Sitting of 16 March 1943

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF MR. SPEAKER FITZROY
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. BOULTON) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:
"I have received your Address praying that I will confer some signal mark of my Royal Favour upon the family of Captain the Right Honourable Edward Algernon FitzRoy, late Speaker of the House of Commons, for his eminent services during the important period in which he presided with such ability and dignity in the Chair of your House.
"I have the highest sense of the long services and great merit of Captain the Right Honourable Edward Algernon FitzRoy, your late Speaker, and will comply with your wishes."

NEW WRIT (EDDISBURY DIVISION)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Chester (Eddisbury Division), in the room of Richard John Russell, Esquire, deceased."—[Mr. Beechman.]
Sir Richard Acland: I rise to oppose this Motion. I am aware that such a Motion has never been opposed before but, so far as I can find out, there has never before been any reason to oppose it. There is a reason now. I oppose this Writ on the ground that the Register in Eddisbury, as in all other constituencies, is not in a fit condition to have a by-election contested on that Register. I should be happy if you, Sir, would allow me, in place of a straight negative, to move an Amendment providing that this Writ shall be moved on this day one month, so that in the intervening period the Government may take such steps as can be taken to bring that Register into such a condition that the electorate can record their votes in an orderly and proper manner, and that all
1004
citizens over the age of 21 who have lived in the Division for six months, and those now serving in the Armed Forces who live in that area and are now stationed in this country, can vote.
At the beginning of this war the major political parties patched up a political truce. I never agreed with that truce. I thought it a typically silly, panicky war measure, taken by people who did not understand that when you are fighting for democracy it is best to give democracy its head, because it pays a dividend in the war effort to do so. However, in the first two years I had to confess that the various by-election results showed that the overwhelming mass of the people of this country did not share my view. It was quite clear when independent candidates of one sort or another presented themselves at various by-elections that the people of this country took an absolutely contemptuous view of their efforts. About a year ago things began to change, although at that time people were saying that the war was going badly and that that was the reason for the success of independent candidates. Now things are very different. It is perfectly clear from recent by-elections that the people have rejected the truce which the parties patched up between themselves. For that reason, I address to the Government an appeal to reason. Will they provide that the people shall have a proper opportunity of voting?
I confess that people who agree with me politically are not altogether disinterested in this matter, but I am sure that if members of the Government are fair-minded men, they will not desire to preserve an arrangement which does not give the electorate an opportunity of indicating its choice. We are interested because it is the young and the members of the Forces and those who by their very nature have to be moved here and there because they are important people and are wanted in different places, who cannot vote, because the Register is out of date. It is those who have been mentally and physically dead for at least three years who stay in one place, and thus can vote. Consequently, the results of these by-elections are distorted, to the disadvantage of our candidates and to the advantage of candidates belonging to other parties. But suppose we leave that out of

