of us want a new relationship with the Colonial peoples which conveys the idea of equality and fellowship, the idea of service and practical assistance and which expresses it in dynamic and constructive terms.
  As a nation we are feeling our way towards this new relationship. The 1940 Act marked the end of an old chapter. The circular of the Secretary of State last year called for economic planning, with long and short-term programmes, and the necessity of conserving natural resources and creating a healthier balance in Colonial economies. To-day; too, we

  2043
  attach greater importance to labour problems and to the social services. But all this as yet is very small and indicates that we are groping at the turning point.
  But there is the idea of status, the necessity of a new relationship with the Colonies which admits of no race superiority, no inherent or permanent inequality between ourselves and the peoples, and no divorce between' the Government and the peoples of the territories. It is a relationship which implies that we do everything possible to accelerate the process of self-government, that the whole process of government is geared to the supreme purpose of fitting the Colonial peoples for political responsibility. It is a relationship which means in practice that the paramount interests in all the Dependencies is the welfare and the development of the Colonial peoples, Parliament exercising a positive, active and constructive responsibility until self-government is achieved. It means, further, that there should be deliberate, economic planning and control by the Government in the public interest—control over monopolies, powerful interests and concessions, over the ownership of land and national resources and the conditions and use of labour.
  I regret that the Prime Minister excluded the Colonies from the Atlantic Charter. It has created much misapprehension. I think it was not enough for him to say that the Colonies were already covered by declarations complete in themselves. I should like to suggest that the Colonial Secretary should publish a White Paper informing us what those clear-cut and deliberate declarations of the past are which will govern Colonial development in the future. But, as Lord Hailey has reminded us, the more advanced people in the Colonies may not unreasonably ask for something more explicit than they will find in the statements referred to by the Prime Minister. The Atlantic Charter became an international declaration of good faith, endorsed to the full by the United Nations. It was vitally concerned with the Colonies—access to raw materials, freedom of trade, the distribution of markets. It was concerned with standards of living, want and security. Why, then, were the Colonies excluded from that Charter?
  2044
  I do not want to build up false hopes or to add to existing Colonial Papers another document which has little meaning, but I see room for an assurance— a supplementary charter—in realistic and convincing terms, pointing out the way to freedom, equality, responsibility, the reconstruction of Colonial economic and social life. Later, that policy must be worked out in concrete terms of periodic programmes so that the Colonial peoples may know how they may advance to a realisation of the principles embodied in such Charter.
  This is the more necessary as the war spreads and threatens new fields. The Colonial peoples realise that the issues of the war directly concern them. If they do not, what have we been up to? We have not always identified the Colonial peoples with the causes for which we are struggling in the war, and have not associated them with the effort that is demanded for the triumph of those causes? I do not mean for a moment that we should have militarised the Colonial peoples. I still contend, in spite of the observations that have been made to-day, that the imposition of forced labour on the Africans was wrong in principle and was not justified by practical considerations. In many-colonies the Colonial peoples have given their gifts, resources and men. They have fought magnificently. But I submit that there is to-day among many of the Colonial peoples a deep sense of frustration. Often their natural leaders are ignored. There seems indifference in high places to the popular movements. Our replies to their offers are often half-hearted and disdainful. One has only to read the article in "The Times" yesterday by the West African correspondent., I have here the journal "Public Opinion," published in Jamaica, expressing again in the most recent issue that sense of frustration that they are not permitted to play their part in the great struggle in which the world in involved. There is a magnificent appeal by Mr. Manley in the journal which ought to be read by all Members of the House. The same is true in regard to the Jews in Palestine. There is that sense of frustration. We are not harnessing their good will. It is not enough that the Under Secretary should tell us of their loyal spirit. We want that loyal spirit harnessed. We want, correlated to it, a determination on our

  2045
  side that in the days to come the peoples shall advance to a higher standard of living and greater freedom. Let them feel that this is a war of liberation, the travail of the world for a new order. In my judgment that calls for more inspired leadership and direction from us than we have so far given, a new conception of common citizenship and ideals and a new sense of responsibility.
  We may need also—I say this with considerable diffidence, conscious as I am of the great services which have been rendered by the Colonial Civil Service—to purge the hierarchy of our colonial bureaucracy. We want men in the Colonies who are not afraid of popular movements—men who are liberally minded. We want the tired men removed. We want the refreshment of young men, selected on a broader basis, given the opportunities of training and broader experience in carrying greater responsibility. We do not want civil servants frequently moving from one Colony to another. We want the colonial peoples admitted into the administrative ser-vices and, even if some cannot at this moment satisfy the high academic standard required for admittance, they should be tried out and trained in at least intermediate places in order that, by their mistakes and experience, they may learn as soon as possible to take their place in the highest positions of the Colonial Civil Service. I do not really mean that we should cast reflections on the quality and the devotion of civil servants. I feel it necessary to emphasise that because I myself have been repeatedly attacked in journals and elsewhere for from time to time criticising the policies which Colonial administrators have been pursuing. I am conscious of their devotion, but I claim the right to attack or to criticise the policies which they are called upon to administer.
  Do we really mean that we stand for a common civilisation for white and black as equals in Africa? A situation of great gravity is developing, and it calls for bolder treatment than it has so far received. What are we doing to resolve the racial and economic conflicts? In South Africa those conflicts are obvious enough but they are growing apace in Kenya and Rhodesia to-day. We have seen the creation of a number of new advisory and executive committees monopolised by whites. There has been
  2046
  an extension of political machinery in which Africans themselves have had very little place or say. There has been an alarming increase of the conventions of the colour bar and of the practice in many of our territories of racial discrimination. We cannot much longer palm Africans off with talk about parallelism and wink at segregation and land apportionment. We must formulate a positive policy in place of a week negative one. There must be a recognition of Africans' political rights and status. There must be a big drive in social services, in education and in economic development. We must associate the Africans in the administration of local government. We should nationalise the mineral resources of those areas. We should redistribute the land and there should be planned development of smaller industries. If we do not do these things the future will be black.
  I have said little about the desperate urgency of many social and economic matters in many areas, some as a result of the physical effects of the war, such as the grave problems of food in the West Indies and other places, of mal-nutrition in almost all parts of the Empire, of squalid housing which is a disgrace. And of our backwardness in education. On all these matters I have corresponded with the Colonial Minister during the past year. But what Russia has done, has spread among the educated Africans and in the West Indies. The urgent need now is for more community education, for an attack on mass-illiteracy, and for an immediate tackling of economic organisation and production so as to secure a higher standard of living. We must realise, too, the importance of planned control of economic development and exploitation of minerals. These are fundamental needs, and unless there is a new drive, a new inspiration and a new confidence I am afraid we shall prove to be too late.
  No one cart see how the Empire will emerge from this war. Some new political structure arising out of the alignments, in the Far East may occur. New developments in the West Indies due to our association with America may lead to new arrangements in regard to political and economic control. The influence of the Union of South Africa will probably be-felt in future over the whole of that continent in respect of political and economic developments. It is obvious that colonial areas must be better grouped. There must be some modifications of the kind of

  2047
  sovereignty to which some of the smaller territories hoped to advance. We have to reconcile the claims of self-government with the wider claims of world order. The frontiers of many of our colonies are artificial and contain no unity of tradition, culture and people. The people must go forward to enjoy real local autonomy and be increasingly employed in government administration. But this war is diminishing a great deal of sovereignty. Economic and military integration has gone and outstripped political organisation and development. The world has to be integrated somehow, but we can be certain that there will be no room in it for economic advantage and political domination based on conceptions of the old Imperialism. Nor will the white races enjoy that easy assumption of superiority which this war is making a mockery of.
  In West Africa a new constitutional development is taking place. It may be directed to meet the war situation rather than deal with matters arising in civil administration, but it is obvious that there must be a closer association of the British Colonies in West Africa and possibly a federation or closer union of all the regions in those parts. The problems of Africa are one. They are concerned with prevention of disease, with economic development, making of industries, cutting of Toads, conservation of land and so on. These problems cross frontiers and are one problem. They can be better tackled in these days now that distance is annihilated. There must however be more consultation with the peoples concerned in our planning. During the Under-Secretary's speech there was no reference anywhere to the fact that the peoples of the Colonies were entitled to a say. In all our planning they must be consulted. If we are to plan successfully it must be done with the peoples concerned. The Colonial services should offer the Colonial peoples bigger opportunities. Their local responsibilities should be made real, local government overhauled and the whole apparatus of government restudied. We should stop draining away the wealth of the territories and make paramount the welfare of the local peoples.
  More direction in Colonial policy is needed. I do not think that that direction can come by setting up a Colonial Development Board. I cannot elaborate my objections to that now. I do not want
  2048
  to see the responsibilities of the Secretary of State diminished in any way. I would prefer that the committee which was promised under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act should be made real and vital in the direction of the social and economic policy.
  Captain P. Macdonald: How does the hon. Gentleman expect to have any continuity of policy without some board which can assure it, in view of the fact that we have changing Ministers?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I think it would be fatal if the responsibility of the Government were undermined by the existence of a parallel board. The Government through the Secretary of State must be responsible to this House for Colonial policy, and I do not want to see that responsibility diminished. It is important that not only should there be a committee under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, not only should the Secretary of State be advised by the series of advisory committees which have been created, not only should there be a body such as that now presided over by Lord Hailey in respect of research, but also there should be set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee which could study Colonial matters and receive reports from the Colonial Office. It would enlighten Parliament and help Parliament to discharge the responsibilities about which it is so negligent to-day.
  I have spoken for my party in respect to our plans and policy. The war checks many opportunities of material advance, but at least we can in these days test the assumptions of policy in the tragedy of the present world disorder and prepare the way for that new order which will guarantee freedom from want and oppression and offer security to the weakest of the peoples of the earth.
  Sir Leonard Lyle: May I start by offering my very humble but nevertheless very sincere congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his advent to that office? I think that really it is we who should be congratulated, because with his great brain and his immense popularity we are fortunate in having him as a Minister, and the Colonial Empire will undoubtedly benefit from his great abilities. I should like to deal with an important part of our Colonial Empire, namely, the West Indies, a part of the Empire which embraces

  2049
  about 14,000 square miles and has a mixed population of somewhere about 3,000,000. I speak as one who is not afraid to proclaim his faith in the British Empire, who believes in the British Empire. I have an intense belief in the ideals of Empire as propounded by that great man Joseph Chamberlain. We have in the British Empire the instrument for the greatest good in all the world to-day. In helping us to obtain those things for which we are fighting, freedom and democracy, the British Empire is playing a great part, and I believe that it will be a decisive part; and in combination with the great democracy of the United States of America the British Empire will, I believe, be able to secure peace and security throughout the world. It is only through those two agencies that we shall be able to do so.
  We know to-day who are our friends and who are our false friends. We know that the British Empire stands with us to-day and will always stand with us in all trials and adversities. In the past, before the war, we heard people talking about the British Empire in a rather apologetic manner, as if it were something which might give offence to other Powers. I believe that to-day that opinion holds no weight with anybody. Everybody realises that it is only by uniting the peoples in the Empire that we shall have any prospects or hopes for the future. Therefore, I am one of those who are against any idea of splitting up this great heritage of ours or handing it over to a motley group of internationalists and theorists. That is the last thing we ought to do.
  We have heard a good deal during the past few years about the unsatisfactory conditions in some of the Caribbean Colonies, and without true knowledge of the facts or proper investigation of the facts certain people have jumped to the conclusion that they are the result of some sort of exploitation. A great bogy has been created in the minds of certain people and among the uninformed, the view that there is some band of extortionists in the Empire whose primary object in life is to exploit the natives, and the unsatisfactory conditions are often attributed to what are called vested interests. We have heard a good deal about vested interests from some of my hon. Friends opposite, and have also heard about vested interests from the Leader of the House. I wonder whether
  2050
  some of my hon. Friends know exactly what they mean by the words "vested interests." Is a de union a vested interest? It would be interesting to know from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he would regard the legal profession as a vested interest. However that may be, I believe that if some of my hon. Friends opposite were asked to paint a picture of a vested interest, the nearest thing they would get to typify it would be a banker in an old school tie. If, on the other hand, vested interests mean people who have their hearts and souls in the welfare of their country, their estates, their companies or their teams, I say vested interests are a very good thing, and I should like to preserve them.
  So much play has been made of vested interests that I have mentioned them in this House because I think that if that sort of thing is carried too far it undermines the co-operation between employers and employed in the Colonies and leads to a breaking down of the love and affection which exist between the Colonies and the Mother Country. It is a fact, as I am bound to admit, that until the beginning of this century very little progress had been made in the evolution of the West Indian Colonies, but during the ensuing years it will be agreed, I think, a good deal of progress has been made in many industries, particularly the sugar industry, which has always been the very backbone of the economic structure of the West Indian Colonies. If we examine the records of the industries in the West Indies, taking into account all the ups and downs of climate, the incidence of pests and diseases, the uncertainty of prices and the uncertainties of political policy, we find nothing, I think, which savours of exploitation. Rather will we marvel at the patience, the doggedness and the determination Of the British public in supporting those industries in spite of so many very lean years.
  I am among the first to admit that much remains to be done towards the improvement of labour and welfare conditions in the West Indies, but that should not blind us to the fact that a great deal has been done. Few people visiting the West Indies now would fail to be impressed with what private enterprise has accomplished, in spite of economic difficulties, even to the extent of underaking work that should have been done by the Government. I refer to such matters as rehousing, sanitation,

  2051
  clinics, hospitals and the general improvement of medical services. Is it not time that the Colonial Governments, with the backing of the British Government should cease to evade their responsibilities, particularly in the matter of rehousing? officials change very quickly in the Colonies, and it is hardly surprising that they do little to disturb the atmosphere of inertia which exists. The most pressing of all needs in the British West Indies is housing, particularly in the rural areas. Every other welfare need pales into insignificance compared with the need of housing, for without a decent family life in decent surroundings, it is impossible to obtain any improvement. All other education is fruitless.
  Recently, after several years of stalling, the Government in a certain Colony offered loans to the employers for the purpose of rehousing of labour. In my opinion that work should have been carried through by the Government, by means of planned villages. I cannot imagine a more primitive way of avoiding responsibility than that. Employers do house their own employees who work on the estates and who have to be near at hand. We feel that we have to do all we can to get them better houses, although the companies have little funds with which to do it. We have done a great deal of rehousing in that way. I think hon. Members will agree that the duty of general housing cannot be expected of employers, with the limited funds available in the industries in the Colonies to-day, beyond what I have described.
  I hoped that the Controller of West Indian welfare, who has now been in the West Indies for some considerable time, would have been able to produce something by this time in regard to this all-important question of rehousing, but I regret to say that, up to the present, there is very little to show. I should like to know from the Minister—from whom we all hope so much—what is causing the delay in proceeding with this essential welfare and housing work. It is very necessary, and many points have been made about it and it has been forcibly expressed by succeeding Commissions who have visited the Colonies. I do not think the reply can be entirely the want of material. I am safe in saying that housing materials in tropical countries are
  2052
  available without the necessity for much transportation. Housing schemes must go forward hand in hand with much greater development, and the means of that development will be forthcoming when there is a more contented labour force and a less vaccilating attitude by local governments.
  May I say a word now upon the question of trade unions? Employers in the West Indies have welcomed the advent of the trade unions, but the attempted introduction of them en bloc on the British system has been a mistake. There has never been that gradual development and evolution which are so desirable if they are to be established on healthy and sound lines, as has happened in this country. The introduction has been done rather without guidance and in a hurry, with the result that there are very many cases of irresponsible leadership. An attitude has been developed in those countries that the trade unions can provide benefit for the workers without corresponding responsibility of any kind.
  Mr. Riley: What does the hon. Member mean by responsibility as well as providing benefits?
  Sir L. Lyle: What we get from trade unions in this country is in most cases an honourable undertaking, and they do their best to see that those undertakings are carried out. That is because they have behind them a mass of labour, who have ideals of fairness and justice and who will keep them to their bargains.
  I would like to mention that there is a great need in the West Indies to encourage the production of food on a much greater scale for domestic consumption. It is nothing short of lamentable that, with the magnificent climate, and rich soil that exist in those countries, capable of growing almost anything, the people should be dependent so much upon imported tin fruit from America. It is only now, when the shipping position has become so acute and has forced the question upon our notice, that anything is being done about it or any remedial measures sought.
  Speaking generally of the West Indies, there is a great need for increasing employment, particularly having regard to the rapid increase in population. Therefore, in my opinion, secondary industries are necessary in addition to the staple industries of sugar and cocoa etc., and

  2053
  must be introduced and encouraged if necessary during their development by grants. I should like to mention a temporary but outstanding exception in the case of Trinidad, which will enable me to bring out another important point. Because of the construction of the United States base in Trinidad, about 20,000 agricultural labourers were taken from the fields, with the result that cultivation in the cocoa, sugar and citrus estates was very sadly neglected. Such agricultural workers as are left behind on the estates are people who, as one of my, Friends opposite has mentioned, work for approximately five hours a day, 4½days a week, in spite of the fact that agriculture means so much to the island and so much to them and their own living. It is not only a shortage of crops this year which will be caused by this transference and the failure of those who are left to work harder; it will affect the whole of the crops for several years to come. It is a situation fraught with great danger. When the United States bases are finished and those 20,000 agricultural labourers go back to agriculture for their jobs, they will find an agriculture whose capacity to employ them has very seriously diminished.
  Mr. Maxton: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the labourers he is speaking about who only work 25 hours a week—it seems to me a reasonable working week—are the same people who are working on the present developments, and are they doing a normal working week now?
  Sir L. Lyle: I do not think they are, but I will deal with that in my next point. I am speaking of agriculture; it does not apply to the factories, where they work much longer. The agricultural labourers in Trinidad are of East Indian origin, and they work just as long as is necessary to provide themselves with sustenance. All efforts to create interest in a higher standard of living achieved by working a greater number of hours have completely failed, and instead the increases which have taken place in agricultural wages—apart from those necessitated by the increase in the cost of living—have had the effect of reducing the number of hours being worked. I cannot tell the Committee what the cure for that is; it may be partly due to malnutrition, or partly that they have the idea that a
  2054
  certain standard is enough and if you give them more they are still satisfied with the minimum amount of money to keep them healthy and secure.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am very much interested in this point. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how this drain away from the fields to the bases is to be stopped? I take it that the people who are going to the bases are working longer hours and receiving a bigger income than is the case of-the workers in the fields; what proposal does the hon. Gentleman put to the Government to stop this draining away?
  Sir L. Lyle: I am afraid I cannot put any proposals to the Government; I am merely instancing the fact that agriculture there is losing its labour—and you can point the same moral over here, where there are many industries which have had to lose their workers because they have been taken away for other purposes. If there is not enough labour to go round, you cannot suddenly produce it from the clouds. I do not know what the solution is, but what I have said is an absolute fact. I was going on to say that in the West Indies we have many outstanding civil servants to whom we owe a tremendous lot, and while it is invidious to mention anyone by name, the name of Sir Arthur Richards, Governor of Jamaica, comes prominently to mind. But for the most part I think that the Colonial overseas service is clogged with precedent and bogged with red tape. I am sorry to have to say this, but I believe that to-day and in the post-war era action by Colonial Governments will require to be more speedy and positive. I think we can look forward to a better and happier future for the people of the West Indies if we can get what we all want to get, greater co-operation between employer and employee, and if at the same time there are less efforts by local Colonial Governments to avoid their great responsibilities and high duty.
  Mr. Maxton: I rise to take part in this Debate with a very great keenness, but I hope with a keenness which will not tempt me into too long imposing myself upon the good nature of the Committee.. I protested, at an earlier stage, about the time available for Colonial Debates being reduced by other matters, and I know that although there are not as many Members interested in

  2055
  this question in this House as I think there ought to be, those who are interested are very interested. If I look back over my time here, I feel qualms of conscience about the fact that after I have been in this House for 20 years the problem of the Colonial people is the same problem as it was when I entered the House. I have the feeling that when we want to start anew, in a new era, as apparently there is a desire in the House that we should, we should start in the House of Commons, by some change here at the centre, so that somewhat more frequently than once per annum or once in three years the Members of this House who are actively interested should get to grips with these problems and put into the common pool their ideas as to how they are to be handled.
  I associate myself very strongly with the view put forward by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) that there should be some Standing Parliamentary Committee. I feel that there has been a resistance to that idea by all Colonial Secretaries, to whatever party they may have belonged, but if we can have a standing Public Accounts Committee and a standing Estimates Committee, I cannot see what the overwhelming arguments are against a Colonial Committee unless each successive Colonial Secretary wishes to be a little personal dictator. I want the right hon. Member, who I know is a thinker and who has a mind that is not incapable of examining a position de novo, to consider whether this attitude of his predecessors, which I rather gather is being inherited and carried on by himself, should not be departed from as the first step towards getting a new life and a new vitality into the whole of the Colonial peoples and our relationships with them. There was an assumption running through his speech, that the Colonies will continue as an integral part of the British Empire, and that they will be ready and happy, as they have always been represented to us as being, to continue under direction from Westminster. I do not know. I would be very much surprised if that were the mood in which the Colonial people emerge from this war.
  I think it came as a shock to the tremendous masses of the people of this country to find that the natives of Malaya, of the Straits Settlements, and of Burma were not so completely enamoured of the
  2056
  glories of British rule as we had always been told they were. It was a shock to the people of Britain to discover that the native populations of these countries had not the enthusiasm for the maintenance of British rule in those parts, because the general impression of the people of this country is that while coloured peoples abroad have not got very high standards of life, they are not, after all, so badly off under the good old Union Jack, and that at any rate they all infinitely prefer to live under that domination than any other alternative they might meet. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear." I wonder if he is as easy about that to-day as he was six months ago.
  Sir Patrick Harmon: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but may I point out that the whole story of the attitude of the people of Burma towards the Japanese invasion has not been told, and I would suggest that he might wait until we know what the precise facts were of the attitude of these people in the struggle that has taken place?
  Mr. Maxton: Surely the hon. Member is not accusing me of putting the matter in too strong terms in the remarks I have made? I repeated some statements by prominent Conservative journals in this country.
  Sir P. Hannon: Surely we are still awaiting a complete report of what happened—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): We must get away from Burma, because Burma has nothing to do with the Vote which we are now dis-cussing.
  Mr. Maxton: I accept that, except that the essential psychological problem is apparently no different in the Colonial Dependencies from what it is in those of Dominion status. Surely in this free House I can make a very moderate suggestion as to the attitude of the populations there when important Conservative journals, with less information available to them at the time when they made the statements, indicated that both the natives of Malay and Burma refused to associate themselves with the Allied cause in this conflict in the way in which the people of this country believed they