1005
account. Do we in this matter consider the rights of individual citizens, or do we regard those citizens as so much vote-fodder? If you regard them as vote-fodder, yon can say, "The Register is three years out of date, but what does it matter? Some can vote. That is good enough for us." If you look upon this as a matter of individual rights, you must give the people the opportunity to vote.
I will not go into detail about how it may be done, but if you can register people for chocolates, if you can register them for fire-watching, you can certainly register them for democracy—not all over the country, but in the constituencies as by-elections come up. There are scores of ways of doing it. You can give people a chance to register right up to polling day. Your A.R.P. service, which is standing there, has all the information to draw up a Register for you in one week. This can easily be clone if the Government have a mind to do it. I ask the Government the straight question: Have you the mind to do it or not? I do not ask detailed questions now. If anybody, on behalf of the Government, would say that they would like to discuss this matter seriously, with a view to putting it right, my opposition would be immediately withdrawn, and this by-election could proceed without opposition on my part on the old basis, however unsatisfactory that basis may be. I simply want to know whether the Government are going to treat the matter seriously or not, or whether we are to go on with this farce.
Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member wants to move an Amendment?
Sir R. Acland: If you would allow me to move an Amendment, I should be glad to do so.
Mr. Speaker: The appropriate Amendment would be, in line 1, after "do," to insert "not before the 16th April."
Sir R. Acland: I beg to move, in line 1, after "do," to insert "not before the 16th April."
Mr. McGovern: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am happy to do so, because I believe that democracy is not functioning in a proper manner in this country and that
1006
there is a conspiracy on the part of the three major political parties to prevent democracy expressing its will.
Mr. A. Bevan: Are we having any guidance from the Government on this matter?
Mr. Shinwell: I do not lend myself to what has been said about conspiracies and the like, but a valid point has been put to the Government. If there is any objection to the Register, obviously that is a matter of substance; and surely the Government would wish to give a reply?
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): We have had no notice that this matter was to be raised. It is obviously extremely inconvenient to have it raised in this manner, without due notice. The hon. Member knows that there has been a report on the whole question of the Register, which is now under consideration by the Government. I cannot take the matter any further than that.
Mr. Shinwell: May I make a suggestion I hope a quite helpful suggestion—to the Government? My right hon. Friend is quite right. He has received no notice and is obviously at a disadvantage. Can this question of a Writ be postponed until the next Sitting Day, so that the Government may look into the matter and give an answer?
Mr. Bevan: Writs have been delayed for the convenience of the party machine. Is it, therefore, improper to ask for a slight delay for the House of Commons and the Government to consider this matter? There have been instances. There was an instance a little while ago where a Writ was abominably delayed in order that a certain person could sit in this House. It is therefore quite reasonable that we should now ask the Government to withdraw their Motion until the next or the following Sitting Day, until they have had a chance of making a reasoned reply to the Amendment which has been moved or of accepting the Amendment. This is certainly the only opportunity an hon. Member could have of raising this matter in the exercise of his just rights in the House, and I think the Government would be meeting the wishes of the country as a whole if they gave the matter their serious consideration.
Mr. Attlee: In reply to that question, obviously the hon. Member is wrong in thinking that this matter of the Register could not be raised, because it has been raised before. As I understand, there is no particular point with regard to the Eddisbury seat. The matter might have been raised in reference to any by-election, and it clearly would be wrong to refuse to grant this Writ, because it is a matter in which you cannot go into in one day and get it fully answered. I have explained to the House already that the matter has been reported upon by a Committee and that their findings are having the consideration of the Government. As this matter is being looked at, it is quite wrong to withhold the Writ when all arrangements have been made, and there is really no purpose in withholding it.
Mr. Stephen: The answer of the Deputy-Prime Minister is very unsatisfactory. The whole position will be left absolutely indefinite by his vague reference to the report of this Committee. Could not the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that a definite statement will be made by the Government on this matter? Members everywhere are certainly concerned about the way in which this out-of-date Register is getting worse and worse. Younger people are being denied their democratic right of coming on to the register, and the Deputy-Prime Minister could surely give us a more definite answer than that which he has given us at the present time and say that a statement will be made by the Government, possibly within the next fortnight, and then Members would have some assurance that the Government are really going to deal with this matter and are fully seized of its importance.
Mr. Stokes: If the Deputy-Prime Minister is going to reply again, may I put this point to him and to the House? It is some months ago now since the Committee examining the problem reported to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Since that time the Secretary of State, repeatedly pressed in this House to say what has been done about it, keeps putting us off and saying that the matter has been considered, which is the Government way of never coming to a decision. It seems entirely unsatisfactory that when a specific point
1008
is put on a specific Register we should have an unsatisfactory reply. For my part, if my hon. Friend decides to divide the House on this occasion, I shall certainly support him.
Sir R. Acland: The Deputy-Prime Minister complains of having had no notice. More than a year ago I pointed out to the House, although no one took any notice at the time, that I opposed the whole policy of the Government, and is the Opposition expected to give notice of everything it intends to do everyday? It is asked why I did not bring the matter up sooner. It is for the very good reason that this is the first occasion on which I can say with complete confidence that we have proof that the people are behind us.
Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that he is not allowed to speak twice.
Mr. Shinwell: May I put another question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is only a question. I have not addressed the House, and I merely wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House does not want to divide on this matter and does not want to cause any embarrassment to the Government on an issue of this kind. Is there any serious difficulty in postponing this matter so that the Government may look at it, give a considered reply to the House and no doubt satisfy everybody?
Mr. Attlee: I thought that I had already replied to that question. There is no great difficulty, obviously, in withholding the Writ for another day, but there is no point whatever in it. In reply to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), I would say that the reply has been given quite definitely that a statement will be made when the Government have examined this report, but the House will realise that the Government have some other matters that have to be considered beside this one.
Commander Locker-Lampson: Can we be told how much money will be involved and what waste in literature there will be if this proposal is agreed to?
Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the unfortunate effect on the reputation of Parliament if the Government defend their majority by denying to the people the right of voting?
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

Division No. 8.

AYES.

Bevan, A.

Horabin, T. L.

Stephen, C.

Bowles, F. G.

McGovern, J.

Wilson, C. H.

Cocks, F. S.

Maxton, J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Granville, E. L.

Shinwell, E.

Sir Richard Acland and Mr. Stokes.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Rickards, G. W.

Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Ridley, G.

Albery, Sir Irving

Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)

Rothschild, J. A. de

Ammon, C. G.

Grimston, R. V.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.

Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Heilgers, Major F. F. A.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N. E.)

Schuster, Sir G. E.

Barnes, A. J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Selley, H. R.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Hewlett, T. H.

Sexton, T. M.

Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P.

Hill, Prof. A. V.

Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Shute, Col. Sir J. J.

Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'h)

Hopkinson, A.

Simmonds, O. E.

Beechman, N. A.

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Beit, Sir A. L.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Smithers, Sir W.

Blair, Sir R.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Snadden, W. McN.

Boothby, R. J. G.

James, Admiral Sir W. (Ports'th, N.)

Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.

Bossom, A. C.

Jewson, P. W.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Boulton, W. W.

John, W.

Storey, S.

Bower, Norman (Harrow)

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (St'l'g & C'km'n)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray & Nairn)

Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.

Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Keir, Mrs. Cazalet

Sutcliffe, H.

Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Tate, Mavis C.

Brooke, H. (Lewisham)

Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's.)

Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Lawson, J. J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Burden, T. W.

Leonard, W.

Thomas, I. (Keighley)

Burton, Col. H. W.

Levy, T.

Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)

Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)

Lloyd, G. W. (Ladywood)

Thorne, W.

Cary, R. A.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Loftus, P. C.

Tomlinson, G.

Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S. (Epping)

Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

Touche, G. C.

Cobb, Captain E. C.

Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard

Tufnell, Lieut.-Comr, R. L.

Colegate, W. A.

Lyons, Major A. M.

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

Colman, N. C. D.

McCallum, Major D.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

McCorquodale, Malcolm S.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Daggar, G.

Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)

Waterhouse, Capt. C.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Mack, J. D.

Watkins, F. C.

Davison, Sir W. H.

McNeil, H.

Watson, W. McL.

De la Bère, R.

Mathers, G.

Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)

Danville, Alfred

Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Dobbie, W.

Molson, A. H. E.

Wells, Sir S. Richard

Doland, G. F.

Montague, F.

White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)

Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.

Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

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

Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)

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

Wilkinson, Ellen

Ede, J. C.

Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)

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

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)

Willink, H. U.

Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)

Palmer, G. E. H.

Windsor, W.

Emmott, G. E. G. C.

Peat, C. U.

Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (Woolwich, W.)

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Petherick, Major M.

Wootton-Davies, J. H.

Foot, D. M

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

York, Major C.

Frankel, D.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Pilkington, Captain R. A.

Woodburn, A.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Purbrick, R.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.

Pym, L. R.

Gammans, Capt. L. D.

Radford, E. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—

George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)

Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas and

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Rankin, Sir R.

Captain McEwen.

Grenfell, D. R.

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Main Question,
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve
The House divided: Ayes, 12; Noes, 178.
in this present Parliament for the County of Chester (Eddisbury Division), in the room of Richard John Russell, Esquire, deceased,"
put, and agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

  STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely—
  Liverpool Hydraulic Power Bill [Lords].
  Bill to be read a Second time.