  2057
  would. My hon. Friend, and I very well understand it—
  Captain Gammans: Might I ask if the hon. Member has had an opportunity of speaking to any single European who has come back from Malaya? Has he had an opportunity of hearing the wonderful stories of the devotion of the Malays, the Indians, and the Chinese in the Fighting Services and the Civil Defence services, or is he merely making these statements, which are very serious, on the basis of odd references in the Press?
  Mr. Maxton: I am making these statements on the basis of the information that was conveyed to the population of this country by the responsible daily journals of this country on which the people of this country are accustomed, to base their conclusions. Some of them were very outspoken, and they Were not journals belonging to my party, or representing the point of view for which I stand. We have been aware of this problem for a long time, and it was not such a shock to us as it seems to have been to the editors of the Conservative newspapers of this country. We have said all along that if you keep the people on a starvation level, if you keep them in subjection, if you refuse to give them a proper citizenship status in their own lands, you cannot expect them to rally around you and to perform deeds of prodigy out of enthusiasm for the British Raj. Let me say to my hon. Friend that I have had opportunities of conversation with two persons home from Singapore; and I would not dream of repeating their statements or describing their attitude in this House—again, they were not people of my own political outlook—because if I did so I should be accused of spreading despondency and alarm. I have never been in a British dependency, except Scotland. I have been in a French African Colony; I have been in the Dominion of South Africa—I have had some opportunities of seeing the condition of South Africans in the Union of South Africa, and I have had contact with the people who represent the natives in the South African Parliament—and I have met peoples who have played an active part in the direction and development of things in the Rhodesias—one of which I think I can talk about, and the other of which I cannot talk about on this Estimate, which is another evi-
  2058
  dence of the difficulty of dealing with these problems. It was a terrible shock to me to see the native location on the outskirts of a town in the Union of South Africa.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The Union of South Africa does not come under this Vote, but under the Dominions Office Vote.
  Mr. Maxton: I do not want to get into conflict with the Chair, but I do not think one is going far astray in attempting to get at the psychology of the native peoples, and in adducing, from things one has seen with one's own eyes, what may happen in similar conditions in places which one has not seen. When I hear of coloured agricultural workers being paid 5s. a month and a handful of mealies, and having to find their own houses, and when I meet a very old friend of mine—
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: Where is this?
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Member please not insist on trying to put me wrong with the Chair? But I could place this well within the range of the responsibilities of the Colonial Secretary. When I meet an old fellow student of mine, now holding a responsible position in the educational service, who has experience of teaching in native schools, Eurasian schools, coloured schools, and European schools, at all grades of education, and when he tells me, after close on 40 years' experience, that he can find no differences in the qualities of mind, making allowances for environmental conditions, for indifferent nutrition, and for primitive methods of living and of birth, or in the educability of white and coloured peoples, I wonder how we dare to insist on maintaining the coloured peoples at a lower economic level, a lower social level, and entirely out of the picture so far as political levels are concerned. It is a curious thing, sitting here, as I have done to-day, listening to practically every speech, with the majority of the speakers Conservatives, and well-disposed Conservatives—because there are some Conservatives who are not well disposed—
  Mr. Baxter: Oh no.
  Mr. Maxton: You do not know them, but I have met them. I was going to say that I find an extraordinary similarity between their attitude to-day towards our

  2059
  Colonial populations and what it was about a fortnight ago towards the miners. They have a great faith in the efficacy of saying kind things. If you just say nice things to the miners, you are rallying 750,000 to your battle cry with 100 per cent. enthusiasm, and if you say nice kind things to the coloured peoples of the British Empire you will rally 50,000,000 of them to your colours. That may be true, but in my view the black-faced man in the pit and the black-faced man in the Colonies have emerged beyond the stage where they are prepared to continue as inferior creatures. Will not this House of Commons and this Government make up their minds that they are not going to create a new facade of equality, either for the workers of this country or for the mass of the people in the Colonial Empire? You have to do the real thing: to establish conditions of genuine freedom, of genuine equality; you have genuinely to accept the full rights of man. Nothing" else is going to meet the needs of the age in which we are living. I associate myself again with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) in the view that this House can face up in a responsible way now to doing the right thing, because it is the right thing, or be compelled later on to surrender to an uprising of force, which would create a situation in this world that intelligent people do not wish to see and do not contemplate with any pleasure. But do not try to cheat yourselves and the people who have laboured under domination. Do not imagine that you will be able to keep back part of the price. You have to do the job thoroughly, genuinely and honestly and recognise these people as equal human beings with yourself.
  Sir P. Hannon: This is a very important matter. We are all interested in the development, expansion, equality and liberty of the Colonial Empire, and will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what is the right thing to do?
  Mr. Maxton: I have said, as my practical proposal, that the right thing to do, to start with, is to devise ways and means by which those who are keenly interested in this affair in this House should have a day-to-day and week-to-week opportunity of getting their minds working on the problem. That is the first proposition. Hoping that such steps will be
  2060
  taken, I do not want to start prejudicing the position by making a 100 per cent. demand for the improvements one wants. The first thing you have to do is to restore complete freedom to all Colonial peoples, and the right to govern themselves—
  Sir P. Hannon: They have it already.
  Mr. Maxton:—and the right for them to decide to what extent they want our aid. It is not for us to decide how much they need our aid, but for them to decide how much they want our aid. I want to say in conclusion, and the hon. Member referred to it, that during this struggle, along with the United States of America, Russia, China, the Dominions and with a number at least of Governments, of occupied European countries, I hope the British Government are not going to assume that when peace comes, as I presume it is bound to come some day, there will not be a whole lot of rearrangement and readjustment in the world and that every nation's possessions is not going to come under review. I interrupted the hon. Gentleman when he was making his speech because he seemed to suggest that the Government had already made up their minds, that, whatever territorial readjustments and reallocations of population there might be after the war, the present British Empire was going to remain the present British Empire.
  Sir P. Hannon: Please God. That is my complete conviction.
  Mr. Maxton: If you are to re-draw the map of the world and if you are honest with your Allies, you cannot start by saying that there is to be no change in the red bits. I would like to see a United States of Africa, for instance, run and controlled by Africans, the natives of the soil, but, if the white races, are to come into it and have a say as to how the wealth of that great continent is to be developed and how the people are to be directed, I would like to see the United States of America have a part in it as well as Great Britain. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says they are in Liberia. It is true that they have an establishment in Liberia. I understand they are in Eritrea now, and on the extreme West Coast of Africa, on the invitation of the British Government, and I understand from the hon. Gentleman that they have certain key positions in the West Indies. Are we in á position to say to them that the moving day is to be Tuesday week? I do not

  2061
  think that that should be the relationship. I believe that America could teach us some things about the handling of Colonial peoples, and I have not the faintest doubt that we can teach the Americans some things about the handling of Colonial peoples, and I am more certain still that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics can teach both of us some things about the handling of Colonial peoples. I am certain that the great Chinese nation might have something very useful to contribute towards the future development of South Africa, and, honestly, I think that the amalgamation of British character, of Russian, Chinese and American, could produce infinitely better results for the future of the world than anything that has been done during the centuries by our Colonial Office, receiving its inspiration and impetus from this House of Commons.
  The one body of people that I would like to meet are the agricultural labourers referred to by an hon. Member opposite, the men who have reached to that high pitch of intelligence when they say that "25 hours a week is our working week. We know that we could get more material things if we worked more, but we do not want more material things. We are satisfied with little, and we want our freedom for the major proportion of our working lives." My hon. Friend will realise and recollect that that was the basic philosophy of many of the greatest philosophers that the world has so far produced.
  Sir L. Lyle rose—
  The Deputy-Chairman: Colonel Wick-ham.
  Mr. Maxton: But—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I thought the hon. Member sat down. I hope hon. Members will not interrupt, as it only tends to lengthen the speeches.
  Mr. Maxton: I have been interrupted on one or two occasions, and I hope it will not become the practice. I was saying that it may be that we, the civilised people of the world, who have, during the last century, acquired material possessions and built up great resources of material wealth, are on a lower level of intelligence than those whom we are inclined to regard as the more primitive and who place material possessions on their proper level and have other things as their main objectives in life.
  Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: I hope the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will not think I was trying to cut in and I hope he will forgive me if I do not pursue the different points he has raised, because there are other matters that I want to bring to the attention of the Committee. I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary on his fine speech and on the very effective way in which he traversed the vast field of Colonial administration. At the Ministry of Supply he had occasion to think big, to deal with vast units and to view problems in a wide perspective, and, if I may say so, he seems to have brought the same technique and wide vision with him to his new post. It would not surprise me to learn that the advent of the Noble Lord who is Colonial Secretary and my right hon. Friend to the Colonial Office may have caused some flutterings in that tranquil dovecote. It has been rather like introducing a Woolworth and a Selfridge into an old-fashioned emporium in a county town and I hope the House will encourage them to persevere in effecting a transformation from nineteenth century methods to those which are more in conformity with the needs of the day and necessities of to-morrow.
  It was with great satisfaction that I learned of the appointment of that outstanding personality, Lord Swinton, to a post in Central Africa analogous to that of the Minister of State in Cairo, and I want to pay my tribute to the unselfish patriotism which led him to undertake so onerous a task in these tropical regions. His primary duty, I presume, will be to co-ordinate civil and military needs and activities in that area. For example, recruitment of a large labour corps for military purposes might conflict with the development of raw materials of which the United Nations stand in vital need. In such a case it is essential that there should be someone in authority to go into things on the spot and take decisions or make representations, as the case may be. I would, however, like to ask my right hon. Friend whether Lord Swinton has been specially charged with looking into economic matters in that area, and, if so, whether he has been furnished with the requisite expert staff? I do not think it would be easy to find one locally, because I believe it is a fact that in the past, and through no fault of their own

  2063
  Colonial administrations have been singularly deficient in organisation for dealing with matters of commerce and trade.
  To-day, Central Africa assumes enormous importance as one of the few areas left to us from which we can to some extent replace losses of raw materials sustained through the conquests of the Japanese in the Far East I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that everything possible was being done to expand the supply of such materials as tin, bauxite, hematite and vegetable oils, which are capable of great expansion. But if this expansion is to take place, the labour problem is likely to be difficult and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend to have another look at the cotton piece goods position in Central Africa, because my information is that 14 out of 15 textile firms in this country are now liable to have their labour transferred to other industries more directly connected with the war effort and he may find that when it comes to the point, and more piece goods are required, they will not be forthcoming.
  The African peasant is a simple, primitive soul whose wants are relatively few. Apart from security and justice, he wants food, shelter, clothing and small luxuries and trinkets with which to delight and bedizen his womenfolk. Food is to be had in abundance. It is no great problem. A grass but can be built in an hour or two, but for clothing he-has to work and if it is not to be had, then our prestige in those areas will suffer. British prestige in these areas has been largely based on the fact that the inhabitants of our Colonies are better off than other African peoples. In time of war clothing in this region has a special significance as an incentive to Work. The hon. Member for Bridgeton expressed admiration for those who do not wish to work more than 25 hours a week. And it is a fact that the formidable climate and the great fecundity of his country make the native African indolent by nature. He does not understand ideologies, he cannot be spurred to intense physical effort either by a flaming hatred of Nazism or a passionate love for democracy. He needs a material incentive and I trust that my right hon. Friend will see that he gets that incentive in an adequate supply of cotton goods from which he can make sufficient clothing.
  2064
  There is another question I would like to ask my right hon. Friend. What machinery exists here to deal with recommendations coming from Lord Swinton? With any such proposals a number of Ministries will, I am certain, be concerned. It will be quite a common event for the Foreign Office, Colonial Office, the Ministries of Production, Supply and War Transport, the War Office and the Admiralty all to be, concerned. They will all have to be consulted and their consent obtained to whatever course of action may be proposed. How long will it take them? I have direct experience of certain Government Departments in India and a slight acquaintance with Ministries at home through my flittings from one to the other in the rather nebulous capacity of Parliamentary Private Secretary, and I can state categorically that a question in which several Ministries are concerned, and which has to go through the normal channels and be minuted on by clerks and deputy assistants and so forth, is likely to be decided in months rather than weeks. That is absolutely useless for present purposes. We must speed up the tempo, we must reach decisions in hours and days rather than weeks and months. Indeed, I wish it could be hours and minutes.
  I should like to call my right hon. Friend's attention to a Committee that was presided over at the start by my right hon. and gallant Friend who is now Minister of Aircraft Production. That Committee has superintended the despatch of supplies to Russia, and I believe it is agreed on all sides that it has done a remarkable job of work. It consists of representatives of the different Ministries concerned. All of them are picked men. They sit round a table, and each of them has a telephone directly connected with his Department. In this way, matters which in the normal way would take weeks to decide are decided in a few minutes. We are not living in normal times. We must get a move on. We cannot afford to go pottering along. We must try out new ideas, for otherwise the wretched position will persist in which the enemy seems always to be just one jump ahead. I know that my right hon. Friend is a "live wire." I believe he rings up his opposite numbers in the Ministries and gingers them up. I am sure that is all to the good, but it is a poor substitute for proper machinery. I

  2065
  hope the Noble Lord and my right hon. Friend will lose no time in making proposals designed to speed up decisions in matters relating to Central Africa, and also to bring about bold action on an appropriate scale. I make this purely war-time proposal without prejudice to the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) for a Colonial Development Board, a suggestion with which I entirely agree.
  To conclude, some of us who have spent the best years of life in outlying portions of the Empire sometimes feel a little sore when we hear the interpretation that is so commonly placed upon the terms "Imperialism" and "Imperialist," because we know that, as far as our own labours are concerned, those aspersions are untrue. Yesterday, I was talking to a former member of the Indian Civil Service, who retired just before the war. After the outbreak of war, he was comfortably installed in one of the new Ministries; they were glad to get him, for he was a very able man. Then he was invited to go out to West Africa, and he accepted the invitation with alacrity. He is now back, after spending two years in what was known as the White Man's Grave, and his health is shattered. He makes no complaint. He would go back again to-morrow if he could pass the doctor for he is imbued with the spirit of so many of our fellow countrymen who wherever they may be, however inhospitable their surroundings, keep on trying to create a little bit of old England, to reproduce something of the justice and freedom which we here have enjoyed so long that we sometimes forget their value and significance. We sometimes forget how hard that justice and that freedom are to win and how hard to keep. Despite apathy and prejudice, despite a lack of encouragement and inspiration from above, this spirit, the true spirit of our Empire, lives on to-day among a great many of our fellow-countrymen, and with this material to hand, and with the fresh, vigorous outlook, of which my right hon. Friend has given us a glimpse to-day, I believe our Colonial Empire will play a great and worthy part in rebuilding our shattered civilisation.
  Mr. Riley: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Taunton (Lieut.-Colonel Wickham) will excuse me if I do
  2066
  not follow the subject matter of his speech which, if I may say so without offence, did not strike a very responsive note in me. I want to ask the Minister to give us, when he replies, a little more positive information about what is being done as regards schemes of welfare and development, particularly in the West Indies. I would remind the Committee that for some years now the general position, economically, socially, and politically, in the West Indies has been one of considerable disturbance and, I will not say seething discontent, but standing discontent, dissatisfaction and frustration. I will recall briefly what happened in the years 1936, 1937 and 1938. The hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) told us, in perfect good faith, I am sure, of the efforts that have been made in the West Indian Colonies to improve the lot of the Colonial peoples. I want to pay a tribute to the great organisation with which the hon. Member is associated in the sugar industry in Jamaica. I have myself seen some of the evidence. The hon. Member's firm has done certain useful welfare work in the matter of housing, and so on. That I do not dispute. However, the fact remains that, a few years before the war began, there were throughout the whole of the West Indian Colonies widespread labour disputes, strikes, riots and disturbances. A number of people were killed, a large number injured, and many arrested and placed in custody.
  I shall not now probe in any detail into the reasons, but obviously something was wrong, and in the years 1937 and 1938 that revelation of discontent in the West Indian Colonies came to us as a shock, somewhat analogous to that which we have received in the last few days in another part of the world. As a result of those disturbances, a Royal Commission was appointed, in 1939, to go to the West Indies. The Commission was a very competent and authoritative one, consisting of Members of the House and Members of another place, and representatives of the Labour and Trades Union Movement in the country. After some six months or so of inquiries, the Commission made its report, which was issued in 1940. The Report painted a picture of extreme poverty, bad housing, widespread unemployment, low wages, and discontent. The result was that the Government of the day said that some kind of remedial

  2067
  measures would have to be applied. In 1940, there was passed the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, which provided that a very considerable organisation should be set up, on the basis of the recommendations of the Royal Commission's Report, with a Comptroller-General at its head, an Inspector-General of Agriculture, an adequate expert staff, and an adequate clerical staff. It provided that in 1940 the Commission should get to work to find a remedy, by development and welfare work, for the problems in the West Indian Colonies. I want the Minister to tell us what has actually been done, following the Report of the Royal Commission and the passing of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. Sir Frank Stockdale was appointed Chief Comptroller, and an annual sum of £5,500,000 was allocated for Colonial welfare and development, of which £1,000,000 per year was to be devoted to the West Indies to develop schemes to meet the situation.
  I will not range over all the Colonies, but will ask the Minister to tell us what has been done in the West Indies. Do not let the Minister forget that there has been British rule for 300 years in the West Indies, and that there has been an ample opportunity to introduce all the amenities of civilisation in the Jamaican and West Indian islands. He cannot slide away from the question in the case of the West Indian islands, by saying there has not been time for the Government to find solutions for their problems. The other day I asked the Minister how many schemes had been put into operation since 1940, and I received the usual evasive reply. I was told there were 80 schemes, and, when I asked how many of them had been put into operation, I received no reply. Let hon. Members remember that two years have gone by, and that £1,000,000 per year was at the disposal of Sir Frank Stockdale and his experts. A special sum of £350,000 was provided, apart from the annual grant, and £100,000 was voted for strengthening the organisation and staff. I understand from the latest information in Jamaican newspapers that no single scheme hasyet been put into operation, and that the money has not been spent.
  The total amount of money spent in the West Indian islands is rather short of
  2068
  £1,000,000. The further £1,000,000 which was provided has not been spent, in spite of the fact that the situation is critical. There is a food shortage in nearly all the West Indian islands. Imports have been stopped because of the war, and the prices of foodstuffs have increased. In spite of the fact that the climate and soil in Jamaica are ideal for growing almost anything, people are short of food and dissatisfied with their wages. I was interested to note that, in a rhetorical passage of the Minister's admirable speech, which was finely assembled, well-delivered and well-phrased, he said—I am paraphrasing his remarks—that the time had come not for mere statements, not for platitudes and not for decorative promises, but for action. I want the Minister to tell us what has been done in the West Indies.
  I wish to add my plea to something which was said by my hon. Friend the, Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). I hope the Minister will adopt the policy which, I think, is approved by Members on all sides of the House, of seeking to find remedies for our Colonial problems not by imposing outside control, but by using the talents and abilities of the native populations. I appeal to him, in connection with all the organisations he sets up for schemes of Colonial development and economic welfare, to look around and find people with ability on the spot. In Jamaica, Trinidad and British Guiana there are natives who have been efficiently educated and are as capable and as experienced as any Member of this House. If you go into a West Indian court, you may see a jet-black judge on the bench and a white man in the dock. That is evidence of the development that has taken place. When it comes to the official administration of the Government, coloured people are, as a rule, left out, whatever their qualifications. Nor can I recall any proposal being made that there should be a native coloured Governor.
  I am not saying that such a matter should be discussed entirely from the point of view of colour, but there it is. They are barred, however able they may be. It is the same with regard to the head men in the civil administration. It is the same in the case of the new Commission, with Sir Frank Stockdale as Chief Comptroller. I understand that not

  2069
  a single Jamaican or West Indian has been placed on that -Commission. That is contrary to the spirit and the desire of the country and the House. There is plenty of good will in the West Indian Colonies. There is no lack of sympathy towards us. There is a general enthusiasm for the British association and connection, but, if you are to retain it and harness it, and if it is not to be discouraged, you must give to those Colonies which are ripe for it, the right of responsible self-government.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I wish to ask a question of my right hon. Friend, and I hope he will acquit me of discourtesy if I am not here when he answers it. I hope to be, but I am at the mercy of a telephone message. The other day at Question Time we had explained to us the appointment of Lord Swinton. I wish to say nothing in any way critical of Lord Swinton or of the appointment. From all that I know and guess of West African conditions the appointment is necessary and, for all I know of Lord Swinton, I have feelings of public respect and some private gratitude to him. I ask these questions purely "because I think a constitutional development is happening in respect of this appointment which is perhaps not wholly definable but which should not be allowed to happen without its being analysed, at least by question, if not by answer, in the House. The Dominions Secretary, answering a Question on 17th June, said:
  "His appointment is thus administrative rather than political. … no constitutional change is entailed in the four Colonies, which will remain under their own Governors, who on all normal questions of Colonial administration will continue to act under the authority of the Secretary of Sate for the Colonies… The Minister will be of Cabinet rank but will not be a member of the War Cabinet."
  I do not quite know what Cabinet rank is unless it is part of a function and the function of a member of a Cabinet is to be invited to a particular sort of meeting. Therefore it appears a strange kind of paradox when we have Cabinet Ministers of whom the essential thing about the appointment of one of them is that he should stay on the banks of the Nile and of another that he should stay somewhere on the west side of tropical Africa. That is an anomaly and an illogicality which the House has already swallowed, but there is a new one added here. Besides the geographical incompatibility of the
  2070
  terms used there is now a new logical and political incompatibility, because whatever else Cabinet rank or Cabinet function may mean, surely the essence of it throughout has been that although it is administratively important it is political rather than administrative. That is the difference between a Cabinet Minister and a civil servant however elevated. It is also, to a rather less degree, the difference between a Cabinet Minister and a minor Minister. The proportion of politicality, so to speak, is higher in the case of a Cabinet Minister than in any other sort of person who controls administration. There is, therefore it seems to me, an incompatibility here which if it cannot be explained should-at least be indicated. Later in the same answer the Dominions Secretary said, "He will, of course. …" That is an odd use of "of course," because how anything can happen, "of course," in a situation ex hypothesi entirely novel, is extremely difficult to conceive. However, those are the words used. The Dominions Secretary said:
  "He will, of course, have the right to address any Minister direct, though when he does so his normal channel of communication will be through the Colonial Office."
  At this point I really begin to be baffled. We ought to inquire whether this means that the direct communications between Lord Swinton and other Ministers go in sealed packets through the Colonial Office—[Laughter.] I think that these are points of great practical importance as well as logical difficulty. If this is an attempt to co-ordinate and hasten administration, of which I entirely, approve, we must be sure that that is the probable effect. You do not necessarily make a horse go faster by putting a fifth leg on it, and if we are not to end up worse than we began, it is important that the matter should be as clear as it can be. Is Lord Swinton entitled to communicate directly with other Cabinet Ministers on matters which might, naturally, be supposed to be the business of the Colonial Secretary without his letters going through not merely the Colonial Office but the Colonial Secretary's desk and his inspection? The answer we were given the other day leaves that uncertain, and if His Majesty's Government do not know what they mean on that point they ought to make up their mind. If they do know we should be told. There were some supplementary Questions ending up with one