QUESTION TIME (EXTENSION)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): With regard to the very serious inroad on Question time, it might be convenient for the House, Mr. Speaker, that a longer period should be given, although, of course, I must submit to you whether it might be the wish of the House to make an inroad upon the Standing Order.
Mr. Thorne: You will notice that there are 85 Questions upon the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will give the House the privilege of having the usual time for Questions.
Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, and in view of the somewhat unusual circumstances which have just occurred, I suggest that we should extend Question time by half-an-hour. I would like to impress upon Members, however, that they must not regard this as a precedent, otherwise Question time might be postponed time and time again, which would be most unfair to hon. Members generally.
Hon. Members: Agreed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Housing, Clydebank
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why, of the 1,000 new houses to be allocated on Clydeside, only 200 are allocated to Clydebank and in view of the fact that the destruction of houses by enemy action was greater
    1012
    in this burgh than elsewhere on the Clyde, that before the war Clydebank was overcrowded, and that since the war there has been an influx of workers into the area, whether he will reconsider this decision and authorise the provision of new houses in excess of 200?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): Under the new Scottish housing programme of 1,000 houses 80 per cent. have been allocated to war-damaged areas on Clydeside. But there is unfortunately no known formula for giving universal satisfaction when only a limited number of houses is available to meet a large demand.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that his reply will be heard with dismay in Clydebank? Is he aware that "the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests" but that the workers in Clydebank have nowhere of their own to lay their heads? What is the Secretary of State going to do to meet this tragic situation in Clydebank, where there are no homes for the people?
    Mr. Johnston: The Question on the Order Paper relates only to the allocation of the very limited token number of houses to be built. I can assure my hon. Friend that we have done our best to allocate these as fairly as possible.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the heaviest amount of damage has been done at Clydebank and will he not see that Clyde-bank gets a bigger part of the allocation?
    Mr. McNeil: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is substance in the pleas that have been made and that the dimensions of this token programme need to be reconsidered?

    Hydro-Electric Development Bill
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will indicate the adaptations, modifications and exceptions which he proposes to make to the Electric (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, referred to in Clauses 16 (1) and 21 of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill, in time to allow of consideration before the Bill is examined in Committee?
    Mr. Johnston: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate promised during the Second Reading Debate

    1013
    it is the Government's intention to table timeously Amendments to the Bill setting out adaptations and modifications in the provisions of the Acts of 1926 and 1935 relating to the Central Electricity Board in their application to the North of Scotland District. No undertaking was given to schedule the adaptation of the Electricity (Supply) Acts as a whole, but I hope that it may be possible to deal with this also by way of Amendments to the Bill.
    Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that these Amendments-will be put down timeously so that they may be considered before the Bill is examined in Committee?
    Mr. Johnston: That is what I said in my answer.

    Crofters (Instruction)
    Major McCallumasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the desirability that crofters in the West Highlands and Islands should be enabled to make the most effective use of their crofts, he proposes to take any steps to instruct the crofters in up-to-date agricultural methods?
    Mr. Johnston: For many years the North and West of Scotland Colleges of Agriculture have had instructors and instructresses stationed in these districts for the purpose stated in the Question. I am glad, however, to say that the North of Scotland College has now secured, in addition, the services of Dr. Fraser Darling. Dr. Darling is the well-known scientist and naturalist, who has successfully cultivated a croft on the Island of Tanera off the Ross-shire coast and is thus able to speak from practical experience of crofting problems. Dr. Darling's services which will be on a part-time basis, will consist of giving practical instruction, advice and demonstrations to the crofters.
    Major McCallum: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his encouraging statement, will he see that when the demonstrations take place, good notice is given, as most of the crofters are in remote areas, where they are very widely scattered and where there are great difficulties of transport, as it would be to the advantage of every single crofter to attend the demonstrations?
    Mr. Johnston: That suggestion will be borne in mind.

    Rating System (Committee)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether the question of rating of site values is included in the terms of reference to the Committee which he has appointed to inquire into rating problems in Scotland; and, if not, will he reconsider the terms so as to include such a reference;
    (2) the terms of reference on which he proposes to ask a Committee to inquire into rating problems in Scotland; and whether he can give the names of that Committee?
    Mr. Johnston: I announced the terms of reference to this Committee in the House on 24th February during the Second Reading Debate on the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill. I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of the statement I then made. The purpose of the inquiry is to examine only very limited aspects of the Scots rating system. The membership of the Committee is at present under consideration.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of my right hon. Friend's well-known support in the past for the rating of site values, does not he agree that there is now a favourable opportunity to include this in the terms of reference of the Committee, and why has he not done so?
    Mr. Johnston: It is very obvious that within the terms of a Hydro-Electric Bill it would be impossible to amend the whole of the rating system.
    Captain Godfrey Nicholson: Do the terms of reference include an inquiry into what seems to an Englishman to be the odd practice of requiring that houses shall be deroofed before the owner can be let off rates?
    Mr. Johnston: No, Sir.
    Mr. Sloan: Did not the Secretary of State indicate in his speech that the terms of reference would be wider?
    Mr. Johnston: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the exact terms I used.
    Mr. Sloan: The exact terms which the right hon. Gentleman used and the terms he is using now are contradictory.

    Education
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will issue a White Paper setting out the methods adopted in Scotland to solve the administrative problems of religious education?
    Mr. Johnston: A White Paper (Cmd. 6426) with regard to the provision made for religious instruction in the schools in Scotland was presented to Parliament last month, and it deals with the subject raised in the hon. Member's Question.
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has remitted any special inquiries or asked for any interim reports from the reconstituted Advisory Council on Education and the Youth Advisory Committee?
    Mr. Johnston: After obtaining the views of the Advisory Council on Education as to the subjects into which they should inquire and their relative urgency, and with the approval of the Council of Ex-Secretaries of State, I have made five remits to the Advisory Council. I will with my hon. Friend's consent circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am at present discussing with the Chairman of the Scottish Youth Advisory Committee the subjects into which inquiry should be made by that Committee.
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is intending to introduce an Education Bill for Scotland this Session?
    Mr. Johnston: I am afraid that in the present Session of Parliament there will be no opportunity for a Scots Education Bill.

    Bombed-out Families (Housing)
    Mr. McNeilasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will ensure that in bombed areas house factors, when re-letting vacant private houses and flats, give preference to bombed-out families who are at present homeless?
    Mr. Johnston: I have no power to require property owners to let empty houses to families who have been rendered homeless by enemy action, but I understand that in at least one area the local authority have been able to come to an arrangement with the property owners under which a preference is given to such
    1016
    families. I welcome arrangements of this kind, and I hope that the publicity which will be given to my hon. Friend's Question will serve to encourage such arrangements in other areas. In addition, I have given all local authorities powers to find accommodation for homeless persons by billeting or by the requisitioning of empty houses.
    Mr. McNeil: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he might seek powers for this purpose, in view of the fact that the arrangements have broken down in so many bombed-out areas?
    Mr. Johnston: This is a matter that can hardly be considered by Question and answer. There are very serious difficulties.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Petrol Allowance (Church-going)
    Captain W. T. Shawasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is necessary for a householder in making application for petrol to allow him to attend church on the Sabbath, to give the names of the members of his household in the application so as to make them eligible to travel in the motor-car; and whether the nearest suitable church means the usual place of worship, that is, the church and congregation of which they are communicants and members, even if such place of worship is not the nearest to the home of the applicant?
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The answer to the, first part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the nearest suitable church normally means the church of the particular denomination concerned, nearest to the home of the applicant, but I shall be happy to consider any exceptional case if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars.

    Coal (Quality)
    Sir Arnold Gridleyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the inferior quality of much of the coal, including domestic, due to stone and other non-combustible material being mixed therewith and now being brought to the surface, and of the waste of transport, labour, time and money caused thereby, together with frustration of statistics of output, etc.; and whether he