  2071
  from the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), who asked:
  "Does not this appointment fall into a new category of Cabinet Ministers whose dutes are administrative and not legislative …"
  I do not think I know what the hon. Member meant, but what he meant does not matter from my point of view. The Question finished with the words:
  "because apparently this Minister has no political responsibility to anyone? "
  The Dominions Secretary replied:
  "I do not think so. I think the position is analogous to that of the Minister of State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1942; cols. 1519–20, Vol. 380.]
  In what does the analogy consist? The word "analogous" was chosen by the person of the highest precedence in the Government but one, and the Government ought to explain in what the analogy consists, for as the supplementary answer stands it seems to me to throw darkness rather than light on the intention.
  I ventured upon the indulgence of the Committee merely to ask those questions. I hope I may be forgiven if I say one other thing. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is no longer here, but something he said ought, in my judgment, to find some rejoinder from this side of the Committee. He talked about the war ending the territorial lines that were in lawful existence at the beginning of the war, and he even seemed to assume that the United States Government or the Russian Government, or any other entity which has been on our side in the war, would have some right at the end to decide which portions of the Colonial Empire were to continue to be de jure under the British Crown and which not. My right hon. Friend who opened the Debate, by implication, repudiated any such suggestion, but I think that this ought to be repudiated in much stronger terms and much more clearly than has yet been done. If I may say so without arrogance or impertinence, it ought to be done also in other places than this House and by persons of greater importance than my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and even than his Noble Friend. It ought to be made clear by the most important persons in the Government.
  2072
  We have on the whole nothing to be ashamed of in the history of the British Empire and there has been a great deal of the most offensive rejoicings, almost, at the misfortunes which that Empire is now suffering, from a good many quarters. There has been a great deal of excessive defending of what needs no defence, but there is one thing for which no Government can be excused. The Government which fails to protect territories and populations for which it is responsible and which, having failed, sits down under that failure in any particular area and does not do everything at whatever cost, over whatever time and space, to see that that failure is reversed and repaired, can have no right to survive, and will have very little prospect of surviving. The time is long overdue to make it clear that we are conscious of our sins in that respect, that we are profoundly penitent for our failures to defend these territories and populations, and that we are absolutely determined to see that what this generation can do shall be done to ensure that such defects and deficiencies as those from which these territories have suffered shall not be a risk which any of them shall run again.
  Colonel Arthur Evans: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend in the examination which he made of the Questions and Answers in the House when Lord Swinton was appointed to his important post. He put those Questions with his usual charm. They are of great substance, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will find it convenient to enlighten the Committee when he comes to reply. It is a healthy measure of the interest which this House shows in Colonial affairs that it is necessary for the Government to suspend the Rule and allow a longer time for debate. Those of us who have been privileged to listen to the Debate from its inception can confirm the interest which is shown by Members of all parties in the problems with which my right hon. Friend has to deal. I rise particularly to address myself to some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). This day last week in a supplementary question referring to forced labour in Nigerian tin mines the hon. Gentleman, who condemned the proposal, said that "the regulations were a great shock to all progressive opinion in this country."

  2073
  The hon. Member dealt with that point again to-day. May I say, on behalf of my Conservative Friends, that we are not in favour of exploiting the native labour in any part of the Colonial Empire at any time, but with British citizens subject to complete regimentation I see no particular reason why the populations of our Colonies should be treated in any preferential fashion. I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his political agility, because it is an extraordinary thing that when he sits on the Government side of the House, privileged as he is to serve as Parliamentary Private "Secretary to the Minister of Labour, he finds himself able, and rightly so, to support his chief in any regulation which he introduces under the Essential Work Order for the compulsory transfer of labour here in Great Britain. Then after a swift flight across the House he charges the Colonial Secretary in the same Government with doing the same thing in a different way. That I think might invoke the jealousy of Mr. Spencer Tracey of America. His performance as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was nothing to be compared with the quick-change artistry of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Creech Jones: There is a profound difference between industrial conscription in a Colonial territory and industrial conscription in this country, and I am amazed at the obtuseness of the hon. and gallant Member in not seeing the fundamental difference. It consists of two things. The people of this country are responsible for their Government, and they can check the activities of the Minister of Labour, who himself is responsible to a democratic assembly. A Colony, on the other hand, has an alien Government imposing its will without consultation. It cannot be checked in its activities. The second difference is that in the case of industrial conscription in this country there are certain definite guarantees to the people, and conditions are laid down. In the case of industrial conscription or slavery in the Colonial Empire the regulations usually come afterwards, and we have to press for special inspection and proper regulation of wages.
  Colonel Evans: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I have never noticed that he has been inactive in bringing to the attention of this House the difficulties of native populations in the Empire when he thinks they have been wrongly
  2074
  treated, and in that safeguard alone we have a good measure of democracy in the Empire to-day. I do not want to spend too much time on the mental processes of the hon. Member, who is more of an authority on them than I am, but I should like to say in reply to the interruption that the Government of Malaya was blamed by Members in all parts of the House for not having at an earlier stage enrolled more men for defence and more men for production. I venture to think that we cannot blame Malaya on the one hand and in the same breath blame Nigeria for insisting on practical steps to increase the output of tin. The hon. Gentleman and the Committee as a whole know well how important tin is to our war effort in the production of munitions. In his opening speech my right hon. Friend drew our attention to the fact that we had lost 60 per cent. of the world's production of tin since war was declared, and no one will dispute that if we were deprived of that essential product in the manufacture of war materials, the prospects for us in the future would be very grim.
  But, after all, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, under Government regulations my right hon. Friend has full power to regulate the conditions of employment of these enforced workers, and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman was promised by my right hon. Friend only the other day that the Acting-Governor of Nigeria would further explore the possibilities of meeting the hon. Gentleman in his objections. I venture to suggest that it is in the interest of the workers themselves in Nigeria that there should not be any valid reason why they should not play their full part in the defence of the Empire. The hon. Gentleman referred to an article which appeared in "The Times" yesterday. Of course it was impossible for him to quote it in detail, but there is a part of that article which I think may interest the Committee, to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer:
  "The problem of military organisation, insistent in its impact under the stress of war, throws a revealing light on the practical clash between the concepts of trusteeship and partnership. The war has shown us the disastrous results of this attitude,"—
  That is, of course, the attitude of the trusteeship policy—
  "The non-participation of the Malayan people in the defence of their country was due not to hostility, not even to indifference, but to

  2075
  lack of military training. Where native forces had been raised and trained, as in West Africa, they have played a notable part in arduous fighting beyond the borders of their own land. The taking of a full share of responsibility for defence is implicit in the idea of partnership."
  The writer of the article then asks, "What is the attitude of the West Africans to the war?". and says:
  "The first misconception that West Africans have to remove from their minds is that this is a 'white man's war.'",
  He concludes:
  "Whatever our immediate or long-term aspirations may be, we stand little chance of translating them into deeds under any form of dictatorship."
  I think that even my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will at least agree with that. Passing to another point, I should like to deal with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary because, if I may say so in all sincerity, he displayed in that speech a realism and a refreshing breadth of thought in relation to our immediate and long-term policy that many other Government Departments would do well to follow. For far too long Governments have been prepared to let the inadequate Colonial machinery creak and groan under its own inefficiency, having had neither the courage, the imagination nor the drive to alter the state of affairs, and I think that, taken in all its broad aspects, the speech of my right hon. Friend, reflecting as it does the considered policy of his Noble Friend the Secretary of State, is a most happy augury for the future.
  I was particularly glad to hear him mention what is called the Colonial pool of officials. For many years now the Colonial Empire has laboured under a most unfortunate system which has denied to the poorer parts of it, the opportunity of using the services of our most trusted, well-trained and highly-paid officials, because they have been unable to meet the cost in their budgets, under the scheme of my right hon. Friend a pool will be formed in London, as I understand it. When it is decided that it is necessary in the interests of a particular; Colony that it should have the benefit of the services of a certain official well experienced in their own particular problems, they will not be faced with a financial difficulty, because the difference between the amount of his salary as borne on the Estimates of the island or Colony and the actual rate of
  2076
  his salary will be paid by the Colonial Office from either a special fund or from a direct grant from the Treasury. In that way I feel that we are making a real contribution to some of their difficulties.
  While I am on the question of officials, I would like to say that we must all agree that whatever the future of the British Colonial Empire after the war, it must have as its -basis political and economic considerations, and if we transfer an official, whether of a senior or lower grade, from one part of the Colonial Empire to another part without his spending some time here in London, at the heart of the Empire, at the hub of the universe, from our point of view, he will not be in a position to make that contribution to the economic and political problems of the Colony to which he is posted through being so much out of touch with current affairs. I should like to see some scheme considered by the Colonial Office under which, as far as it is possible, officers, before they are transferred from A to B, going to face problems in another part of the Empire which have no relation to those in the part of the Empire from which they have come, should spend some months at least in the Colonial Office. This would enable them to put themselves in practical touch not only with the economic and political trend of world affairs, but, indeed, with the feeling of Members of this House on political problems. Such an officer would then go out refreshed in mind and determined to see that everything possible was done for the Colony to which he had been appointed. I realise that there would be difficulties, because the number of officials under the Colonial Office in all parts of our Empire must greatly exceed the number of officials in London, and it might be necessary to have some system of duplication, but even so I am sure it would be to the interests of all concerned.
  I welcomed the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Taunton (Lieut.-Colonel Wickham), as, to my mind, he dealt with an aspect of the present situation which is of great importance. In connection with the appointment of Lord Swinton, he was referring, as I understood him, to all that that entailed in relation to the organisation of Colonial products and war supplies here in London. He pointed out that many Government Departments have officials

  2077
  stationed in various parts of the Empire dealing with their own particular problems and reporting back to their opposite numbers in their own Department in London; bat there is no co-ordinating body in existence capable of dealing with the problem as a whole. The official of the Ministry of War Transport has no idea of the interest of any other Department in, for instance, a place like Freetown. If the people in London who received these reports were members of a co-ordinating board, presided over by my right hon. Friend, I am certain that a lot of unnecessary overlapping would be prevented and would give to people interested in the products and manufactures of the Colonies a clear conception of the way in which the Colonies as a whole are playing such a gallant part in our fight to-day.
  I was not privileged to listen to all the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), who advocated the setting-up of a Colonial Development Board, but in various consultations which I have been privileged to have, I have become convinced that this is a right step. Since the last war especially, a number of committees have been set up to advise the Colonial Office and the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon a diversity of problems affecting all sorts of things, but some of those matters as well as some of the committees are obsolete. Some of the committees are overlapping and have never met. If they became sub-committees, really live sub-committees dealing with live problems and were composed of energetic and experienced young men—not aged pro-consuls—if I may use the same phrase as the Under-Secretary—I think they would form the foundation stone of a Colonial policy unaffected by successive Secretaries of State or the passage of Governments; representing, as they will in the future, various political parties. There were other questions to which I desired to address myself, but at this late hour I apologise to the Committee for imposing upon their patience for so long.
  Mr. John Dugdale: I do not wish to refer to economic matters but to two other points, the first of which is the social status of the population of the Colonial Empire. Many workers in the Colonial Empire would rather work for, shall I say, 6d. a day and be treated
  2078
  as human beings, than for is. a day and be treated as domestic animals. We have very often been far behind other countries in our treatment of Colonial peoples, from the social aspect of the matter. I would compare our treatment with that accorded to the people in the French Empire and, above all—in spite of the laughter that may come from the other side of the House—to the people in what I might refer to as the Russian Empire. There are large numbers of people of different races in Russia and among none of those peoples is there any sense of a colour bar. All are treated as equals. If we followed their example we might do much to improve our relations with our Colonial peoples.
  I would refer in particular to one class of Colonial people, those who are serving in the Forces. We have heard tributes paid to them for their valour and for the work that they are doing as Colonial troops. I hope that we may be certain in future that soldiers, sailors or airmen of coloured races will receive just as good treatment when they come to this country as is accorded to those who come from the Dominions. I am not sure that they receive that equality of treatment to-day. In-many cases they do; I know of the work that has been done in this respect particularly by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. George Hall). He did very good work and I hope that it will be continued. I am not so much concerned with what happens here, because colour prejudice, in this country is nothing like so great, fortunately, as it is in many of the Colonies themselves. I hope that the treatment afforded to the African soldiers and members of other Defence Services will be just as good in the streets of Nairobi and Colombo as in the streets of London. I hope that such African people will, in no case, be refused admission to any public place. I think it is true to say that there are public places, such as restaurants, cinemas and theatres in the capitals of the various colonies, to which natives are not admitted. I hope it is not true, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that it is not true. If it is true, that people are called upon to serve their country and are paid for doing so but are refused admission to places to which white people may go, it is a slur on our Colonial Empire which

  2079
  should be removed as rapidly as possible. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take steps to see that it is removed.
  My second point deals with the representation of natives of the Colonies in this country. The Debate to-day has shown that this House takes considerably more interest than has been usual in Colonial affairs, but we see here now and during the Debate, only a handful of Members present, although we have been discussing topics connected, not just with one industry such as we discuss so often in regard to our home affairs, but subjects connected with very many countries and with the entire life of those countries. Many of us feel it impossible to deal adequately with those subjects in such a short space of time as is available to us.
  One of the ways in which we can get a better understanding of Colonial peoples, in at least the larger Colonies, would be if each of them were able to send an accredited representative to this country, as High Commissioner or under any other title it might be desired to give him. This representative' would occupy the same position as a High Commissioner from the Dominions. I know there would be constitutional difficulties and I know that the Colonial Office might dislike to have people from various Colonies putting a spoke into their wheel, as it were, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can see his way to getting native representation in this country, at least for some of the larger Colonies, by the appointment in such cases of a High Commissioner or a gentleman of similar title. If this were done I feel that we-should have a better knowledge of native populations and what they are thinking and we should, perhaps, be less likely to be surprised, as many Members were, by the feeling that they discovered in Singapore and those other places which must not be mentioned but to which some hon. Members have referred. We found that the natives were sometimes not only apathetic but even took sides against our defending forces.
  If we had adequate native representation here we should be able to avoid such sudden surprises and the realisation that native people are thinking something entirely different from what we had imagined. I hope that we may have these two reforms: First a removal of
  2080
  the colour bar—a real removal, not just an economic removal but if I might use the expression a spiritual removal—and, secondly, an adequate representation of the Colonies here in this country. If those two steps are taken we may and that the next time the enemy tries to invade one of our Colonies they will meet not with the kind of reception they met with in Singapore, Malaya and other places, but with the kind of reception they would meet with if they set foot on these shores.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was interested in what was said by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) as to the representation of Colonial interests over here. There is only one suggestion I should like to make to him. Would it not be better to make that representation of a more fundamental nature than he proposed? I believe that the Colonial Office is perhaps better informed as regards native opinion and native labour conditions than it has ever been, as a result of the appointment of labour advisers to cover different Colonies, and I myself would go far further than that and would like to see some sort of representative body looking after and representing in this country the interests of different Colonial areas. I believe that if we approach this matter from the point of view of Colonial development we shall carry along with it the welfare of the natives as well.
  I, along with other hon. Members, would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what he said. It is, indeed, refreshing to feel that at last, and at very long last, this House has been given a breath of entirely fresh air on the problems of Colonial administration, and I should also like to support the appeal that has been made to him to consider something in the nature of a Colonial Development Board. I am not in the least narrow-minded as to the constitution of such a board or what its functions should be, but it seems to me that, with the history of slow development we have behind us we must look to some better form of machinery, if we want to accelerate the development which we see in front of us. It is unfortunate that it needs the manure of war to bring forward the new growth of interest in this country and in the world as regards Colonial development. It is unfortunate,

  2081
  but we need not regret it too much, so long as that development and the necessity for it is recognised fully in this House.
  I would like to turn to one particular block of Colonial Possessions which, I think, can in fact be considered as a definite block, and which I myself believe we ought to consider in this country as a particular block—I mean the African block. It is a great advance that Lord Swinton is going out to do what he has been appointed to do; but I am not at all happy about what will happen to his proposals when they come back to this country. There is, possibly, some confusion, not only as to the channels through which he should work, but also as to exactly how those channels themselves should work. I should like to see something in the nature of an opposite number to Lord Swinton in this country, having particular regard to African interests, starting if you like with West African interests and trying to develop that to include the interests of the African block as a whole.
  We have to look at this question of African development from the point of view of the immensely heavy expenditure in which we are bound to be involved. I believe that the House of Commons must blame itself very largely for the slowness of development, and that it should take fairly the criticisms which are frequently launched against the slow British development of Colonial Possessions as a whole. It is no use our turning round now and saying that Colonial administration has been so bad, that the Colonial Office has been so sleepy, or that the members of the Colonial service have not shown sufficient drive and energy, when, at the same time, we have not been prepared to go to our constituents and say, "If you want to see Colonial development, you will have to give up something which you want in this country and see that it is spent in the Colonies." I believe that that is an honest approach to the problem, and it is one which we must be prepared to make, not only in this Committee but outside in the country. By that means, we should be able to educate the people of this country in the value of the Colonial Possessions under the British flag.
  When we are considering development we have always to face the very difficult
  2082
  problem of whether developments should be carried out by private enterprise or, as the expenditure is bound to be very heavy, under State control, centralised through some authority in this country. I believe that it would be a great mistake if we were to over-generalise on that issue. There are certain Colonies in which, so vast are the enterprises which would have to be undertaken, it would obviously be essential to use public funds, and for the State itself to undertake those enterprises. As a general principle, however, I think it will be found that, on the whole, the larger developments of production which have been undertaken by private enterprise in the Colonies have been extremely successful. Where there have been failures in the different Colonies, it has not been so much because private enterprise, or what are loosely known as vested interests, have failed, as because there has been no co-ordination whatsoever between the production and development of one Colony and of another.
  Behind the entire picture of production and development lies the much more difficult problem of native labour. In the Colonies, that is the responsibility of His Majesty's Government and of this House and we must remember that fact in any criticisms we may launch against the Government in this respect. My right hon. Friend spoke of the unfortunate term "trustee" which has been used in respect of our approach to the native problem in every part of the world. I am very strongly in agreement with what he said. To my mind the very word "trustee" implies a "care and maintenance basis," which is completely foreign to any idea of development. Equally, I am not quite sure that I like the word "partner" pure and simple, unless it is coupled with the idea of parenthood. I believe that "parent-partner" is more likely to represent the true spirit in which we should approach Colonial and native problems than any other definition, because, after all, the parent should be proud that his offspring is able to take his place. He should be proud to see his offspring developing and becoming ever readier not merely to take over something and maintain it in exactly the same state as that in which he gets it, but to fake it over and eventually bring it to a higher stage than the parent himself has ever been able to achieve.
  Mr. Sorensen: Are we to infer that we must assume the African peoples to be children of British stock?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Not in the least; perhaps I was using those words in rather a loose way, but I think the Committee well understood what I meant. Again, I think that in this respect, when we are thinking of development and the native policy which must lie behind that development, we must do everything we can to avoid thinking along lines of development in the process of which too drastic changes have to occur at each stage of development. If development is to be sound, and based on good foundations, it must be steady, regular and progressive. To attempt to deal with native development by a series of jerks or unexpected leaps and bounds, as might be brought about if we had irresponsible changes of government, possibly in this country, would not only be dangerous but would do immense and long-standing damage to the whole of our prestige in all our Colonial Possessions. The basis of development of any native policy lies in education. When I say that, I do not mean, by any means, the concentration on book learning or an attempt to pump something in the nature of university education into minds which for generations have not had the background which fits them for such knowledge. We have to start from the very beginning in this question of education, and educate on the building of shelter, on the growing of food, on the fighting of pests and diseases, and the actual essentials of life, before we begin to reach the question of transmitting book knowledge to the native mind to-day. Because we begin now with Balbus, it does not imply any devaluation, of Einstein in the least, though. I think that native art has left Epstein some 200 or 300 years behind.
  So far that would appear to be a comparatively simple problem. Leaving the question of primary production for which that type of education and development is eminently fitted, you have the complication of the native entering into industry. The native now, with the improved cultivation which has been taught, knows quite well that he can leave his village and go. into industry, and that his village will not starve. He therefore has an opportunity to allow free play to that sense of adventure natural to him, and his general longing to wander about the
  2084
  face of the earth. For him, we should remember, there are in fact' no boundaries and no frontiers, speaking in terms of Africa. Therefore we get this heavy flood of native labour wishing and desiring to go into industry either. in the mining centres or in the ordinary towns and industrial centres possibly nearer its own natural home. Here again we have to face the very hard facts. I believe that we should consider very carefully the revaluing of native labour. I do not say that for any sentimental reason whatever but for very practical reasons, because unless we can encourage the native, the African native in particular, to rise to greater degrees of skill, and let those greater degrees of skill carry with them a reasonably higher reward, we are not encouraging him to undertake growing responsibilities, which is the only method" of training him to take his part properly in any form of government, however local. We should revalue and examine our ideas as to the worth of native labour in all these degrees of skill.
  Then on top of that there is another problem. Should we encourage, or should we not encourage, the native industrial population? At the present time short-term industrial employment of natives is undoubtedly having a serious effect on the structure of native life. It is, to my mind, damaging it considerably. The question is whether the prestige of chiefs or headmen, on whom we depend to convey British authority in his district—whether the authority of our agents, if I may call it that using the words crudely—is undermined by the fact that natives coming back from industry carry with them greater possessions than are in the hands of chiefs. If we are to use this system of modified and developed indirect rule or indirect control, we must make quite sure that those who are carrying out that system, such as the chiefs, carry with them that prestige and standing with which we would like to see them vested if they are to carry out their duties properly. There is no possible doubt, to my mind, that the system of indirect control and rule as it has been developed supplies the framework for practically unlimited development of the native system if it is fairly used, but I think that we have to remember that the local native government implicit in that system is the structure, and that the British and European advice and control is the scaffolding.

  2085
  Every structure needs its scaffolding at different stages, and in its early stages the amount of scaffolding and the number of men on it are very considerable indeed. But those working on that scaffolding have to be responsible for seeing that the work on the structure and in the structure is sound. If unsound patches are found, the work has to be pulled down again. I believe that from our scaffolding we see that some very unsound patches of work have been done in the past, for which I do not blame any Governments. I certainly would not blame individuals in the Colonial Service. I would blame the whole of the point of view of the whole of the people of this country as regards responsibility in that matter. It is not a weakness in our make-up. I think that it is the fact that we are divided from those parts of the earth by vast distances and that it is difficult to be able to visualise the problems with which we are faced.
  To sum up, I would say that the weak-nesses of our Colonial development lie under four or five heads. As a result of the employment of natives in industry we find the position that the native returning from industrial life tends to undermine local authority, on which the whole system of indirect control or rule depends, and that it is therefore necessary to revise that part of the structure of indirect control. Secondly, I should say that the failure to popularise education among African women is at the root of most of the trouble remaining in the African Colonies. Next, I would say we have to overcome the desire on the part of some people to concentrate too much on book learning in education, which, when it is coupled with a rather stagnant policy regarding the employment and earnings of African labour, has given a false value to the standing of the clerk in the life of the community. In fact, you get among the educated portion of Africans perhaps a higher percentage of clerks than it is right that there should be. It is right that we should teach the maintenance and development of the growth and export of native crops, but we have not developed a system of transport sufficiently rapidly to enable those crops to be moved between district and district in Africa.
  Finally, there is the lack of effort to achieve agreement oh the progressive development of policy as between British
  2086
  Colonies, and also as between British Colonies and French, Belgian and Portuguese Colonial Possessions. That is responsible for some of the economic factors with which we have been faced. It seems to me most deplorable—or it has seemed most deplorable in the past; I believe me right hon. Friend is doing his best to cure it—that, as regards native policy, transport development, economic development and so on, our Colonies have had very little contact with neighbouring Colonial Possessions; not only our own but other people's. We have an immense lot to learn from others, and I believe that they have an immense lot to learn from us. Unless we are in close contact with them, we shall not learn from each other. The criticisms I put forward are made not against a background of shame for what we have done in the British Empire, but rather against a background of pride that so many men, from my own country of Scotland in particular, have been ready to spend the whole of their lives in building up this structure, frequently in unhealthy surroundings, and without one word of thanks from an ungrateful people.
  Dr. Morgan: I have been lucky enough to be called upon to speak, and I only hope that the want of lunch and tea will not make me unable to continue the Debate. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) and some of the previous speakers, in throwing bouquets to the Colonial Office. I propose, if possible, to speak the truth. I know that that would not increase my reputation with the Colonial Office and its officials, because anyone who criticises them in any way is always stigmatised as a Bolshevist and an extremist; it is not only Berlin and Vichy who use those disparaging terms in speaking of their opponents. But let that pass. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare spoke of trusteeship. That is a good word. To me, it implies a guardianship and supervision of people under our care until those people can stand on their own feet. In the West Indies, it implies such guardianship until the time when the West Indies, I hope, become a Federated Dominion. The hon. Member threw the blame for what has happened on the electorate. I do not believe that the electorate is to blame in any way. There has been a deliberate

  2087
  policy by the B.B.C., by the Press—a profit-making Press, run by vested interests—and by the Colonial Office, in support, to keep knowledge of Colonial affairs away from the British public. If the public have not the knowledge, how can they form a judgment?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing rose—
  Dr. Morgan: I have only 15 minutes, and I have been here all day, and I really cannot stand it any longer. It is very tedious indeed. There have been some queer speeches made to-day, even on our side. One of our Members actually said that the report of the West Indies Commission had been published. It has not. Only the recommendations of the Commission have been made public—for a very good reason. When that report is made public, it will give the British people a greater shock than they had over Malaya and elsewhere; and the conditions it deals with relate not to war-time but to peace-time. It reveals deplorable, disgraceful social and economic conditions.
  Take the case of venereal disease in Jamaica. I put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor asking whether it was not true that on one occasion two children of seven and eight years of age were receiving treatment for venereal disease, caused by an adult male, and whether that treatment was being given in an open dispensary, without their parents being present. I have the Question and the Answer here. It was admitted that the conditions were quite unsatisfactory, and it was stated that the late Secretary for the Colonies was communicating with the Governor. I have heard nothing since. No charge was made against the culprit, because it was pretended that nothing could be done. These children, except on the first visit, had to attend a dispensary where there was no segregation between male and female. That sort of thing makes me disgusted with the Colonial Office. It has nothing to do with politics, but only with ordinary decency. I have mentioned in a previous Debate the diseases that exist there, when you have a Colonial Development Fund which is recommended by the Royal Commission to spend £1,000,000 a year on welfare work. In spite of that, such conditions are permitted for the treatment of children who innocently have been infected
  2088
  in this way. Quite frankly, that ought to be stopped. When I have asked Questions about it, the right hon. Gentleman, who, no doubt, cannot know everything but who is advised by official who should know better, has always tried to give an evasive answer. I take my information from the" Colonial Office reports,
  I am going to refer to the St. Kitts sugar factory, because the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Colonel A Evans) said that he did not believe that there was exploitation of the native worker, while the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) said he did no know what a vested interest was. One hon Gentleman has mentioned the export of textiles. On the island of Barbados they cannot prosecute mothers, under the Compulsory Education Act, for not sending children to school, because it has beer proved in evidence before the Royal Commission that the mothers were too poor to buy clothes, and that the children were running about naked. The fathers were getting only is. a day, the same wages as they got in the time of slavery, l00 years ago. I put a Question down, and the right hon. Gentleman challenged my figures. My information is taken from the Stock' Exchange Year Book, from the actual reports of the company, and from a confidential report made for the Government. It is a confidential report which was submitted to me by one of the planters and his solicitor, so that I should know the facts, but which the hon. Gentleman said he will not accept. It is a report made to the Colonial Office. He will not accept these facts. St. Kitts is a very small island on which sugar is the one product. Six thousand people are directly involved in the sugar industry, and about 16,000 out of the 18,000 people on the island are indirectly connected with it. You have the interesting spectacle of an agricultural population having to live in the city because there is no land available on the large plantations to give them housing. I am taking these facts from Government reports, and they cannot be denied. They can be found in the report on malnutrition.
  Before 1910 the planters each had their small sugar mill, in which they could grind their sugar canes, but London London financiers came along. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, who does not

  2089
  know what a vested interest is, will be interested to know that London and local financiers got together and formed a company, which built a central sugar factory to deal with the sugar canes. This is a Colony which exports sugar and imports taxed food. The company was formed with a capital of £6,500 and issued A and B shares which have never been paid for but are regarded on the Stock Exchange as fully paid up. The A shares from the start got their share of profits, and they lent in debentures a sum of £130,000 at 5 per cent. They built a sugar factory and stipulated that its cost should be paid off in a certain number of years, and in 1925 the money was paid off, and they borrowed more money to build a railway round the island to bring the sugar cane to the factory, and the cost of that railway has already been paid. You talk about the Parisian gangsters, but this island is being sacrificed and throttled by the City financiers of this country. I do not want to get excited over this, and I want really to be peaceful. If the Colonial Office would realise the conditions which exist, they would want to do well, but they do not realise the position. Not many of the officials of the Colonial Office go out to the Colony. They do not see the conditions and talk with the local people. In 1925, when the debentures were paid off and when accumulated profits were due for distribution, the city financiers formed a holding company called the St. Kitts Sugar Factory, Ltd. They bought up all the A Is. shares and exchanged them into £2 shares, thus watering the capital 40 times. I have seen the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Since the day of the formation of the company, the A shareholders, the moneylenders to this island in order to throttle its agricultural economy, had never received less than 100 per cent. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to deny that. They have paid from 100 to 600 per cent. in a year, and, in the year in which they converted the company into a holding company, they paid 1,100 per cent., while the wages of the labourers remained at 1s. and 1s. 2d. per day.
  I went into this matter thoroughly. The planters wrote to me and came to see me and said that they had seen that I had asked Questions in the House of Commons, and that they had time and time again protested against the arrange-
  2090
  ments and would like to see some of the profits come to them so that they would be able to pay good wages, which they could not do because the London financiers prevented it. Many of these directors are directors of sugar factories in Trinidad, Barbados, British Guiana and so on. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, who is interested in sugar and ought to know, tells me that he does not know what a vested interest is. That is a vested interest. When a trade union was formed in 1938 or 1939 its secretary was threatened that if he did not withdraw his statement that present-day wages were to be compared with those paid in the days of slavery, he would find himself brought under the Defence Regulations. What can the people do in St. Kitts, which is a small island, to change this throttling system and get out of it? Will you submit this matter to arbitration, or will you allow this devilry, this quintessence of satanic finance, to continue, thus holding down the island and preventing the people from getting a chance? I do not know what the difference will be, but they are going to coordinate the officials of the West Indian Development Fund and local Governors. Suppose the officials of the West Indian Development Fund found the Governors do not want to do certain things about health, or domestic affairs, or agricultural wages, would there not, in that case, be a clash?
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth had no answer to the problem of what would happen to the labourers who left agriculture to go to the bases. I will give him the answer. If they will take their sugar estates and convert them into communal farms or run them on partnership lines, so that the workers get a decent wage, he will find that that is the answer and that they will come back to agriculture. I know that the question is a difficult one. I can pay tribute to many of the local officials and Governors. After all, I was under them. In my babyhood I had the free entrance to Government House in one of the islands. I pay tribute to men doing good work under very difficult conditions. Some are very good officials, and some are very bad. I am not blaming everybody. The responsibility is that of the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office passes the baby to the local Governors, and the local Governors pass it back to the Colonial Office. I have

  2091
  been out there, lived there and seen these things. I have not paid an occasional visit like some hon. Members, but I can speak of my own practical experience and knowledge. The Committee must forgive me if I get rather heated. I really love these people. I have been out there, and they asked me to go out and help them to prepare their evidence for the Royal Commission, and I regarded the invitation as their appreciation of my efforts. Let me give an instance. We are a naval nation. The West Indian Islands are very scattered. Why not federate them together? Why not have uniformity of laws and customs' and federated services, legal, medical, agricultural, economic and labour? Why keep the islands under the Imperial policy of "Divide and rule"? Why not keep them together? Why not federate some of the tinier islands? Surely that would be a good thing to do.
  Take the question of the Colonial nursing service. Disease is rampant. What are the Colonial Office doing towards the proper development, co-ordination and planning of a decent West Indian Colonial nursing service? What are they doing about that in the different islands as well as arranging for training of West Indian women recruits here? We have scholarships for men in the West Indies but no scholarships for girls. The scholastic attainments of a girl can be of the best, but the only scholarships are for boys, in the West Indies, who can come to Great Britain. There is only one district nurse in Barbados Island, which has a responsible Government and a population of 200,000 people and this one district nurse was appointed only in 1939. Nothing has been planned for a Colonial nursing system by which nurses trained in one island on a standardised course can go to another island and find the same standardisation. Each island is allowed to be a law unto itself as regards nursing services. This has hit even Governors hard, because sometimes they have been treated by nurses who are incompetent.
  Why is there no plan for decent training here, where there are facilities, equipment, knowledge and sister tutors? I wrote three years ago to the London County Council about such a scheme, but they never bothered. One or two hospitals have, but the L.C.C., with the necessary
  2092
  hospital facilities, cannot do it. Cannot the Colonial Office do that? Cannot they start devising a scheme for training nurses and bringing girls here from the West Indies? Cannot they include that in the West Indies Development Fund in order to alleviate suffering in the West Indies? Would that not be something to help West Indies nursing? At present there are local wards in many islands to which sisters from Great Britain go out as nurses. They remain as sisters, but the poor black woman, who has risen from the bottom, and has taken the responsibility of doing a sister's job, is never called "Sister." They are simply called "ward nurses." Their status depends upon their colour. Because one is a West Indian and black and the other is a European and white, one must be called a ward nurse and the other must be called a sister. I am sorry if I have been tempestuous, but I feel deeply on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman must excuse me.
  Although I feel deeply, I want to emphasise that certain Colonies are doing fine work. Since the riots in 1937 Trinidad has done absolutely wonderful work in housing, water supply, sanitation and other reforms. Trinidad is the richest Colony in the British Empire in relation to its size, because of its soil, and if it was amalgamated with the West Indies its revenue would be able to help the other islands, especially if you took the Income Tax from the oil dividends which come to this country and put it back into the Colony as part of the Development Fund. If you made that rich Colony pay for certain reforms, in poorer Colonies, you would be doing some good. If I have been hitting too hard, it is not because I do not appreciate the work which has been done; it is because I see work which is undone and which ought to be done. I hope that as time goes on the Welfare Department will be developed and that the right hon. Gentleman will do all he can to see that reforms will be carried out, that competent officers, who will be able to come to decisions and face the Colonial Office, will be appointed—men who, because they are on the spot, are prepared to back their own decisions, subject, of course, to the overriding considerations of British policy. I am grateful to have had this opportunity of addressing the Committee, and I thank Members for listening to me so patiently.
  Mr. Emmott: I trust the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) will excuse me if I do not follow him into the subjects on which he addressed the Committee, since I lack the detailed knowledge that would qualify me to do so. He spoke with obviously detailed personal knowledge of those subjects, and this I do not claim. But I make one remark, of a personal nature. He asked for the indulgence of the Committee if he had addressed it with too much heat and passion. I do not think he-need have asked for that indulgence, or have offered his apology, although it was gracious of him to do so. I cannot think that the Committee or this House ever resents passion when a Member speaks with deep convictions and strong feelings. Indeed, I often think there is too little passion and invective in oar discussions here.
  I would like to add my felicitations to those already offered to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary upon his appointment to his important office. That appointment has given me, personally, the same satisfaction that I am sure it has given to the whole Committee. I wish first to make some observations upon certain of the arguments used to-day by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). He said, by way of general comment on my right hon. Friend's speech, that the Under-Secretary seemed to be obtuse to the human problems involved in this subject. That was not my reaction, and I doubt whether it was the reaction of the Committee as a whole to the speech of my right hon. Friend. The general economic and political questions, but particularly the general economic questions, with which my right hon. Friend dealt, bear directly upon the human problems with which the hon. Member for Shipley was concerned. My reaction to my right hon. Friend's speech was that he was conscious throughout that the human problems underlie the economic and political questions, and that he realised that the solution of the human problems lies in the answer we must find to those general economic and political questions.
  The hon. Member for Shipley referred to the deep sense of frustration which, he said, the peoples of the Colonial Empire have in this war, and he said they feel that they have not been permitted to play their part in it. I think that feeling is not confined solely to the peoples of the
  2094
  Colonial Empire. Owing to the difficult nature of the war, and the course that it has taken, there is inevitably a sense of frustration felt by many people in the Colonial Empire, in the Dominions, and in this country, too. I do not think that this argument of the hon. Member was altogether fair, because it does not seem to me to constitute a fair criticism of Colonial administration.
  The hon. Member had a good deal to say about what he suggested should be the new relationship between the peoples of the Colonies and the other peoples of the Empire. He spoke a good deal about equality, fellowship and freedom. I cannot help thinking that these general political conceptions are not the things which are now of paramount interest to the minds of the people who inhabit the Colonial Empire. To-day, those peoples are, I think, much more concerned with economic than with political questions. These general political conceptions often derive from the political ideas that were predominant in this country in the last century, and I do not think they are now the questions which are of immediate practical and paramount importance to the peoples of the Colonies. The hon. Gentleman linked up all these phrases about equality and freedom with the issues of the war, and seemed to suggest that to the Colonial peoples those are the real issues of the war. I do not believe it. What was the origin and reason of this war? Germany was' determined to break up the States of Europe, one by one, by force and fraud, so to dominate the Continent of Europe, and then to have the British Empire at her mercy. The British Empire is fighting for its very existence and its life. As a matter of historical fact, that is the origin and reason of the war: and I believe this plain and simple truth is fully understood by the peoples of the Colonial Empire. The hon. Member spoke about a war of liberation. Liberation from what? Liberation from the menace of Germany: yes; liberation from the menace of defeat and destruction by Germany; liberation from a Germany determined to have the British Empire at her mercy and then to be able to destroy it—but liberation from nothing else. What is the value of this kind of general phrases? It seems to me they have no real application to the present situation, and I think that their tendency is mischievous and dangerous.

  2095
  I would like now to offer a few remarks on the economic part of this subject. The brutal necessities of war have compelled us to do the things which we ought to have done in peace. My right hon. Friend described his policy as the mobilisation of the resources of the; Colonial Empire for war purposes. The Committee, I think, entirely supports that policy. But what a pity that we did not embark upon that mobilisation of the resources of the Colonial Empire in the time of peace! What a pity we "had to wait for war before doing those things which ought to have been done long since. I suggest that the utmost development of the powers of production of the Colonial Empire should be a fundamental principle of policy. But we have not in the past pursued that principle with the determination and thoroughness that we ought. There has not been imaginative and vigorous, development of all the resources of the Empire. We have not, in a word, fully developed our estate. My right hon. Friend called upon the Committee to consider our Colonial estate as a whole, and suggested that that would be the line of policy to be pursued in the future. I entirely agree. We must consider the Colonial Empire as a whole, we must develop it as a whole, and do everything we can to secure and preserve its unity. It is not uninteresting to observe that in the past, so far as constitutional and political ideas are concerned, we have preserved the unity of the Colonial Empire. The general political and constitutional ideas which flowed forth from Whitehall and left their impress upon the Colonial Governments, naturally made not has worked against the principle of unity; in the Colonial Empire. But so far as economic ideas are concerned, this is not so. The predominant conception of laisser faire has produced the opposite result. It has worked against the principle of unity; it has produced an isolated and haphazard development of the separate British Colonies. And so, from the economic point of view, unity was lost, and it is that unity which to-day we have to recover.
  The right hon. Gentleman announced that, in his understanding, the policy of development must be regarded as a coherent whole; and with that I entirely agree. It is certain, and it is not the least important part of this subject, that the policy of development upon which,
  2096
  I hope, we are now fully embarked, requires investment of capital in the Colonial Empire. It requires large investment of capital. Is it not a measure of the insufficiency of the view we have taken in the past of the needs of the Colonial Empire in this regard, that so lately as 1929 Parliament considered as an adequate amount, under the heading of capital investment in the Colonies, the sum of £1,000,000 in a year?
  Mr. Riley: And we did not spend that amount.
  Mr. Emmott: The hon. Member is quite right. That was the upper limit. What were the objects which were set forth in the Colonial Development Act of 1929? They. included provision of agricultural machinery and improvement of methods of agricultural cultivation and marketing, transport and communications, harbours, fisheries, forestry, reclamation and irrigation of land, electricity, scientific research, and other things; and for all these objects £1,000,000 in a year was considered sufficient. It is a ludicrously inadequate provision.
  The Colonies are often small. They are often situated in tropical or semi-tropical latitudes; consequently they depend on one crop or a very few crops. They often lack manufacturing industry. Their economy is rudimentary. Therefore, they lack wealth. Their wealth was by no means the reason why the British acquired all their Colonies. From about the middle of the 17th century to about the beginning of the last century among the chief reasons, if not the first reason, why the British acquired their Colonies was the military one. The acquisition of Colonies, during that period in particular, was often merely an incident of the wars in which we were engaged, first with Spain, and then with France. So did Jamaica, the Windward and the Leeward Islands, Mauritius and Gibraltar, come into the British Colonial Empire. Wealth, then, was not always the reason for acquiring Colonies. To this day many remain poor, and for this reason they cannot bear the cost of necessary developments. But capital must be found. In the past it has not always been available, because the investment was not sufficiently attractive in the ordinary way.
  Dr. Morgan: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Emmott: If the hon. Member is surprised to hear that argument used by a Tory, I can assure him that he scores no point against me.
  Dr. Morgan: Would they like 1,100 per cent.?
  Mr. Emmott: I give an example from the Island of Cyprus. There is not, and there never has been in the island, a harbour capable of affording shelter to merchant ships in all weathers. But Cyprus needs such a harbour and always has needed it. The Government of Cyprus know this. But the harbour could not be made because, whenever the matter was agitated, the answer always given was that finance could not be provided. From the point of view of the private investor, that was a fair statement of the position. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in his treatment of this part of the subject. The large capital investment, which will be needed for the development of the Colonial Empire, may have to be provided in part by the State. But there will also be a field for the private investor. I entirely agree with the policy which the right hon. Gentleman enunciated on that part of the subject.
  The Committee were very glad to hear the story, abbreviated as it had to be, that he gave of the achievements of the Colonial Empire in this war. It is a fine story indeed, and one which deserves the grateful recognition of the House and the country. The peoples of the Colonial Empire have not hesitated to offer their lives. They have not stinted their treasure. To mention one example: The Island of Jamaica instituted the idea of the Spitfire fund, which has already produced no less than £15,000,000 sterling. There is an example of the most imaginative and useful initiative. Why have the peoples of the Colonial Empire done so much? The actions which stand to their credit are not the actions of unwilling subjects.' They are the actions of men and women inspired by the highest loyalty and patriotism. They are proud to be part of the British Empire: they are proud to be subjects of the King. I remember a saying made to me, during this war, by an African chief, with whom I was discussing the position of the British Empire in war, and the British Empire itself. He said of the King-Emperor, "In him is our trust, in him alone are our trust and reverence."
  2098
  That may stand as an expression of the patriotism and loyalty of the subjects of the King-Emperor. And they are determined to remain his subjects. Therefore, I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said on the question of trusteeship. I am not enamoured of that description of the relationship between Great Britain and the Colonial Empire. There is something dull and depressing in it. I think the conception of partnership, as interpreted by my right hon. Friend, is more attractive, and more true. The very expression "trusteeship," in itself, looks forward to the end of that relationship. But it is not to that prospect that the peoples of the Colonial Empire look forward. They desire to march forward, within the British Empire, to a more prosperous economic condition and to enjoy gradual political development. I believe that the fulfilment of that desire is contained in the methods and the policy described by my right hon. Friend in the eloquent and inspiring words which the Committee heard to-day.
  Mr. Sorensen: It was interesting and impressive to hear from the last speaker that the real cause of the war was apparently jealousy between. Germany and the British Empire. I am certain that Mr. Maisky will be very interested in that interpretation. Whether that is the exact interpretation or not, I would remind the Committee that a previous speaker on the other side of the House stated that many natives under our dominion were not interested in ideologies one way or the other. They could not be aroused into a state of indignation against the Nazis. They were interested in more primitive and simple things. That is true of some in the. Colonial Empire but not of others. It is not true of those in West Africa or the West Indies, because there, at least, you have African people, whether by descent or actual birth, having at least sufficient appreciation of the world situation to know that Hitlerism and Nazism stand for a Herrenvolk theory which would place them in a permanent position of being outcasts or untouchables. They have actually been described as ape-men.
  One can understand the more educated Africans realising, as much as many of us, that at least one aspect of this tremendous struggle is not a struggle between rival Empires—if it were merely that, many of them would take no interest