    1017
    will order more effective steps to be taken to secure that only genuine coal is put on rail?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. My Regional Officers are keeping a close watch on the position and are taking all possible steps to maintain the standard of preparation of coal. Inquiries I have made indicate that over a considerable proportion of the national output the standard has been well maintained, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the position is now such that a use must be found for every ton of fuel produced, including some for which there was little or no demand before the war. It is mainly in relation to this inferior residue of the national output that difficulties arise.
    Sir A. Gridley: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to inspect a sample of alleged coal which I extracted, and which represents 4 lbs. of solid stone in one shovelful of coal, from a truck in a siding in Buckinghamshire, supposed to contain the best house coal, for which £3 a ton is charged; and does he think it reasonable that poor people should be asked to pay this price for coal which undoubtedly is adulterated?
    Major Lloyd George: No, Sir, I do not agree that it is right that it should be sold. I should be glad to look into the case which my hon. Friend has in mind. I must add, however, that every type of coal has to be used at the present time, and most of the complaints are of the type to which the hon. Member referred. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that there is a shortage of labour when it comes to the screening and sorting out of the coal, and that is one of the great difficulties.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in certain areas there is a very definite complaint about this and that last week in Northumberland, in a supply of two tons of coal, there was from 50 to 75 per cent. of stone, and that I have a sample with me to show to him? Is he further aware that there is no shortage of men to do the screening work?
    Major Lloyd George: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's contention that there is no shortage of labour on the screening. That is not so. It may be the case in
    1018
    the particular instance he has in mind, and I will look into that case. I find it a little difficult to believe that 75 per cent. of stone was found in the coal.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that industrial coal, to which the attention of his Department has been drawn frequently, contains more than 50 per cent. of moisture and incombustible material, and when wagons are brought a long distance, does not this represent a very serious waste of transport?

    Electricity Proposals, London
    Captain Shawasked the Minister of Fuel and Power when and in what manner the recent proposals of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority had been communicated to the Electricity Commissioners or any member thereof; and what was the attitude adopted in regard thereto?
    Major Lloyd George: The London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority sent me on 15th February a memorandum of proposals, stating that a copy had been sent to the Electricity Commissioners. I appreciate the work that has been put into this memorandum, and I am consulting the Electricity Commissioners about its proposals.

    Director of Gas Supplies (Dr. Smith's Resignation)
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will indicate the nature of the differences of opinion which have caused the resignation of Dr. Smith from his position of Director of Gas Supplies?
    Major Lloyd George: Dr. Smith wrote to me on 19th February saying that it appeared that he had fulfilled the task allotted to him when he was appointed in 1941 and he therefore desired to terminate his services with my Department. He felt that his effort? could better serve the national cause if exercised elsewhere. There have been certain differences of opinion between Dr. Smith and myself during the last eight months. These have arisen only on occasions when I felt myself unable to accept the advice which he rendered to me.
    Miss Ward: In view of the grave disquiet occasioned by Dr. Smith's resignation owing to the confidence they have in him,

    1019
    did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman personally discuss the differences of opinion between him and Dr. Smith since the resignation was handed in?
    Major Lloyd George: I have not consulted him' since that time, but I had on many occasions before.
    Miss Ward: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman believe that the appointment of a Committee with a non-technical chairman will be more advantageous to the national interest than a man with high technical qualifications?
    Mr. Speaker: Facts and not opinions should be asked for at Question Time.

    Coal Production (Directors' Resignations)
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will state on the coal production side the names of those members of his Department who have resigned this year and the position they held?
    Major Lloyd George: The following officers of the Production Directorate have resigned or have been released during this year: Mr. T. E. B. Young, Chief Production Director at Headquarters. Mr. H. Watson Smith, Production Director, North Midland Region. Mr. J. H. French, Assistant Production Director, North Western Region.
    Miss Ward: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give any indication as to the reasons for these gentlemen's resignations?
    Major Lloyd George: With regard to Mr. Young, the company which lent him to me were in a serious difficulty because his deputy was seriously ill and was not likely to resume work for several months. The company in question is a very important one as far as output is concerned, and I felt I should agree to Mr. Young's release. They have promised me that when Mr. Young's deputy returns they will be glad to let me have the advice of Mr. Young again from time to time. With regard to Mr. Watson Smith, much the same situation arose.
    Miss Ward: Have these appointments been replaced?
    Major Lloyd George: We have in the place of Mr. Watson Smith a panel of
    1020
    technical people doing the work. I am hoping to replace Mr. Young very shortly at headquarters and the same applies to the North Western region.