  2099
  in it—but a struggle between rival conceptions of life and humanity. I do not believe that the educated or intelligent African, whether in the West Indies, West Africa or elsewhere, would bother much about the present situation were it not that he believes, I think on the whole rightly, that he has a greater chance of fulfilling his real human destiny under the British flag than under the swastika. On the other hand, that has implications for ourselves. If we are glad, as we must be, that the African people perceive the iniquity of the Her-renvolk theory elaborated by the Nazis, it must follow that we ourselves must avoid falling into the same pernicious error. There have been one or two signs to-day that the assumption of the Herrenvolk theory is vicious when spoken by Hitler but quite attractive and justifiable when uttered by ourselves. Here is revealed the tremendous gulf between some in this House and others. There are those who believe that Imperialism, by its very essence, is right and true. I am sure that they are sincere and have high motives and wish to apply it beneficently. On the other hand, there are those who do not believe in the principle of Imperialism at all, who, while they recognise that it has its place, are also firmly convinced that the whole significance of human development lies in the development of man out of Imperialism to a stage, however remote it may be, of voluntary co-operation among free men.
  It may be that we shall not see it achieved for -many generations, but at least the difference between some Members and others lies here. Some hold that Imperialism is by its nature fundamental and must be preserved, while others believe that it is by its nature a thing of the past, the abolition of which we must accelerate as much as possible. I stand in the latter category, while completely recognising the earnestness of those who are opposed to that position. Whichever position we take has very widespread and comprehensive implications. It means, for instance, that our attitude to the education of the African peoples is determined very largely from what we believe to be their true position in the world. If we believe that those countries must be subordinate to the British Empire, we educate them accordingly. If we believe that they are to be hewers of wood and
  2100
  drawers of water, we do not give them any higher education than that which fits them for that function. If we believe that they have an inherent incapacity ever to achieve the status that we have achieved, again we treat them accordingly. We treat them with kindliness, try to raise their status and give them a measure of education but never even seek to give them ultimately the same privileges which we ourselves enjoy. For instance, we deny their right to contemplate at some time complete self-government, which may even mean ultimately secession from the British Empire. One can understand why with great earnestness a Member of the House has described the war as being a struggle between rival Imperialisms for the domination of the world. In that struggle of rival Imperialisms the British Empire is much superior to the Nazis, but it does not alter the fact that many of us disagree with both forms of Imperialism and disagree with the very conception of the permanent right of one section of the human race to dominate and exploit another.
  No one is so absurd as to imagine that we can jump rapidly from one stage to another. There will have to be stages of development. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to heap that endorsed on the other side. Again, there is a difference in just how far we are prepared to go along the road. Some of us say we are prepared ultimately to go right to the end of the road, while others say that they will go so far and no farther. I submit that when given the opportunity the African people, with certain exceptions, revealed in the course of a decade or two as much mental and cultural capacity as any European. That has been shown in America. When opportunity has been given to men of the calibre of Paul Robeson or the recent conductor of the London Philharmonic Orchestra, Ralph Dunbar, we find that those who are the descendants of the so-called savages of a few years ago revealed a capacity which enables them to take their stand as the equals of any white people. That is why many of us are opposed so resolutely not merely to Hitler's form of domination, but to any other form. We repudiate the idea that there is any kind of science which can support the spurious ethnology which

  2101
  seeks to establish one section of "the human race as permanent outcasts.
  On the other hand, it is possible to have some kind of working arrangement between those with the non-Imperialist outlook and those who have the Imperialist outlook. I hope that some such arrangement can be worked out by the Secretary of State. If it can, I urge upon the Under-Secretary, first that in regard to the Colonial Development Fund we should insist that not merely that part of the meagre sum which is set aside for Colonial development should be used, but that the whole of it should be used, and that if any portion is not used in one year, it should be allocated to the following year. There are tasks to be done in war-time as part of our function of vindicating democracy and of showing to the world that we are true trustees for the so-called backward peoples of the world. My second suggestion is that we should help to fortify the friendship which undoubtedly exists between the black peoples and ourselves by drawing up comprehensive plans of educational development. Something has been done, but much more needs to be done, not merely at one end of the scale. We have paid a good deal of attention to higher education. We all know of the Achemota College at that end of the scale, and a certain amount has been done in elementary education. I should like to see drawn up an educational charter for the Africans, and West Africans in particular, and, for the matter of that, the West Indies as well. It should be a charter capable of accelerated application according to the circumstances and one which can inspire the African peoples everywhere with a confidence that we recognise their inward dignity and capacity.
  Thirdly, I suggest that we should draw up a plan for a much more drastic development of our medical services. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) to the decline of the services in the West Indies. I would apply the same criticism to West Africa. It is appalling that, as far as I know, not one trained woman nurse in this country has been able to secure a position of sister or matron in any of the medical establishments of West Africa. If they are capable here of serving in London hospitals, if they have passed through their training and achieved undoubted
  2102
  qualifications, what is there to debar them from going back and becoming women of status and authority in the hospitals of West Africa?
  My fourth suggestion is this: Reference has been made to forced labour, and on some other occasion we ought to discuss it at a greater length. I am glad there was that lengthy interruption of a previous speaker by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), because there is all the difference in the world between conscription here, where we have responsible Government, and conscription in the Colonies. If enforced labour in the tin mines or farms of East or West Africa is necessary, let us see that the finest conditions that can be secured are granted to the people. Otherwise, we shall lay ourselves open to the charge that we are more eager to conscript them than to look after their well-being.
  Finally, I would urge that we should seriously consider drawing up a plan of constitutional and political development, not only in the West Indies, where a beginning has been made, though an abortive one, but in West Africa as well. I see no reason why within a measurable distance of time we cannot arrange for an increased number of purely African representatives in the various Legislatures, and ultimately for the whole of the personnel on the Legislatures to be of African origin. I do not see any reason why there should not be a progressive democratisation of all those forms of indirect rule which operate in West Africa.
  I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on occupying the position of Under-Secretary and on the very sensitive analysis of Colonial affairs that he gave. I hope he will appreciate throughout his term of office that while there are those in the House who endorse his enlightened Imperialism, there are those who do not accept the Imperialist principle, but who recognise nevertheless the difficulties under which we must work in the interim period. They want to raise the status of the Colonial natives everywhere so that when they become completely free they shall appreciate that whatever might have been our designs on them in the past—and they have not been entirely shameless—our designs now are to enable them to be raised higher in the social and economic level so that they may become nearer and nearer to their true destiny of equality with ourselves and others.
  Major Petherick: I am afraid that I cannot follow tile hon. Member in many of the sentiments to which he has given utterance in such a moderate manner. The Committee owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), to whose efforts is largely due the fact that the Government were able to find time for this Debate, which is long overdue. If my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can bear one more bouquet, may I offer it to him with my compliments? I do not think he has any reason to be ashamed of the course that the Debate has taken or by his contribution to it. I have been doubtful whether in his previous positions he had found his true anchorage. I think he has now, and I hope that in due course he will become Colonial Secretary, because the whole of the Colonial Empire would be indebted to him for the work he would do in that position. As the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) admitted, my right hon. Friend has shown and is showing an enlightened Imperialism of the best sort. I do not believe there are many Members in the Conservative party who would disagree with him in the views he has expressed and the general policy he proposes to carry out.
  I think it is admirable that there is in this country now a growing realisation of and interest in the Colonial Empire. For a long time far too few people took, an interest in Imperial affairs. That interest was largely confined to certain Members of Parliament, all too few of them, to the Colonial Services, of course, and to a number of people who had lived or were living in various Colonial territories. I believe that now, when we have lost, only temporarily, part of that Colonial Empire the people of this country are beginning to realise more and more not only the value of those Colonies as a part of the Empire but their economic value to us as well, and that sentiment and that interest must be fostered by every means in our power. Adversity very often brings understanding.
  I also think that party politics have done considerable harm to the development of our Colonial Empire. In previous days there were certain hon. Members of this House who held what were known as Little England views, and I am afraid that Imperial development was largely retarded by some of those who
  2104
  felt that it was almost indecent to be the parent country in a great Empire. Then, we have chopped and changed far too much in our broad lines of policy. In the old days, when we first either conquered or overran certain portions of the globe which subsequently became Colonies, there was too much tendency to treat them as farms and exploit them for what we could get out of them. There was another tendency, which went too far in another direction, vestiges of which we see now, in favour of methods of trusteeship which carried with it the conception that working undeveloped country in a colony with perhaps poor natural resources was a bad job anyhow and we had to let things go, pay up and look pleasant. My right hon. Friend has, I think, taken a balanced view between those two rather vicious extremes, and I hope the continuity policy will be maintained.
  Various hon. Members have referred to the education of the African and other peoples, and I think there is a rather regrettable tendency to look upon a curriculum which is suitable to, shall we say Bradford, as being equally suitable for Bo, in Nigeria. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston (Mr. Orr-Ewing) pointed out, what is needed is far more technical education, far more education in relation to pursuits on the land, to farming and so on, rather than that we should try to stuff people with a whole lot of book knowledge which at present they are often not capable of bearing. The hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) advocated or envisaged the immediate granting of full independence to a number of these Colonies regardless of the fact that it has taken 1,000 years to build up a political sense in this country. One cannot do that except over a very long period and by building up very slowly from the bottom.
  Mr. Sorensen: Has it taken so long for the Russian people to develop a totally new form of Government?
  Major Petherick: It is not necessarily a particularly good form of Government, but that is a question of the point of view. It has some good features. All the same, I think it will be a very long time before they have achieved what some of us look upon as a balanced view. Looking round Europe, one can see countries such as Germany and Italy which with their

  2105
  education and culture over a. period of many centuries should by all the canons be now politically capable of looking after their own affairs but which are in no wise capable of doing so.
  Dr. Morgan: Have not the United States done the right thing in Cuba and in the Philippines?
  Major Petherick: I think the policy there is one which remains to be proved. I am not at all sure that they have not gone rather too far there, as we should if we went as far as some of the hon. Members of the Committee wish us to go. I am not trying to be contentious, but I think we must go very cautiously in these matters. There are a number of points which I am going to leave out in order to get on to what I regard as more important matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston—I think it was he—referred to the value of the interchange of members of the Colonial Services and the Colonial Office. I do not feel wholly qualified to speak on that point, but there is much to be said for working along the lines of the Foreign Office since the war. The Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service have been merged, and there is an interchange of officials from the Foreign Office and those from the various capitals of the world. I know there are difficulties in the case of the Colonial Services and the Colonial Office, because one Service is pensionable and the other is, in the main, not. It would, no doubt, arouse difficulties between the Colonial Office and the various home Departments on the point of finance, but I believe much can be done in that direction, and I hope that it may be possible to merge the two organisations.
  I would make a brief reference to the appointment of Lord Swinton as Minister-in-Residence in West Africa. I am doubtful, certainly in peace-time, about having this system of perambulating proconsuls because you never quite know what the functions of such people are. They are not responsible to the House of Commons, although they may be members of the Cabinet. We shall have to be very careful after the war to see that the practice is not carried on. None the less, I can see the advantage at the present time of the appointment in this case of Lord Swinton, for whom I have the highest respect. So many Departments are involved in West Africa "that a clear-minded man who has had Government
  2106
  experience in high offices in the State might be able to get a lot done very quickly which could not be done through the ordinary channels.
  In the Dominions there is even less realisation and interest in the Colonial Empire than there is in Great Britain. I can see and appreciate the difficulties which have been put forward in the Dominions against the idea of setting up an Empire Parliament to deal with certain important affairs, but progress might be made in that direction. I can envisage the British Empire after the war as a great constellation of nations banded together, small and great, both for defence and for; work during times of peace, with a common strategy, a common foreign policy and, let us hope, a common economic policy—which is perhaps more difficult to obtain. It would be out of Order to do more than to refer in a passing sentence to the possibility of setting up after the war a combined strategical general staff and secretariat to deal with strategical affairs and a similar body in order to obtain a common policy in foreign affairs. I can refer to the advisability of setting up after the war something more than a Colonial Development Council which would deal entirely with economic affairs, an Imperial Colonial Council on which the Dominions, and ultimately the Colonies themselves, would be represented, in order to widen responsibility for the conduct of our Colonial affairs from Great Britain to. the Dominions and ultimately to the Colonies. I will not go into details, but I hope that the Government will consider the point. I do not wish for a reply now. I congratulate once again my right hon. Friend. I shall be most interested to hear his reply, and I hope that the policy which he has adumbrated to-day will, over a period of time, be brought to fruition.
  Dr. Haden Guest: I have felt all along that there was a lack of reality about this Debate. The note of being out of touch with realities was struck very forcibly indeed by the Under-Secretary when he opened the Debate. It reminded me of the story told me by a Colonial Governor on one of his periodical leaves. He came to London and had, of course, to report to one of the Departmental heads at the Colonial Office. He said that the conversation ranged for about ten minutes over matters connected with his duties, and, then the

  2107
  gentleman whom he was interviewing said, "Well, So-and-So "—he mentioned his name, but I will not give it, because he is a very well-known Governor indeed—" we are having awfully wet weather, aren't we?" And that was the only conversation he had with the Colonial Office on the administration of one of the greatest Colonies in the whole of the British Empire.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us—and we sympathise with him—that he was handicapped by having had a very short tenure of office, We know, of course, that Colonial affairs are not a matter in which he has specialised, and therefore he was obliged to take a brief from the Colonial Office. We sympathise with him for having been given what is, in fact, a very bad brief, I would like to ask, because I want to make this Debate practical, what effect his speech is likely to have in the Colonies. What practical matters does it deal with? In the course of his statement the right hon. Gentleman said something about the Colonies being partners. I was very interested to hear that, because so far as I know it has not yet been the policy of the Government to admit the Colonies on terms of equal partnership. As soon as I got up and asked him what he meant, he replied that I had no doubt heard of partners and junior partners. I should like to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman does mean. Is it now the policy of the Government, and is he proclaiming it here to-day, that the Colonies are in fact to be taken into equal partnership, or is it just a form of words, soft soap or soothing syrup, which means nothing? What does "partnership" mean? It either means a share in control, economic and political—and I hold that the Colonies ought to have an equal share—or it means nothing at all and is just a form of words.
  Then I should like to get down to the war situation, from which, if I may say so, this Debate has been singularly remote. References have been made to Malaya, Singapore and Burma. I should like to ask a question with reference to Africa—East Africa, Central Africa and West Africa. We know as a matter of fact that the people of Malaya were not intensely and passionately interested in the conflict between our Forces and those of the Japanese. "The Times" and
  2108
  other papers drew attention to that at the moment, and in fact I think the article in "The Times" dealing with that question will in future become a classic exposure of the failure of our Imperialist policy and, from the point of view of the historian, will be a very valuable document, because undoubtedly the indigenous population of Malaya sat on the sidelines during this fight and did not participate. They did so because they had not been approached; because we had not our roots in the country—I think that was the phrase used in "The Times"—and because we had been using the place merely to exploit its natural resources, to get enormous sums of money out of it for people in this country, a very small proportion of which was ever returned to Malaya itself.
  In the light of that very severe lesson—and it is not the only lesson we have had in the conduct of Imperial affairs during the war—I want to ask what attempt is being made at the present time to get into contact with the different peoples in East, Central and West Africa in order to explain to them that we really are fighting for democracy and freedom for them; that we really are, if what the right hon. Gentleman said is true and if he backs it up in his reply to me, fighting to give them a partnership in the British Empire. What steps have been or are being taken to get into touch with these people, to see that they understand what the war is about and to ensure that, if there is an invasion of those parts of the world by German or Italian forces—as there may be—they will not stand indifferent on the sidelines but will take part on our side? [An HON. MEMBER: "They have already."] They have already, of course, to a limited extent. I am very well aware of that. But I am assured of this by Africans who have come from Africa only recently, one of whom is a man doing some very excellent work at Nuffield College. He said, "Do not blame my people if they do not take any part on the side of the British if there is an invasion. They do not know anything about it at all." Why should they know? They have not been approached.
  I confess that I am by no means filled with enthusiasm with regard to the appointment of Lord Swinton. In fact, I cannot understand at all why he was appointed, I cannot see how, in his

  2109
  experience or personality, he is the man to do the job. In fact, and I am making a concrete suggestion, why was the Governor of Nigeria, Sir Bernard Bourdillon, who has been Chairman of the Governors' Conference of West Africa, not asked to be our representative in West Africa? He is a man of enormous experience and gets on extremely well with the African people, but above all he knows and understands the situation, of which Lord Swinton has no knowledge at all. The fact that Lord Swinton is wealthy and a friend of the Prime Minister may recommend him to official sources, but it does not recommend him to this side of the House, and I doubt whether it will recommend him to the country. I think that the appointment of Lord Swinton requires explanation and justification. I do not think he is at all a suitable man for the job. I do not think there is any doubt about the meaning of my words. I mean exactly what they imply.
  I wish to ask another question with regard to the approach to the African people, about which not a word—and it is an important and practical matter—came from the right hon. Gentleman in that extremely academic and old-fashioned statement that he made.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Why academic?
  Dr. Guest: Academic in the bad sense. I agree that I ought not to abuse the word. I withdraw it. I will say that his extremely old-fashioned statement did not really deal with any actualities. For instance, how far is broadcasting being used to convey information to the African peoples? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows—his Department may not have informed him—that in the Gold Coast colony there is a system of relay broadcasting that goes all over the Colony which is extremely valuable. How far is that being used to give information to the African people, and how far is it being imitated in other parts of West Africa? I am speaking chiefly about West Africa, because I spent some four months of investigation in that area just before the war, and I feel that I know something about it from a fairly intimate contact in that way. Lord Swinton has been appointed as a representative of the purely financial and Imperial interest of the old-fashioned type. Why has there not been any appointment since this war of any Governor belonging to the Labour
  2110
  party, or anyone belonging to more than the most obscure part of the Conservative party? There are men on these benches who take, and have, over a long period, taken, an intense interest in the welfare of the inhabitants of the Colonial Empire. Why should not some of those have been appointed as Governors? It is true they are Socialists, but I hope that at this stage in the war and in coalition government we are not to have objection taken to a man because of his Socialist opinions.
  With regard to the maladministration of the Colonies so far as it exists, I do not blame the Colonial Civil Service. I believe that they are men, those I have met in West Africa and many other parts of the world, of an extremely high type. What is wrong is the direction of their administration from the Colonial Office at the top by some high and dry officials over here who have probably not been out of this country, and some of the holders of the Government office who, like the right hon. Gentleman, are put into these appointments without any adequate preparation or understanding of the important nature of the work they have to do.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about preparing plans for after the war. What are they? The only one he mentioned which I was able to get down was for Africans and other Colonial peoples to be moved very rapidly over the gulf from their present position—sometimes that of a subsistence level—to a new condition, which, if I understood him aright, was industrialisation. That is an extremely dangerous programme unless the movement is to be under the direction of people whose primary care is for the welfare of the Colonial peoples themselves, and not for what is sometimes called development, and what is really the exploitation of the country under alien capitalists. The right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Imperialism of Joseph Chamberlain. Joseph Chamberlain himself described his Imperialism as "commercial Imperialism." I was unable to find in the right hon. Gentleman's speech any ideas which might not be attributed to commercial Imperialism, which is at least two generations out of date. Joseph Chamberlain was a man for whose work I had, in his own time, the greatest admiration, because he had to break ground, and he had to speak in the language and to live

  2111
  in the circumstances of his day. I am convinced that if he were here to-day, he would not be found giving utterances to such platitudes as those with which the right hon. Gentleman has kept the attention of the Committee.
  It is true that development of the Colonial areas of the world is required; but from what point of view? Development is required for the benefit of the Colonial areas themselves. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the poverty of the Colonial areas; but he forgot to include in their resources the gold mines, the diamond mines, and the other mines, for which concessions have been given to investors, and out of which nearly the whole of the wealth is drained from the Colonies in which the mines are situated, as dividends and as taxation in this country on those dividends. If the mines and the other natural resources of these Colonial areas were developed and used for the benefit of the people living in those areas, and for the benefit of the Colonies in general, and for the world community in general—I do not hesitate to use those words—it would make this difference: that, instead of describing those areas as poor, the right hon. Gentleman would find that those areas had all the resources which were necessary for developing themselves further, on the line of industrialisation, which he speaks of as being desirable, and which is desirable, if done with regard for the welfare of the people. It would also provide education and health and other social services, which every kind of civilisation requires.
  I am very disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's statement. We are at a very critical stage of the war, when it is more than ever necessary to attract to our banner all those who will fight on our side. The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech which, wherever it goes in the Colonies, may excite faint interest—even a lively interest among those with capital to invest—but which cannot attract the broad masses of the Colonial populations to rise up and fight at our side. You are offering nothing but a vague participation in a financial arrangement out of which those people will get perhaps one-twentieth per cent.,' while the investors whom your policy will favour will get the balance. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P.
  2112
  Macdonald), who spoke about the Colonial Development Board, was very interesting as an example of that type of thought. There was no mention in his speech of the peoples themselves. He made no mention—
  Captain P. Macdonald: If the hon. Member will read my speech to-morrow, he will see that he is quite wrong.
  Dr. Guest: The hon. and gallant Member had better wait until I complete my sentence. He made no mention of the representation of the Colonial peoples on this Colonial Development Board. He mentioned all kinds of experts and people to impose the will of this country and that of the financial corporations on the Colonial peoples, but not one word of any representative of the Colonies.
  Captain Macdonald: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I made allowance for subcommittees on which the Development Board could draft anybody they liked, whether natives or not.
  Dr. Guest: I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Member is so good as to allow natives to appear on sub-committees. I regard the word "native" as an offensive word.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Why?
  Dr. Guest: Because it is used in an offensive sense and is resented by the people who live in Africa and India. It is a most offensive expression. I suggest that it is necessary in the interests of the African people themselves and other Colonial areas that these areas should be developed primarily for the people themselves by a council set up on which the peoples of these Colonies are represented, and that the sub-committees should be sub-committees of the experts. The hon. Gentleman should have spoken of putting the experts on sub-committees and not the natives. The point is that most of the Members opposite have been talking in a phraseology of ideas which are completely dead and gone. The old ideas of the British Empire were finished with when our maladministration, and the defects of our Government control lost us Malaya, Burma and other places. The old British Empire is certainly completely dead. We' have to look forward into the future to a new organisation in which the

  2113
  Colonies will be on a footing of equality with ourselves and in which they will have an equality of Empire citizenship, if the Empire is to remain in form at all as part of a large aggregation with ourselves in which the Colonies themselves will lose their Colonial status and become States having representation on an Empire Commonwealth Council. I may say that the policy which I am suggesting now was one that was accepted by the last conference of the Labour party, although I regret to say that nothing like it has been accepted by the Prime Minister. He said the Colonies were excluded from the Atlantic Charter so far as the conception of their freedom and cooperation in the future was concerned. Fortunately, this conception has not been agreed to by the President of the United States, who went out of his way the other day specifically to include men of all races, classes and colours within the scope of the Atlantic Charter, and by the Vice-President of the United States—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I think the Atlantic Charter is getting very far from the Vote we are discussing to-day.
  Dr. Guest: I do not want to come into conflict with you. Colonel Clifton Brown, but this was a case where the President and the Vice-President of America, and the American Ambassador in this country, who spoke at a meeting in Durham, all referred to the status of Colonies as affected by the Atlantic Charter—
  The Deputy-Chairman: In any case the status of Colonies is affected by legislation, and legislation is out of Order on this Vote.
  Dr. Guest: Well, I will not pursue that, but it is most regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman did not take this opportunity of making a declaration, on behalf of the Government, which would be related to bringing the Colonial peoples of the world, and not only those inside the British Empire, to our side instead of making a statement which, although interesting in a certain way and interesting as a historical document of the future as indicating the stage of evolution of the mind of the British Government at this time, does nothing for the Colonies of the new world. I believe the Government, through the mouth of the right hon.
  2114
  Gentleman, should have laid the foundations of a world charter of freedom, although I see the hon. Gentleman opposite jibes at it—
  Mr. Pickthorn: Since the hon. Gentleman refers to me as appearing to jibe, my jibe was at the thought that laying foundation stones through mouths would be a very awkward process.
  Dr. Guest: I accept the academic correction of the hon. Member, but in this case the words were correctly used. As I was saying, I think it would Be better if the right hon. Gentleman, instead of giving us his brief from the Colonial Office, had given us a statement as to foundations of Colonial freedom and some view of what has been spoken of in other countries—to which I cannot refer—as a contribution to the world in the future. Unless we can look forward to a world in the future in which there are greater ideas than those expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, then we are fighting for something in vain, and we shall not succeed.
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: I think the Committee will feel that the day has not been wasted, that this Debate has been one of considerable interest, and that a great number of topics have been raised on which speeches have been made which will be of great value to the Government and the country in studying these problems. It is always a difficult task for a Minister to reply to a Debate of this kind, covering so very wide a field. I wish to thank Members, who have spoken from all parts of the Committee, and who have been good enough to express some interest in and sometimes approbation of my opening observations. The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest), however, does not appear to like me, or Lord Swinton. Judging from the speech he has made there are very few people whom the hon. Member does like. He was choleric, as he always is, he criticised freely and he made many statements which were completely incorrect. He said my speech was removed from the war. Well, I thought I had devoted nearly two-thirds of my speech to the war and only to the war. I had to decide whether to devote my speech to war problems, as I thought would be expected by the Committee, or allow myself to be tempted into the wider field into which I tried to go, in some small way, towards the end.

  2115
  I would like to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), who opened the Debate, first for having to some extent enabled us to have the Debate by putting this Motion on the Order Paper and asking for a day for its discussion, and secondly, for the very constructive and valuable speech he made. He was critical, and he is entitled to be critical, for he has a long record of interest in and knowledge of the Colonial Empire. He has spent a great deal of time in studying different Colonial territories, and, as he told us, there is hardly any one of them to which he has not been. Any hon. Member who has served the House so well is entitled to respect for his views, whether they are agreed with or not, because that is one of the most valuable services which Private Members can, when opportunity offers, give in the service of the Colonies.
  As to the chief proposal with which my hon. and gallant Friend was associated, the formation of a Colonial Development Board, I know that he will not expect me to make any pronouncement now. I would like to study very carefully what he said, and I am sure my Noble Friend will do the same. If I may say so, it seems to me that there would be some danger of the type of organisation which my hon. and gallant Friend described becoming, in fact, the Colonial Office. It would cover so wide a field that it would be, as it were, just another name for the instrument of Government itself. But the functions which he wanted to be performed, whether in the particular organisation which he requires or in what commended itself to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), are functions on which we are all agreed. They include the study and research upon which policy must be founded; the instruments for carrying out and forming plans; and the preservation of some continuity of policy in capital development in the future. If we can obtain the objects which we have in view, the exact method of organisation would, perhaps, not be of the greatest importance. The important thing is to get the job done.
  My hon. Friend the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) was kind enough to make very friendly references to my speech, and I want also to
  2116
  thank him for the broad way in which he treated the whole object. I feel that I must, in justice to a friend and a chief whom I served, if only for a few weeks, make some reference to the hon. Gentleman's observations about Lord Moyne's speech in the House of Lords, a speech on which he reprimanded my hon. Friend. Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows that nowadays Peers have become very reckless people. Sometimes, for instance, friends of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely make rather curious speeches in another place on the subject of Palestine. I am bound to say that I could not see anything in Lord Moyne's speech that could do any harm, and indeed, it seemed to me to be a very proper speech for him to make. At any rate, I do not think it was deserving of that degree of reprobation which the hon. Member expressed, and it would be disloyal and improper of me not to support what Lord Moyne said. I do not necessarily associate myself with everything he said, but I think there was far too much hostility in the attack which the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely made. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) made a valuable contribution to the Debate. He has a very great knowledge of the Empire and a very great interest in it. I will have looked into further the specific point which he made about the development of rubber. As far as I know, as I told the Committee, we are making every possible effort to find every source of rubber, plantation and wild, which can be grasped into the till for our immediate use. We are making use, where their particular kind of knowledge is useful, of the Malayan planters to help us in Ceylon and Africa.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley did me a great service. He made a speech with almost all of which I found myself in agreement. The spirit that lay behind the hon. Member's speech, and his enthusiasim, have long been well known. There are one or two points which, perhaps, he will allow me to deal with later in my speech, when I come to make some general observations. His only mistake—and this is where I find myself differing from him—is his great desire to force open doors and attack things which do not exist; they may have existed, but they do not exist now. He forces his way through revolving doors so rapidly that I am afraid one day he

  2117
  will find himself prone upon the ground. He apologised for saying—I enjoyed it very much, because I knew it would be enjoyed elsewhere—that we must bring refreshments into the Colonial Office. I agree with that. He also told us that we must purge the hierarchy of our Colonial bureaucracy. I call that "jogging on the boys," which is very much the same thing. I agree that the results we want are enthusiasm, enterprise and team spirit on the part of those engaged in this great task.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle), who has a great knowledge of the sugar industry and of the West Indies, made a very valuable speech, and I wish I could give an answer to satisfy him. There are, of course, as he knows well, and as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) knows, great difficulties in making substantial advances in time of war in regard to housing and the conditions of the people, but I will study what they have said, and see whether we can make any further advances. The hon. Member for Bournemouth referred to the development of a sound trade union system in the West Indies and in other Colonies as a matter of great importance. It is for that reason we have formed the Labour Advisory Committee. I have made reference already to the fact that we are recruiting men with trade union experience and sending them out to help to see that the trade union movement is put upon sound, healthy and progressive lines, where it can best serve the interests of the people it is intended to serve—the working classes in each locality.
  The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who was kind enough to let me know he would not be able to stay to hear my reply, made, as he always does, a very engaging speech. I have always enjoyed, in the years I have been in the House of Commons, the speeches of the hon. Member. He told us at one point, referring to the company in which he finds himself on the Front Bench below the Gangway, that there are some disadvantages in sitting in a mixed political group. I sit in one too, and I can assure him there are some advantages in sitting in a mixed political group. Indeed, there are great advantages, because great things can be done; great progress can be made by a pooling of interests, such
  2118
  as this Government represents. I therefore take up those words of his with enthusiasm. My hon. Friend went oh, as he often does, to give a philosophical account of the future—how the people of the Colonies do not really like us, and what failures there have been in Malaya—which is quite incorrect. The hon. Member for Bridgeton does not seem to realise that we do not own the whole of Malaya; they are not even Colonies, and many of them are Federated States which were in alliance with us. He over-simplifies the problem, but then, of course, he always does. He always analyses a problem and makes it look very simple. I have heard him do that on every problem, economic or political, throughout the years. Here he produced the most ridiculous mouse that I ever heard of, from him, because, when pressed to say what was the solution, what was the one thing which could cure all these ills, he said the first thing was the appointment of a Committee of the House of Commons. I have the greatest regard and affection for the House of Commons—I have been a Member of it for many years—but I do not believe that all these great philosophic problems covering this vast field can be automatically solved by the appointment of a Committee of the House.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Taunton (Lieut.-Colonel Wickham) asked me three questions. The first was about cotton piece goods. Were we going to get enough? Were we going to get all we could? We are going to get perhaps a little more than we ought to have. We are going to try very hard. There are alleviations for our disasters coming to us, because the loss of certain markets in the Far East will make a little easier during the coming quarter and next year this problem of getting allocations for West Africa. My hon. and gallant Friend asked whether an expert staff would go out to Lord Swinton. A staff has been selected and I think it will be an expert staff. If it is not the staff that Lord Swinton wants, as soon as it gets there he will make us send more people to suit his needs. I have no hesitation or fear about that. My hon. and gallant Friend asked whether there would be, in London, machinery similar to the Allied Supplies Committee in the case of Russia which could implement or deal rapidly with the departmental questions which might arise from Lord Swinton's recommendations. I cannot give the exact

  2119
  reply now, but machinery will be devised. I remember very well the machinery to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred. Lord Beaverbrook rang up the people on it, morning, noon and night and it moved very rapidly. I do not know whether we shall achieve such rapidity of movement, but we shall try. The point will not be overlooked but I cannot say at the moment what has been decided.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) has great knowledge of the West Indies and great sympathy with their problems. I will answer his question as to what has actually been done by the Development Commission. He said they had had two years and could have had £2,000,000. He asked has that amount been spent, and what schemes are in operation. By a scheme being "in operation" I mean work being done upon it. A scheme may be something which is not in full operation until it is completed. Up to now, about £860,000 has been spent. We must not fall into his academic, old-fashioned view of thinking that the mere spending of money is the problem. The problem is to get things. You may vote £20,000,000, but you could not proceed any more readily on these schemes, because they depend on getting the actual machinery that we need. We will press on as hard and fast as we can, having regard to that fact.
  I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) about Lord Swinton. He was good enough to preface his questions by saying that he did not expect an answer. I was grateful to him for that, because they raised rather difficult questions of constitutional law and so on. Before I gave a precise answer it would be wise to obtain that brief on which I always rely in order not to make the slightest deviation from accuracy and truth. On this occasion perhaps he will allow me to do that. It is important to discover the answer to his riddle, "When is a Cabinet Minister not a Cabinet Minister?" I know the difference between a junior Minister and a Cabinet Minister. My banker knows, and so do others. I will try to get a precise reply. The arrangement will work—that is the most important test. It is more important that it should work than that it should be
  2120
  defined. Then it is a war measure and is not intended to be in operation upon much wider fields. The machinery to make it work at home will be devised, and my hon. Friend can rely upon that. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel A. Evans) pressed for a Colonial Council, on which I have spoken. His speech was, as his speeches usually are, both constructive and generous, and had a refreshing point of view which he always puts before us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) made a speech to which I find it difficult to make an answer, but I enjoyed listening to it. It was a philosophy for the future and raised a lot of deep and important questions to which he would not expect me at the end of the Debate to answer in detail. It raised the question of how far it is desirable to rely entirely on the tribal life of Africa, how far desirable to move the natives of Africa into new economic fields and change the character of the African inhabitants. These are big problems, to answer which would require almost a speech. It was nevertheless of the greatest value that they should be raised, because on their right solution depends the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) is the most disarming of critics I have ever listened to. He is so enthusiastic, he attacks us so bitterly, he says such dreadful things, and then he apologises so charmingly. I like his enthusiasm, his letters and his questions. They stimulate us. They are good for us. He serves a proper and useful function, and long may he do it. I have not the omniscience that Ministers are supposed to have, and I cannot give him offhand the precise financial history of the St. Kitts sugar factory. He says it must be true because it is in the Stock Exchange Year Book.
  DR. Morgan: I said that it was not only in the Stock Exchange Year Book but in a confidential document to the Governor of the Colony which was in the Colonial Office and which I had here.
  Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman could not expect me to know that. I will certainly look into it and read it with interest and try to find out where lies the truth. I have a feeling that my hon. Friend does not always distinguish between loan capital and share capital,

  2121
  and realise that it is possible to operate companies with comparatively small amounts of or only nominal share capital and a large loan capital. One such company was S.A.R.A., which was run by the Government and had practically no share capital but a large amount of loan capital. With regard to the Federation of the West Indies, he knows as well as I do that in all these questions of regional growth which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned, there are a number of problems involved. Perhaps a little naively he said that some places were rich and others not so rich, but that, of course, has also occurred to the inhabitants of the richer places, and I have no doubt they have some views of their own on those matters, but those problems are not easily solved. I think we should study what has been said, we should bear all those things in mind, and the regional development which the impact of war has to some extent assisted may proceed further as the result.
  Finally, I should like to say that I am very grateful to the Committee for the reception they have given to the work which my colleagues have tried to do at the Colonial Office, work for the development of our maximum power and resources. That everybody agrees with, I think, and I hope that I have been able to present a picture showing that that is being pursued with energy and zeal. Looking forward into the future necessarily raises more difficult questions. I think that, curiously enough, we are all a little in danger, perhaps, of being tripped up or misled by words. I never used—I carefully avoided using—the word "trusteeship" at any point in my speech. It was attributed to me by other speakers. There is a danger, of course, of being misled by words. One cannot tie oneself up with words, phrases and dogmas instead of getting on with the job.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the speech of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). As far as I could understand, he and I and the Committee in general were in more or less agreement about jumping fairly fast and fairly far—somewhere. But we were, perhaps, not quite in agreement as to where we should ultimately land. Let us go on jumping, let us go forward along this very long path as far as we can continue together. Need we really enter into theological discussions on words? What I tried to show
  2122
  was the kind of spirit in which we were to move forward, and that I think has had very general recognition. My hon. Friend the Member for North Islington says that it is 50 years out of date. Other critics have told me that I am in danger of wrecking the Government by putting forward a most advanced and revolutionary plan. Perhaps the truth is that I have taken a course reasonably in the middle between these two extremes. I am content to rest on this, that we are working towards a goal. By partnership I meant an association which would continue. I merely meant to emphasise, and I do not think any Minister, certainly a Minister of the Colonial Office, can be said to have done wrong to have emphasised, that we had no intention of putting this affair into liquidation. Whatever may be said of us as trustees we are not liquidators. We are going on wit' the job. We shall try to make a success of it, and I think there is general agreement, when we get away from phrases, as to the line on which all in this Committee want to go forward. I, at any rate, rest content with the definition which the Prime Minister himself has given of what was intended by the Joint Declaration:
  "The Joint Declaration does not qualify in any way the various declarations of policy which have been made from time to time in regard to such matters as the constitutional development of India or Burma or other parts of the British Empire. The restoration of soveignty, self-government, and national life at the earliest opportunity to the peoples of Europe now under the heel of Nazi tyranny is clearly a separate problem from the progressive evolution of self-governing institutions in the form most appropriate to the countries and peoples which owe allegiance to the British Crown. We have made declarations on these matters which are complete in themselves, free from ambiguity and related to the conditions and circumstances of the territories and peoples affected. They will be found to be entirely in harmony with the high conceptions of liberty and justice which have inspired the Joint Declaration."
  On that I rest.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish those declarations? We are somewhat at a loss to know precisely what it is to which they refer. If the Minister bases his case on those declarations will he enable us to see what they are?
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with one point which he alluded to humourously in referring to the speech of

  2123
  the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)? A number of Members have suggested on this occasion and on previous occasions some form of Parliamentary Committee, either a Joint Committee of both Houses or a Committee of this House, which might keep us in more continuous touch with the work of the Colonial Office, even if only in an advisory capacity. Will he say something about that? I hope that he will be able at least to promise serious consideration to this proposal.
  Mr. Macmillan: I had hoped to evade this question, but my hon. Friend has
  2124
  been too quick for me. I must therefore accept the very kind way in which he has suggested I should answer it. It will certainly receive careful consideration.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. A. Young.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  SUPPLY.
    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. A. Young.]
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
BRITISH ARMY.
  POST-WAR CREDITS.
  POST-WAR CREDITS.
  DAMAGE (PAYMENTS).
  DAMAGE (PAYMENTS).
  SCRAP METAL COLLECTION.
  SCRAP METAL COLLECTION.
  RAILINGS, REMOVAL.
  RAILINGS, REMOVAL.
  BLACKBURN HOLIDAY WEEK (SUPPLIES).
  BLACKBURN HOLIDAY WEEK (SUPPLIES).
  POST OFFICE (OVERSEERS).
  POST OFFICE (OVERSEERS).
FUEL AND POWER.
  PETROL ALLOWANCE (FABMERS).
  PETROL ALLOWANCE (FABMERS).
  TIMBER.
  TIMBER.
  MEAN TEMPERATURE (VARIATIONS).
  MEAN TEMPERATURE (VARIATIONS).
  AIRCRAFT FACTORIES (ECONOMY).
  AIRCRAFT FACTORIES (ECONOMY).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  INCOME TAX (WIDOWS' WAR PENSIONS).
  INCOME TAX (WIDOWS' WAR PENSIONS).
  ISOLATED TRADING TRANSACTIONS (TAXATION).
  ISOLATED TRADING TRANSACTIONS (TAXATION).
  SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE (COST).
  SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE (COST).
  LEEWARD ISLANDS (NEWS CENSORSHIP).
  LEEWARD ISLANDS (NEWS CENSORSHIP).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (COAL MINERS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (COAL MINERS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  NATIONAL MILK TESTING SCHEME.
  NATIONAL MILK TESTING SCHEME.
  EIRE SALMON AND GRILSE (SALES, BILLINGSGATE).
  EIRE SALMON AND GRILSE (SALES, BILLINGSGATE).
  COCOA (DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS).
  COCOA (DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS).
  VENISON.
  VENISON.
  BACON INDUSTRY (CONCENTRATION SCHEME).
  BACON INDUSTRY (CONCENTRATION SCHEME).
  TOMATOES (DISTRIBUTION, MERSEYSIDE).
  TOMATOES (DISTRIBUTION, MERSEYSIDE).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  SHIPPING SPACE (SOUTH AFRICA).
  SHIPPING SPACE (SOUTH AFRICA).
  SAUCEPANS.
  SAUCEPANS.
  CLOSED COTTON MILLS (MAINTENANCE).
  CLOSED COTTON MILLS (MAINTENANCE).
  PERIODICALS (IMPORTED PRINTED SHEETS).
  PERIODICALS (IMPORTED PRINTED SHEETS).
  PRODUCTION CONTINUITY (ALLO-CATION OF MATERIALS).
  PRODUCTION CONTINUITY (ALLO-CATION OF MATERIALS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (LIFE-SAVING EQUIPMENT).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (LIFE-SAVING EQUIPMENT).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (CHILDREN).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (CHILDREN).
  GREEN LINE OMNIBUS STOP, CAVENDISH SQUARE.
  GREEN LINE OMNIBUS STOP, CAVENDISH SQUARE.
  ARMED FORCES (RAILWAY JOURNEYS).
  ARMED FORCES (RAILWAY JOURNEYS).