    Coal Seams, Nottinghamshire
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can give any information in connection with coal seams found 16 feet below the surface between the villages of Answorth and Cossall, Nottinghamshire; what sort of coal it is; and whether he has granted the lease to a new company to work the coal?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, the coal is the Piper seam of general house and manufacturing coal which is well known, extensively worked in the North Midland coalfield and outcrops in the neighbourhood mentioned. The answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.

    Coal Research
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can make a statement indicating what steps are being taken to develop methods and processes of utilising coal, particularly of derivatives from coal; and what his Department is doing in this matter?
    Major Lloyd George: While my Ministry is not directly responsible for the conduct of research work, it is in close touch with the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which is carrying out an extensive programme of research into the properties of coal, its utilisation and the utilisation of its by-products. My Ministry is also in touch with the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, the Gas Research Board and other industrial research bodies engaged on important work in this field. Moreover, as my hon. Friend may be aware, the Ministry is in control of the coal tar industry and of the production of benzole. Considerable progress has been made in substituting the liquid products of coal for imported petroleum products and the Ministry has acquired much valuable information bearing on the production and utilisation of coal by-products.
    Mr. Griffiths: Do these various bodies report to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the findings of their investigations, and does he propose to publish their report?
    Major Lloyd George: I should like notice of that Question.

    Low Grade Fuels
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to increase the use of waste coal such as anthracite duff?
    Major Lloyd George: Every effort is being made by the Ministry to increase the use of low grade fuels, and the opening up of further fields for their absorption is a special subject of study by the Fuel Efficiency Committee. Considerable tonnages have already been absorbed, releasing better quality coal for other purposes. Particular attention is directed to the possibilities of anthracite duff. Certain industries have given valuable assistance by taking increased quantities, and industrial trials, directed to widening the possible outlets, are at present in progress.

    Coal Ash
    Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total weight of ash in the coal used for industrial purposes and for domestic purposes in Great Britain during 1942; whether any estimate has been made in terms of thermal units of the waste in hauling such ash about the country; and in view of the increased efficiency in boiler plant which would result if this ash were eliminated, what action he proposes to take?
    Major Lloyd George: I regret that it is impossible to provide the statistics for which my hon. Friend asks. Every effort is being made, however, to maintain the standards of preparation of coal for both industrial and domestic purposes, and to reduce the length of haulage of fuel with high ash contents.
    Mr. Wootton-Davies: Are all the coal washing plants being used, and is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman taking any steps to increase them?
    Major Lloyd George: We are doing everything we can to increase the supply of the washers I think he has in mind, but the hon. Member will realise that there is a shortage of material and also of labour.

    Eire (Coal from Great Britain)
    Viscount Castlereaghasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why certain colliery companies have been ordered to
    1022
    send coal to Dublin; and whether, in view of the shortage in this country this policy is to be continued?
    Major Lloyd George: The supply of coal for Eire has been considered by the Government from time to time and certain limited quantities have been made available. There has been no formal direction by the Ministry to collieries to provide coal for Eire. Supplies are released through the normal trade channels from those collieries where the coal can best be spared at the particular time.
    Viscount Castlereagh: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that some of this fuel will be used to provide light and heat to the German and Italian Legations in Dublin; and that, as so many Seaham pitmen are fighting Germans and Italians in North Africa, our company resent this.
    Major Lloyd George: It is not a matter for me to decide. The Government have agreed that certain limited quantities should go to Eire.
    Major Petherick: Is there any reason why coal should go to Ireland when we are so short in this country?
    Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that there is universal support in the country for Ireland being allowed sufficient coal?

  GREAT BRITAIN AND DOMINIONS (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS)
  Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the visit of Australian and New Zealand Members of Parliament to this country; and whether reciprocal arrangements for Members of this House to visit these two Dominions have yet been made?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I understand that the Empire Parliamentary Association have made arrangements for a visit to this country by a Parliamentary Delegation of seven members from Australia and a similar Delegation of two members from New Zealand to take place in the course of the next two months. The Association hope to be able to arrange for the visit of a small United Kingdom Delegation to Australia and New Zealand later in the year. Visits to

  1023
  other Dominions may possibly take place in the near future.
  Mr. Dugdale: Can the hon. Gentleman state what "later in the year" means?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: I cannot inform the hon. Member.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Visit to Business Premises, Bristol
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade the purpose and result of the visit of officers of his Department to Messrs. Jarrett and Company, 78, West Street, Old Market, Bristol?
    Major Petherickasked the President of the Board of Trade why inspectors from his Department recently visited the premises of Jarrett and Company, 78, West Street, Bristol?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Officers of my Department visited this firm on 18th May, 1942, for the purpose of inspecting their records of dealings in goods controlled under the Limitation of Supplies (Toilet Preparations) Order. No action was taken as a result of the visit.