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Selborne—Sat first in Parliament as the Earl of Selborne after the death of his father.
The Lord St. Levan—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

THE LATE LORD NORTH.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I regret to have to inform your Lordships that yet another member of this House has given his life in the service of his country. Lieutenant Lord North, who was previously reported missing when His Majesty's Ship "Neptune" was sunk by an enemy mine in the Mediterranean, is now presumed to have lost his life on that occasion. I am sure I shall be interpreting your Lordships' feelings if I take this opportunity of expressing our sympathy with Lady North and the other members of the family.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
MID-WESSEX WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SOUTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CAERNARVON) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MOLD GAS AND WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
PRINCESS ELIZABETH OF YORK HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN AND QUEEN'S HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN (AMALGAMATION, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill through all its remaining stages.— (Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SWINDON GAS ORDER, 1942.

  KETTERING GAS ORDER, 1942.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Orders standing in my name be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932: BOROUGH OF TENTERDEN ORDER.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved (Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING BILL.
Read 3a ( according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:
Finance,
Consolidated Fund (No. 3),
Minister of Works and Planning,
London County Council (Money),
Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

WAR-TIME NURSERIES.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government the present and prospective position as regards war-time nurseries; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is just six months ago, to be precise on the 9th December, that I brought this subject of war-time nurseries to the attention of your Lordships' House. The debate on that occasion came at an opportune moment, for some of your Lordships will recollect it was the day following the occasion upon which your Lordships' House had been especially convened for the purpose of considering the White Paper, then just published by His Majesty's Government, containing proposals for the maximization of the national effort. In that White Paper, and in the Bill which shortly afterwards followed upon it, the most striking provision was that for bringing women, do for the first time under the rules relating to conscription, into the Armed Forces
510
and under compulsory direction into industry. The debate, therefore, fell at a very opportune moment, because, as I ventured to point out to your Lordships, this question of war-time nurseries is one aspect, and although only an aspect yet an important aspect, of the whole problem of man-power.
Your Lordships are, of course, very well familiar with the long and creditable story of voluntary effort in the matter of day nurseries and other provision for children under the age of five years. Many voluntary societies have, for a long period, performed most valuable public services in educating the public mind and in actually carrying out the arrangements for the provision of day nurseries. The trail has been blazed and the pace set, it may perhaps fairly be said, by the National Society for Day Nurseries now known as the National Society for Children's Nurseries, but due credit should be given to the work in this field of endeavour of other voluntary societies, such as the National Council for Maternity and Child Welfare and the Nursery Schools' Association, for the contribution which over a long period they have made. The activities of these organizations have been directed to the provision of day nurseries and nursery schools as a factor in social welfare—a valuable and a vital factor. In presenting the matter to your Lordships to-day I am concerned with the provision of facilities and accommodation not so much as a factor in social welfare as an essential element in solving the whole problem of man-power.
Your Lordships will recall that, broadly, the position under existing legislation is this, so far as married women are concerned. Whereas unmarried women and married women who are neither mothers of families nor wives of Service men may be classified as mobile women available to be conscribed in some cases into the Armed Services, and in any case directed into industry, the wives of Service men and mothers of young children whether their husbands be Service men or not, are not liable to be conscribed into the Fighting Services or directed into industry away from the location of their homes but are liable to be directed into industry not too far from their homes to enable them to live there and exercise their functions as the mothers of families. It is the problem of making the immobile women

511
effectively available for industry that makes it so necessary that there should be adequate provision for looking after the children. Those women cannot be made available unless such provision is made and it is to that purpose that wartime nurseries make an essential contribution. Your Lordships are doubtless aware that women up to forty have already been registered, or rather their registration will be complete at the end of the present week. I ventured, when addressing your Lordships previously, to prophesy that the limitation of the age of forty would be for but a short period and that the time would come when the age would be extended. It is interesting to observe from the Press during the last few days that in fact that will be the case.
As I understand, women will be called upon to register shortly up to the age of fifty. That will create this situation: that by the end of the current year women up to the age of fifty will have been registered, and, by the same time, all those women under the age of forty who are required to enter the Fighting Services, or to go into industry, will have been directed to those places where their services are most required. The Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons on the White Paper, to which I have already referred, on the 2nd December last year, made it quite clear—as I ventured when speaking previously to your Lordships on this subject to suggest—that the main reserve for industrial work to which we must look in the future is to be found amongst the married women. They are, said the Prime Minister, "our largest reserves for industry and home defence for the future." The problem is how to make these married women with children, these immobile women, effectively available for industry.
I must confess, as I said at the time of the last debate in your Lordships' House upon this subject, that I was profoundly disappointed with the reply given on that occasion by my noble friend Lord Snell, who, I understand, is again to reply for His Majesty's Government to-day. I was disappointed because, as it seemed to me from his reply, His Majesty's Government had not sufficiently applied their interest to the questions of what are the dimensions of this problem, and how much
512
provision must be made. And I gathered from the noble Lord's reply on that occasion—and everything that has happened since bears out the impression I then gained—that His Majesty's Government are, in this matter, waiting upon events instead of taking such steps as are possible to guide events or at least to be ready against the future. I say, frankly, that it is impossible to calculate mathematically, and with scientific precision, what is the precise extent of the demand that is likely to arise. But it is, I think, possible to form some impression of the kind of target at which we should aim. There are, in this country, some 3,000,000 children under the age of five years. When I was submitting this matter to your Lordships' consideration last December, I suggested that in all the circumstances a reasonable target at which to aim would be 5,000 day nurseries, accommodating between 200,000 and 250,000 children under the age of five. The noble Lord who replied did not dissent from that figure, nor, I agree, did he accept it. As I gathered, he did not think that it was an unreasonable figure. Having given further consideration to the matter in the six months which have since elapsed, and having made such inquiries as have been open to me, I have confirmed my own impression that this figure of 5,000 day nurseries to accommodate from 200,000 to 250,000 children is a reasonable target at which the Government should aim.
That number of children, as your Lordships will appreciate, is only some 7 per cent. of the total number of children in this country under five years of age, and represents only some 4 or 5 per cent. of the mothers of such children. It is not credible, in my submission, that the Prime Minister should have had in mind a number less than 5 per cent. of the mothers concerned when he referred to this subject in another place on December 2 last. Indeed, not only did the Prime Minister on that occasion emphasize the importance of making provision for what he referred to as "our largest reserves," but he drew special attention to this very important subject upon which I am addressing your Lordships to-day. He used these words:
"the development of crèches and public nurseries or combined nurseries may free, or partially free, mothers of families from domestic duties. … The whole of this process needs to be developed with the greatest energy and contrivance."

513
I can find nothing in the reply given to me six months ago by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, to indicate that the Ministry of Health and other Departments concerned were indeed directing their minds to this matter with a view to dealing with it "with the greatest energy and contrivance," and nothing that has happened since alters the opinion which I then formed; in fact, I would say that the impression made on my mind is that the Ministry of Health has done nothing more in the matter than to protect itself as far as possible from a "come-back." It may well prove within not very many months that it has; not been successful even in that.
The Lord President of the Council, speaking in another place on December 3 last, also referred to the matter in emphatic and unmistakable terms of urgency. He said this:
" … in regard to the provision of day-nurseries for the children when married women are called upon to give their service—and they will be required in enormous numbers, working in shifts in a manner which has been shown to be very practical and effective in certain parts of the country—all preparations must be pushed forward."
There you have two statements, one by the Prime Minister and the other by the Lord President of the Council, speaking with the highest authority in terms of urgency as to the necessity of making adequate provision.
I have suggested to your Lordships, and I repeat the suggestion now, that 5,000 nurseries, providing for from 200,000 to 250,000 children, is the target which should initially be aimed at. Plow far has the matter proceeded? The noble Lord, Lord Snell, will no doubt be able to give to your Lordships figures which are not available to me; but by the courtesy of the Department I am able to give certain figures. Your Lordships will thus be able to form your own judgment on whether it seems that this matter has been pushed forward as one of great urgency and whether, in the words of the Prime Minister, there has been shown "the greatest energy and contrivance." At the end of April of this year, the total number of war-time nurseries in this country was 453, providing for 17,500 children. I wish to give every credit to the Ministry, so that no question can be raised on the argument which I am submitting to your Lordships. If I take into account not merely the nurseries actually in operation but also
514
those approved and in process of being brought into operation—that is, taking the whole field, actual and prospective, in the Ministry's programme—on April 30 last there was provision for 992 nurseries, for 41,000 children. I have done more than justice to the Ministry in giving those figures, because I have included part-time nurseries as if they were whole-time nurseries.
Let me analyze these figures a little, because it may be difficult to form a view of what the total number of 41,000 really means when applied to the country as a whole. Let me take the London region. The total provision, in operation, and also approved but not yet in operation, and including part-time as well as whole-time nurseries, is, for the whole of the London region, for 6,827 children. Does anyone seriously suggest that provision on that scale is anything like adequate in the vast area of the London region, comprising as it does some ten millions of the population of these islands? Let me give slightly more carefully analyzed figures. In the Borough of Bermondsey there is one nursery school providing for 20 children; yet Bermondsey is a thickly-congested, highly-industrialized area. Take Bethnal Green, which I know well, for I formerly had the honour of representing it in another place. There is one day nursery in Bethnal Green, with provision for 24 children. That day nursery, if I identify it correctly, is at the Oxford House Settlement, where there is a queue day by day of children who are unable to find admittance because of the inadequacy of the accommodation. The only other provision made in Bethnal Green is for a prospective additional day nursery, providing for another forty children. I give those as examples to your Lordships of what I submit is the total inadequacy of the scale upon which this problem has been approached. Take the vast and highly industrialized Midland region. There the total provision, actual and prospective, at the end of April this year, was for 6,300 children. That includes the great industrial City of Birmingham, where the actual provision was for no more than 1,696 children, with prospective accommodation for another 1,978, or about 3,600 children in all.
I think that anyone who considers the scale upon which the Ministry has so far proceeded will feel that it has signally failed to pay heed to the behests of the

515
Prime Minister and of the Lord President of the Council, as made in the House of Commons on the occasions to which I have referred. I say in passing that I have observed a statement in The Times, confirmed in the Economist, that the number of similar nurseries in Germany at this time is 23,000 which, on the same scale of accommodation of 40 to 50 children for each nursery, would account, not for 200,000 children, which is my aim, but for upwards of 1,000,000. I do not want to draw any comparisons which cannot be supported or which are misleading. I think it is fair to point out that the population of Germany is, of course, greater than the population of this country and also, as I understand, that these nurseries in Germany take children up to the age of seven years, whereas those in this country are limited to children of the age of five or under.
It may also be suggested by the noble Lord that it is not necessary to look to day nurseries alone to make provision for the children of mothers who have to go to work; he may say that there are the nursery schools and the nursery classes. Well, let us see how the figures stand as regards those schools and nurseries. The total number of children in nursery schools is 6,000—for this purpose quite negligible. There have been and are being a certain number of nursery schools created specially for children of women going to war work. Those number 500, with accommodation for 18,000 children. In addition, there are the ordinary nursery classes for those under five, but as those have a school child population of less than half their peacetime child population, no satisfaction can be derived from those figures. And there is this very formidable factor to which I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, if the Department is relying upon help from the schools in this connexion: that owing to the return of large numbers of evacuated children to their home towns, and owing at the same time to the fact that so many school buildings have been damaged by enemy action, the accommodation in the schools is now so limited that in many of our largest towns the likelihood is that children under five will have to be excluded altogether, which would thus throw a new and to some extent unexpected strain upon the arrangements to be made for dealing with these children.
The noble Lord may say that another possibility is that children should be looked after by minders; indeed, in a Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education this course of action was certainly authorized, and even advised. As I pointed out to your Lordships during the previous debate, I deprecate this system of minders: it is a return to the old days of baby farming, to a greater or less extent, perhaps with rather more precautions than used to be taken. When I say that I mean that if it is to be made a profession to take in children, that is something to be deprecated. On the other hand, I applaud the public spirit of the grannies and aunts and other relations, and the near neighbours and close friends who take in children while their mothers are at work as more or less a friendly gesture, certainly not as a business. I hope that the Government will not proceed with this scheme of minding. I know that it is not likely to ameliorate the problem to any great extent. I speak subject to correction, but I understand that in the great City of Birmingham only 42 minders have been found who are considered suitable by the authority for acting in that capacity. It is a great responsibility that is placed on local authorities, and in any case the scheme is highly complicated. There are difficult forms to be filled in by mothers and by the minders, while the maximum rate of is. per child is less than the normal rate that has prevailed. As I say, I hope that the Government will not proceed with this system, but if they do I hope that they will change it into something in the nature of a children's home service.
I have said sufficient, I hope, to indicate that there is more than ample room, and certainly great need, for dealing with this problem with an entirely different outlook. The Minister of Health has gained, not unjustifiably, the reputation of an able administrator, but of this problem he seems to have had no grasp, and on its solution no grip. I hold out in a friendly spirit a warning hand when I say that he is likely to find himself soon in this matter—within a few months, if he is not careful—on the fatal slope of "too little and too late." There will be no, excuse, for mandatory injunction has been placed on him by the head of the Government, and ample warning has from time to time been given, including

517
the warnings in your Lordships' House in December last and again to-day.
There are certain limiting factors upon the possibilities before the Minister, and it is only right and proper that these should be fully recognized. There is, I know, difficulty with regard to premises. It was only in September—but why only in September?—that the Government authorized the requisitioning of premises for this essential purpose. There is a difficulty about equipment, yet equipment is obtainable; though I must say that, from some I have seen, there must either be laxness now In specification or in inspection, for some of the equipment was certainly quite unsatisfactory. The real stumbling block in this matter is the question of staff. My submission is that in this matter of staff the Minister is being far too ambitious. It is in these days impossible, with the problem with which one is confronted, to maintain for these war-time nurseries the high standard in staff and service which rightly and necessarily have prevailed in peace-time under the auspices and at the instance of the various voluntary associations to which I have referred. Whilst I should like to see the peace-time standards improved, relatively high although they already are, I am bound to say that I see no prospect of maintaining those standards if sufficient accommodation is to be found during the war to provide for the relatively large number of children involved. The standard of staff which the Ministry have set before themselves is in the proportion of one to every four or five children, and on my basis of 200,000 children that means finding staff to the number of 40,000 to 50,000. That is a very large number when it is borne in mind that there are certain qualifications they must necessarily have.
The Ministry have established a standard of this kind—a staff of a matron, an assistant matron, two or three trained nurses, a trained teacher, two trained child welfare reserves, one child welfare reserve in training, and two probationers, ten or eleven altogether, apart from domestic staff, for a war-time nursery of forty or fifty children. That is a very large staff indeed. Naturally they are finding difficulty in obtaining recruits, for what is the remuneration offered? For the nursery assistant, for instance, it is £120 a year, for eight or ten hours a day beginning
518
and ending at varying times, according to the hours of the nursery, and living out. For probationers, who are coming in for training under the child care reserve, the remuneration in the middle of the war, when wages are rising, is £52 a year, living out. How is it to be expected that any number of recruits will be coming forward for this work when the remuneration is £52 a year for girls from sixteen upwards, when girls leaving school at fourteen are able to command 23s. and 25s. a week as office girls, running messages and delivering letters in ordinary and professional business offices?
How, in these circumstances, is it to be expected that girls from sixteen to eighteen will be induced to enter this occupation—a blind alley occupation too often —at £52 a year? The Minister must seek authority for a much higher, more attractive rate of remuneration. These girls of sixteen do not look upon this sort of work with any kind of favour, however attractive it may be sought to make it appear to them. Experiments have been made in obtaining recruits. Many girls in the Girls Training Corps—an admirable institution much to be encouraged—have been asked to go into probation for these nursery schools. What has been their answer? "We want to go to something more exciting. We want to be ambulance drivers or go into the A.T.S. or the W.A.A.F. We do not want to go into this rather dull work in a nursery. There is no glamour, no glory, and very little pay." It is essential that the Ministry should adopt an entirely new standard on this subject. The number of trainees is so small; the number trained so far during the war is rather less than 3,000. I need scarcely point out to your Lordships, who are so familiar with this subject, that so far as trained teachers are concerned, they are practically unobtainable.
I finish by making a practical suggestion, and that is that the Ministry of Health should revise and reconstruct the whole system. There is yet time to do that effectively and to achieve the required results if he will bring to bear some of the zip and zest of which I know he is capable, and if he will direct his personal attention to it. I suggest to the noble Lord that the method to be adopted should be this. There should be established in each locality a central nursery from which other

519
smaller nurseries should radiate, and having regard to the difficulties of domestic economy, and the necessity for economizing both in food and fuel, there should be central cooking and the food should be distributed to these smaller nurseries from a central nursery. There should be a fully qualified, indeed a highly qualified, staff at the centre of each group of nurseries, but the staff of each nursery at the periphery of the group need not be so highly qualified. You want people of good will who like children and can look after children. Hospital nurses have a really valuable function to perform, but these nurseries are not places for sick children; they are places for children who are well, and an entirely different outlook and training are required.
I believe that if the Minister would give some consideration to this suggestion, which I only outline here, with a view to carrying it into effect, the problem would be well on the way towards solution. I believe, if he will act with vigour, there is still time; otherwise he will, in December, meet the bottleneck, and we shall be confronted in your Lordships' House and elsewhere with the argument that women cannot be got into industry, that our factories must "run slow" because there are no facilities for dealing with these children if and when the mothers are directed into industry. I have no more to say on this occasion on this subject, except this. Last night it so happened I was reading in Mr. Greville's diary an account of a debate in your Lordships' House close upon a hundred years ago. I came across a phrase which rather pleased me. Because I felt that my noble friend Lord Snell would relish it, I stored it in my mind for use as my closing observation to-day. So I say to him that I hope that to my arguments he will not merely oppose "the soft non-resisting cushion of an evasive urbanity." I beg to move for Papers.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just addressed us expressly disclaimed any approach to this subject from the point of view of social welfare. He spoke almost exclusively in terms of military necessity. It may be that military necessity is so urgent at the present time as to make the breaking up of home life virtually inevitable, but the point of view of social welfare ought to be heard, and
520
the interests of the children considered, even in time of war when there exists a school of thought which holds that the taking of children away from their homes and the assumption of quasi-parental functions by the State is in itself a good thing. Those for whom I would desire to speak regard it as a bad thing. Primary responsibility for the child we believe to be upon the parents, and. I would speak for the ideal of the home and of the family. Temporary breaking-up of family life due to war necessities there may be, perhaps there must be, on a very large scale. It is indeed inevitable, but it should be regarded, if a necessity, at least intrinsically as a very serious evil.
The psychological effect upon the young begins at a very early stage in life. I have in my hands a little book, Children in War-Time, published, I see, with a foreword by a member of your Lordships' House who I think has just gone out—Lord De La Warr—in which psychological experts write essays on such titles as "The Uprooted Child," "The Deprived Mother" and "The Problem of the Young Child," not as a mere appeal to sentiment, but as a fitting rubric under which to consider, from a scientific point of view, the calamitous results brought upon maternal psychology and upon child psychology by this destruction of the home. The effects of evacuation on the children present a very great complexity of problems. The child psychologically uprooted from the natural environment of home and family is liable, except in the most favourable circumstances, to be injured thereby, and, in particular, a succession of different and unfamiliar caretakers is liable to do harm to the child.
I was a little disturbed when the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, appeared to adumbrate or suggest a policy of reducing the standard of war-time nurseries, or the standard of competence of the staff which should take care of them. I view that with apprehension, because, granting the evil necessity of breaking up the home and herding the children into these institutions, there seems to be creeping in the view that even so you would not run them very well because you had not adequate staff for the purpose. No doubt all those of us who are fortunate enough to possess children have entrusted them to the care of nurses in earliest years, but carefully chosen and

521
trusted nurses, nurses chosen by ourselves or by the mother, and nurses who are continuously responsible, not varying from time to time, if it can be so arranged, not varying from day to day. And even so good parents do not leave everything to the nurses, but see to it that the children are in effective contact with themselves. In nursery schools, and I dare say in war-time nurseries, there is, or may be, a succession of helpers. Sometimes I believe you get a staff of voluntary helpers in such institutions taking turns to look after the children one at a time day by day. I hope His Majesty's Government in any extension of war-time nurseries will endeavour to secure, as far as possible, a permanence of staff and not a continuously varied staff.
I venture to inflict upon your Lordships a short paragraph from an essay in the book to which I have referred:
"What should be avoided therefore is the placing of little children in large groups under the care of a matron and the frequent changing of junior nurses. A staff of this kind may be very admirable in its work and genuinely kind to the children. But not having a special relation to a few individual children, the nurses are not in a position to provide that solid personal background which small children so much need if they are to grow up into happy and sociable human beings."
I hope that paragraph may, so far as possible, be borne in mind. Now I know it is argued in many quarters that children are better looked after in an institution than they can be in a working-class home. Let no one disparage the working-class home, or suggest that the children are of necessity better off in State nurseries. I do not dispute the fact that there may be some benefits; they may be in more cheerful and cleaner surroundings there may be much excellent equipment. I believe that some of the nursery schools that have been started even in peace-time have done most admirable work, and in certain circumstances there is much to be said for providing them as they should be provided; but do not let us suppose that on balance they are invariably better than home surroundings. Children may be taught in them habits of hygiene and personal cleanliness and so forth, but those things are offset by much psychological loss in a large number of cases.
My point is that institutional treatment is not the same thing as a home, and many working-class homes are real homes
522
in the best and truest sense of the word. Do not let us underrate the tragedy of the breaking up of home life. Do not let us forget the emotion in the breasts of the mothers and the inarticulate psychology of the child. I think the way in which home life has been destroyed is the most tragic thing in this war, and I would suggest to your Lordships—I know I shall carry the majority of the members of this House with me—that the ultimate ideal of the future should be to restore home life, to promote facilities for it by suitable housing and in other ways, and to help to improve the standard of knowledge and opportunity among mothers; to promote mothercraft not to replace mothercraft by the provision of State nurseries as though that were a good thing in itself.
If I may go beyond what is perhaps strictly relevant to war-time nurseries, which cater for children of very tender age, I would remind your Lordships that the problem created when the working-class mother goes into a factory, is not simply one which concerns children of five and under. The elder children are deprived of their home, they come home from school and find the home locked up and the mother at work, and when she returns late at night, tired after her day's work, is she then to set to work to provide a meal? Can she do so? What happens to the children in the meantime? I submit that the facts are familiar, for the very grievous increase in juvenile delinquency, which is deplored by every magistrate of children's courts in the land, is not unrelated to the destruction of the home background of the elder children as well as those of nursery age.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I venture to intervene very briefly in this debate. I think that perhaps the thinness of the attendance in your Lordships' House to-day may be my excuse, because it would seem to me to indicate that in your Lordships' House, as I believe outside your Lordships' House in many quarters, the importance of this subject is not fully appreciated. The right reverend Prelate, if he will forgive my saying so, although I am fundamentally in the deepest sympathy with his views, has really in his argument gone somewhat outside the point. The question at the moment put by Lord Nathan does not seem to me to be whether the chil-

523
dren should stay in their homes or whether they should go into nurseries. The trouble, which he has deplored, is that the home is being broken up in any case, and we have to provide the best possible alternative for the children.
Actually I cannot follow the right reverend Prelate entirely in his argument. I am afraid I am one of those who would like—incidentally, for one of the reasons he mentioned—further State assistance in the care of children. I believe that this problem of war-time nurseries, raised by the Motion to-day, is not purely a war-time problem, and I hope to persuade His Majesty's Government to a greater generosity towards the scheme since I believe it will have a post-war utility. All workers in this field before the war were agreed, I think I might say, that our provision of nursery schools was hopelessly inadequate. I believe the war is forcing us to deal with this problem, which is a peace-time as well as a war-time problem, and I hope that from our war-time handling of it a peacetime advantage may result. That peacetime advantage, I believe, is of great importance in view of our problems of reconstruction.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned housing. I myself was going to mention housing. We want after the war to provide the best possible standard of housing for all our people, but I am afraid that no conceivable standard of housing is going to give to every child nursery surroundings in its own home. The right reverend Prelate also mentioned the fact that most of us who have children have entrusted them to nurses and have chosen the nurses most carefully. I sympathize with what he said about the qualities and qualifications required. As I understood him, what he wished to say was that as the necessities of the case were so urgent some means must be found of using less highly trained people who should, none the less, be under the closest supervision of highly trained people at a central nursery. I believe the question of nurseries is essential to the solving of the housing problem. I believe that general appreciation of the importance of the health of the nation has been enormously enlivened by the stresses of war and the necessity of finding fit men for the Services. The care of the child should begin, not when he goes to school at the age of five: it is essential that the State should oversee help
524
and assist in the care of the child from the earliest possible moment. I have myself in your Lordships' House spoken of the care of women in pregnancy and after childbirth. Care must be taken of the child before birth and must continue until the child is in a position to take his or her position as a full citizen of the State.
I am not going to labour the peacetime point, though I think it is fundamentally important. The war-time aspect of this problem presents two facets. There are two types of war-time nursery, the residential and the whole- or part-time nursery. The provision of residential nurseries, I submit, has been most regrettably neglected. It provides an essential part of any evacuation scheme. I know that certain authorities have protested against orders to provide nurseries in their own areas, because they believed that their areas were target areas and therefore unsuited for that provision, and that the evacuation of children should be facilitated by the provision of residential nurseries in safe areas. The whole problem of evacuation has been discussed in your Lordships' House. At the moment it is in a peculiar state of flux. Therefore I am not going to stress the need for residential nurseries in order to promote the evacuation of small children. I need not tell your Lordships how unsuccessful has been the evacuation of mothers with children. The result has been that a far higher percentage of children under five than of children of school age remain in danger areas.
The immediate pressing question arises from the labour problem. It is a problem of providing nurseries for the children of women who are at work. The last time this subject was debated in your Lordships' House it was raised by my noble friend who introduced the Motion to-day. Since that time there has been a new factor in a joint circular issued by the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education. It is a circular to which a great many people take the strongest possible objection, because it seems to stress the employment of minders rather than the provision of nurseries and nursery schools. It seems to show a definite preference for the finding of voluntary minders by the parents themselves. It is, I understand, the experience of those who have to do with employed married women who have children that there is a great loss of working time

525
because the women find that the people to whom they have entrusted their children are unsuitable, that the children are being neglected, and that they cannot conscientiously leave their children in such circumstance. That is the first objection, and a fundamental one in my view.
The second objection on the part of persons who are interested and engaged in child welfare work is that children who are handed over to minders are thereby removed from the care of clinics and health visitors. That, I think, is entirely deplorable. If we are to have minders it is essential that they should be registered and that they should be supervised; and I suggest that they should be paid. But I believe that this system of minders is a pis aller. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory, it has already been found not to work, and I believe that the only solution is the provision of good nurseries in sufficient numbers. Suggestions have been made that there should be nurseries at factories, but I think everybody who has had any experience of this matter is opposed to that proposal. I think it is entirely undesirable. It hardly needs argument that nurseries run independently by the State are necessarily better than nurseries attached to factories which would be within target areas.
There have been repeated complaints of the cutting down of plans by the Ministry concerned. I have here details of a surprising number of cases where nurseries have been planned with considerable facilities but without sufficient accommodation, the accommodation being lacking because the Ministries have cut down the funds allowed for the establishment of the nurseries. The trouble, in the opinion of most people who have to deal with the subject, lies very largely in the division of authority. There are three Departments concerned, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education. This considerable division seems likely to be responsible for much of the delay, and it is certainly responsible for the fact that those who wish to press forward with these nurseries find it difficult to know where to aim their criticisms and their encouragements. Recently, I understand, there has been set up in the Board of Education a child care division and in the Ministry of Health an Advisory Committee on child welfare. Perhaps the
526
noble Lord, Lord Snell, when he replies, will be able to tell us what are to be the functions of these new divisions. I submit that the whole problem should be under one authority and that authority should be the Board of Education.
The Board of Education has inadequate experience of running nursery schools. I do not mean that it is inadequate for dealing with this present problem; what I mean is that the scale on which the Board of Education was running such schools before the war was inadequate. However, such experience as there is in this country is in the Board of Education. The tiny toddlers, the small children below the age of two years, I suggest, may well be left to the care of the child welfare committees. I do hope that we are going to have from His Majesty's Government a clarification of this problem, and that we shall receive an assurance that the Government will press forward with the construction of these nurseries. I believe that nothing is more essential to the mobilization of our nation at the present time, and to the welfare of the coming generation.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I would like to say just a few words about this question. I shall be very short. I have had twenty-five children in a nursery in my house in the country for the last three years, so that although I am not an expert I do know something about the matter. I agree, generally, with what the right reverend Prelate has said about the value of the home, but I do not go all the way with him on the question of the advantages or disadvantages accruing to children from the experience they get in consequence of a change in their surroundings. Without belauding my own house, I am quite certain that the twenty-five children I have there have immensely improved. They are better in health, in speech, in manners and in those ordinary attractive features which children usually have. I cannot think that to separate a child entirely from its own parents for occasional periods is not a good thing. After all, most of us here were separated from our parents for considerable periods during our upbringing, and, personally, I think that we probably benefited from the separation.
These children at my home are all under five years of age. I do not think it can be regarded as being to their detriment that they lead a kind of life which is different

527
from that to which they are accustomed, and are under some sort of discipline. Of course there is difficulty in getting efficient helpers. The helpers usually serve under a trained matron and they are generally young girls. As a rule they are under the age of sixteen, and the tasks which they have to perform are tasks of the type which they probably have to carry out in the ordinary way in their own homes. They attend to the cleaning, to the washing and to the soothing of the children. My children, I may say, cry a great deal less now than they did three years ago. The difficult task, of course, is to look after them when they are out of doors. One helper, if she is intelligent, can take out as many as ten or twelve children in a park or garden, but not in London streets, for there they would be all over the place at once. That is one of the reasons why I believe that a country environment at that time of children's lives is of benefit to them.
The noble Lord who opened the debate spoke of the salary of the helpers and mentioned a figure of £120 a year. That seems to me a Utopian salary. Helpers in my nursery, I believe, get £12 a year, and of course their keep. They are quite content, and I have never heard any suggestions that their pay is too small. The fact is that you want to get young women who like children and who are attracted by the nursing profession. That, I believe, is the future to hold out to them —that they should become members of the nursing profession. If you get young women who want to be nurses and who realize that they will benefit from experience, in the first instance, in these nurseries, they are the sort of people who are likely to do this work efficiently.
As regards the Ministry, I may say that all my dealings with it, which, of course, have always been carried out through the county council, have proceeded in a reasonable manner. The people at the Ministry are quite as generous as people ought to be who have to deal with public funds. They are not always, of course, so expeditious as one would like everybody to be, but then that is not to be expected of Government Departments. Generally speaking, I believe that the system of sending children into the country—I cannot speak of institutions for I have no knowledge of them—is a good
528
one. It is beneficial to the children, and it helps them to get an outlook on life that they will probably remember and that they would otherwise have been unlikely to experience.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, His Majesty's Government do not question at all the importance, or indeed the urgency, of the question to which the noble Lord has called attention in his Motion. The Government welcome the opportunity which is given to them to make a further statement regarding policy and progress. Your Lordships will note that the terms of the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord deal particularly with the present and prospective position as regards war-time nurseries. But what he is really interested in, and what interests your Lordships I am sure, is the provision made for children as a whole—that is to say, the adequacy of the arrangements for the care of young children whose mothers are at work in present circumstances. There are indeed other services than wartime nurseries to be taken into account. There are many services of organizations and of individuals doing work that is very much appreciated in this field of endeavour, and the part to be played by each varies considerably in different localities according to local habits or preferences. For example, private arrangements are encouraged in some districts, and those private arrangements are, on the whole, welcomed by the Ministry of Labour which has established a scheme of registered daily guardians under which assistance is given to women who undertake work of this kind. These guardians operate in twenty-four districts. At the end of April last 2,433 guardians were registered, and 1,592 children were cared for under that system.
Perhaps it would be useful at this stage if I were to deal with the question of the number of nurseries provided. The aim of the Government is to establish, in each district where women are at work, nurseries in sufficient numbers to ensure that whenever women with young children go to work, a place for the children will be available in nurseries; but the number of women with young children who are actually at work determines, of course, the number of nurseries required. The Government do not wait until a demand for nurseries has been made; they assume, upon advice, that nurseries will be required

529
in certain districts, and they urge the local authorities to provide them. The estimates of the need may vary, because there are so many uncertain factors to be taken into account; but the estimate upon which the Government work is based upon the judgment of the Ministry of Labour, which has more information on the subject than any other body.
In the provision of nurseries there are certain practical difficulties to be overcome for which I think my noble friend Lord Nathan did not make sufficient allowance in his interesting and somewhat challenging speech. A decision to produce nurseries does not result in their immediate production. For instance, in the early months of this year there were considerable delays owing to severe weather. There were also difficulties about sites, which had to be overcome and, above all else, although nurseries were given priority for labour and materials, there are competing priorities for tasks which are equally urgent, and that results in a certain amount of inevitable delay.
My noble friend Lord Nathan did not quote the whole of the figures, probably because they were not at his disposal; so that I hope that I may be forgiven if I go over the figures again. At the end of April there were in operation, as he said, 453 nurseries, but by the end of May that number had become 540. At the end of April, 539 had been approved; by the end of May that number had risen to 576. At the end of April, 276 were in preparation; at the end of May, 216 were in preparation. At the end of April, the total number provided for was 1,268; at the end of May, it was 1,332 and those, it is estimated, would provide places for 52,114 children. During May, and not included in those figures, there came into operation 87 new nurseries, and there were 124 new approvals and 64 new proposals. It is expected that during June and July that number will steadily, and we hope largely, increase. The increase is indeed going on. In the Northern Region two have been opened; in the North-Western Region ten; in the Southern Region two, with seven about to be opened; and in the Midland Region it is expected that fifteen will be opened during the present month. It will be seen, therefore, that a certain amount of progress is being made.
Your Lordships will forgive me if I also give the Scottish figures, although
530
these were not referred to in the noble Lord's speech. The position on June 19 in Scotland was that 25 nurseries were in operation, providing 990 places; 54 nurseries were under construction, providing for 2,450 places, and 12 nurseries had been approved, although work on them was not yet started, providing for 490 places. In addition, some 35 to 40 nurseries, with accommodation for 1,800 children, are under consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, urged that the target in the initial instance should be 5,000 nurseries, to provide for 200,000 children, and figures were quoted to suggest that the provision at present is insufficient. The whole matter is governed by the difficulty of obtaining labour and materials for the purpose of these nurseries. It is no use suggesting that because Germany has 23,000 nurseries providing for a million children, we can provide them in due proportion. The circumstances may differ, and they certainly do differ in this respect, that in this country women with children are not compelled to work; it is thought that the taking care of a home and the bringing up of children is itself a proper contribution to national service. But the chief difficulty, and the difficulty which cannot immediately be overcome, relates to the scarcity of labour and materials, and to the pressure of equally urgent priorities for the men and materials that are available.
I have quoted figures to show what is being done and what it is hoped to achieve in the near future, and the question naturally arises of how far all this meets the need. The actual need is not very easily ascertained. For example, in one district in the London area the Minister was advised that 69 women would volunteer for work if their children could be cared for, but in the actual result only four women sent their children to the nursery, and only seven women volunteered for work, while 41 decided not to undertake work. It should also be remembered that the average attendance at the available nurseries amounts only to some 70 per cent. That may be due to illness or other circumstances which always occur in regard to child life.
But the Ministry of Health on the advice of the Minister of Labour presses for the establishment of nurseries where there is likely to be a substantial demand. On

531
the list which has been formed about 300 districts are concerned, and in all but 30 nurseries have either been established or are in preparation. They vary from small villages to large towns, and in Birmingham, to which the noble Lord referred, already 70 nurseries are in operation or have been approved. In 250 other districts individual nurseries have been established through local initiative, without having been ordered by the Ministry of Labour. The situation is an expanding one and the provision is gradually and continuously expanding. The arrangements have to be elastic, so as to meet needs as they arise, and it should be noted that the average time it takes to fill a nursery after it has been opened is three months, which does not suggest that at every nursery there is a long queue of children waiting for admission.
Then there is the problem of the women who work half time. That is being dealt with, and the Ministry of Labour is finding places for a thousand half-time women workers each week; there are 10,000 in London alone; and in the Midlands the number is gradually growing. So that war-time nurseries are only one of the methods in operation at the present time. There are, for instance, nursery classes, which have been referred to. These, run by local authorities under the guidance of the Board of Education, have made considerable progress, and provide for children between two and five years of age. More than 200, providing for 8,000 children, are now open and great extensions are expected. The Board of Education have also pressed that these centres should be kept open on Saturdays and holidays and provide also for breakfasts, teas and dinners. Then there is the problem of the over fives. That is an additional responsibility which the Board of Education have urged upon local authorities. These play centres with meals have been established in more than 217 centres, and again a considerable expansion is expected.
I have only time to deal with the question of staffing to which the noble Lord referred. The difficulty centres in two main points: first, the size and quality of the staff; secondly, how to secure this service. For a nursery open from twelve to fifteen hours a day the number of staff, as mentioned by the noble Lord, is one member of the staff to
532
every four children. One serious aspect is that you must provide for something more than the easy day-by-day running of the nursery. You have to provide for emergencies and for possibilities of sickness. You therefore need an adequate, a watchful and a competent staff, and the staff must vary with the type of nursery concerned. For instance, children of two require more attention than older children; at least that is my belief. Your Lordships who know me very well will realize that my acquaintance with nurseries is not my highest qualification, but I believe it is true that young children require much more care. Then there is the provision of child care reserve, to which Lord Faringdon referred. This consists of women and girls who have received a short course of training, arranged by local authorities. In each case you have to have a trained nurse for supervisory duties. You would never be forgiven if fire or some other tragedy occurred in a place full of children that was inadequately staffed. All administrative precautions require that your staff should be equal to what may be considered the greatest emergency. The Government venture to hope that women and girls will increasingly take up this duty—girls between sixteen and nineteen, women over thirty, or between twenty and thirty who are not being called up. These courses of training are given by local education authorities. There are at present 120 courses, attended by 2,800 students, and the number is rapidly increasing.
The question of the use of factories as nurseries has been mentioned. That system has, of course, been widely adopted by Germany, which is no reason in itself for our adoption of it here. There are, indeed, serious reasons against it. For instance, if a factory is large enough to require a nursery it is large enough, as it were, to attract bombers to secure its destruction; and to have children in such places at a time of high emergency would impede civil defence. Although the establishment of such nurseries in factories does not require approval, yet the advice given to the Government by the Ministry of Labour and the Factory Welfare Board is against this type of service being provided.
I dare not enter into the interesting discussion opened up by the right

533
reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Derby, expressing his preference for the home as a training ground rather than a public institution of whatever kind. It was later mentioned that most of your Lordships have suffered from the disadvantage of being taken away from your homes and educated in strange places. I would not dare to say that your Lordships are any the worse for that experience. While, on the one hand, we must regard the home as the centre of our British life, yet we must, on the other hand, remember that the home must be fit for the child at the same time. There are homes that are not entirely suitable as a training ground for children. I would not like to quote Rousseau against the right reverend Prelate, but I think it was Rousseau who said that the worst people to bring up children were their parents, for one or the other of them always spoiled them. I do not know whether in public schools they are spoiled. I just limit myself to this remark, that what we are doing now is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of dire necessity to have mothers, as far as possible, where they can help in a direct way the need of the State. If in that event the children suffer, we shall all be deeply sorry, and we shall owe them some recompense at a later time in the way of better education, better housing, and other things.
I have tried hurriedly to answer most of the questions which have been asked. The nurseries at present existing will teach us a very great deal which, if we are observant, will be most useful to us at a later day when some of our ideals have a chance of being put into practice. I am able to say that the criticisms and suggestions which have been made to-day will be very carefully considered by the proper authorities. The Government hope that what I have been able to say will reassure the nation that the protection of its young life is not being neglected, and it is an additional hope of the Government that one result of this useful discussion will be to induce many more women and girls to offer their help in this most valuable form of national service.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, the noble Lord will not misunderstand me if I say that I regret to find that my quotation from Mr. Greville was as apt as I could
534
have imagined it was likely to be. The noble Lord has certainly been urbane, but on some of the main points he has certainly been evasive. On the other hand I recognize that in this matter my noble friend has no direct departmental responsibility and that he is merely the voice of the Ministry. Before I seek leave to withdraw this Motion, there are two or three points to which, perhaps, I may be permitted to refer.
My noble friend Lord Faringdon drew attention to the Committee recently set up by the Ministry of Health and also to the child care division set up by the Board of Education. My noble friend opposite (Lord Snell) was somewhat confused between the child care division and the child care reserve. It is a very natural misunderstanding. My noble friend Lord Faringdon was referring to the child care division recently set up by the Board of Education with a set of functions which would appear to overlap to a certain extent those of the Committee newly appointed by the Minister of Health. In that respect, as in so many others in connexion with these war-time nurseries, there seems to be a multiplication of authorities, and considerable confusion not only in nomenclature but also in finding out who is responsible for each particular activity. The noble Lord in his reply gave certain figures additional to those which I gave. I wish to protect myself against any suggestion of inaccuracy, though I do not think my noble friend made any such suggestion. My figures were up to the end of April, whereas his were supplemented by additional figures to the end of May which were not at my disposal. I am bound to tell your Lordships I was profoundly disappointed by the figures given by the noble Lord even to the end of May. I understand that, even as late as this very day, in the great City of Sheffield, there is only one nursery school for 40 children as against twenty nurseries, which is the minimum required.
My noble friend in his reply, speaking as I understand the mind of the Ministry, showed an approach to this problem and a mental attitude which I regard with the utmost alarm. It indicates, as it seems to me, an incapacity, which is applicable not only to this problem but to many others, to visualize in time the dimensions of a problem, and a tendency to deal in a rather pettifogging way along peace-time lines with the great dynamic problems

535
which confront us, and which demand dealing with matters on a far larger scale by the exercise of imaginative processes to an extent never perhaps necessary in times of peace. My noble friend said that the number of women at work determines the number of nurseries required for the children. That statement embodies in one sentence the whole of my complaint—I will not call it "accusation"—against the Ministry. It is starting the wrong way round. It is not a question of the number of women determining the number of nurseries; it is a question of the number of nurseries determining the number of women.
It is essential—and I say this in terms which brook of no misunderstanding—if the bottle-neck is to be avoided, that there should be a number of nurseries available in the immediate future far in excess of existing requirements and sufficient to meet any requirements we can reasonably envisage (I have indicated the extent of that) by the end of the year or a little after. My noble friend did not fully appreciate the fact that the reason there has been no overwhelming demand for accommodation in nurseries is that married women to-day go to work as volunteers whereas, after December, they will go as persons directed into industry. In other words, the mothers who go to work to-day go out of patriotic motives as volunteers; in future they will be directed into industry. The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, suggested that girls might well take on the work of child training reserves. and of serving in those nurseries because by so doing they might gain an entry into the great profession of nursing. If that were the case it would be a strong argument, but I think the noble Viscount will find upon inquiry that in fact that is not the case, that the training and the work in the day nursery, unhappily, is not, as I wish it were, a qualification for entry into the nursing profession. If it were,
536
an entirely different situation would emerge.
It is six months since I last introduced this subject. I must confess the progress reported now at the end of that period, is profoundly disappointing, and I believe it will be disappointing to those who correctly appreciate the urgency and dimensions of the problem. I recognize that the noble Lord can say no more to-day than he has in fact said, but I wish to make it quite clear that, after a reasonable interval, the same subject will be placed upon the Order Paper again, and that I and my noble friends hope profoundly that on that occasion the noble Lord, or whoever else may be answering for His Majesty's Government then, will be able to say far more clearly and definitely than he has said to-day that the requirements as stated by no less an authority than the Prime Minister, and by the Lord President of the Council, will be more fully complied with by the Ministry of Health. I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BILSTON CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill— namely:

E. Iveagh,

L. Boyle (E. Cork and Orrery),

L. Lawrence,

L. Belstead,

L. Teviot.

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
House adjourned.