    Rubber Plantation Companies, Malaya
    Mr. Parkerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a large proportion of the rubber plantation companies in Malaya are controlled by administration companies such as Eastern Industries, Limited; and whether he will consider a revision of company law which would restore to shareholders democratic control of their companies?
    Mr. Dalton: I am informed that many rubber plantation companies used to find it convenient to employ agencies to supervise and manage their interests in Malaya, but that such arrangements did not affect the control of the shareholders.

    Utility Clothing
    Mr. Radfordasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the wide dissatisfaction with the austerity clothes regulations, whether he will consider the advisability of conferring with practical representatives of the bespoke "tailoring trade, as distinct from the manufacturing interests, with a view to amending the
    1024
    regulations, thereby making them more practical and thus removing the serious irritation they are causing to professional and business men in particular?
    Mr. Dalton: These regulations were introduced in May, 1942, after consultation with the trade. Their purpose was to effect a substantial economy in shipping space, materials and labour, and in this they have succeeded. The need for such economies is even more urgent now than it was ten months ago, and I could not agree to any amendment of these regulations which would diminish their effectiveness in this respect. Subject to this condition, I shall be glad to consider any representations which the trade may wish to make.
    Mr. Radford: May I thank my right hon. Friend for being prepared to receive representatives of the bespoke tailoring trade and ask him whether the austerity regulations were originally intended to apply only to utility clothing and not to non-utility? Is it not a fact that trousers with turn-ups wear longer than non-turn-ups?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. There was never any limitation of these regulations for utility clothing. Turn-ups are a very debatable subject. I do not accept the view of my hon. Friend, and I would like to let him know that on the turn-ups regulations alone millions of square feet of cloth have already been saved. The Services have no turn-ups, nor do many hon. Members of this House who take particular care of their tailoring.
    Mr. Brooke: With regard to my right hon. Friend's statement that he would be prepared to receive representations from the trade on this subject, has he not already received representations from the National Federation of Merchant Tailors?
    Mr. Dalton: I have not met them personally. A deputation came a few days ago and met the Director-General of Civilian Clothing at the Board of Trade and put certain suggestion to him. I repeat that, subject to the condition that these economies are essential and must be maintained, I am prepared to listen to anything the trade may submit.

    Perambulators
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is

    1025
    aware of the anxiety of expectant mothers caused by his failure to provide perambulators; and what steps he is taking to meet the current demand?
    Mr. Dalton: Many manufacturers, who were engaged before the war on perambulators, are now working, wholly or partly, on direct war work. Further, the materials available for perambulator manufacture are very short, particularly plywood and steel. Nevertheless, production has increased considerably since last year, thanks to the co-operation of the trade and as a result of simplification in design. If, however, my hon. Friend has evidence of a serious shortage in any particular area, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one shopkeeper in Middlesbrough said he had orders for 700 perambulators and could not supply more than 10 per cent? Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is an important industry and that it ought to be provided with more materials?
    Mr. Dalton: I have had this matter very much in mind and have taken special steps in conjunction with the trade to increase production. Production is considerably greater than last year. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars, I shall be glad to have the question of Middlesbrough's share of the output looked into.
    Mr. Edwards: But will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will take adequate steps to meet the demand?

    Safety Razor Blades
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps are now being taken to improve the distribution of safety razor blades; and whether he is aware that there is now an acute shortage in the supply available to the general public?
    Mr. Dalton: Despite the shortage of labour and steel strip, the number of razor blades available for the general public is little less than before the war. Every effort is made to distribute supplies as fairly as possible throughout the country, but if my hon. Friend has evidence of a serious shortage in any particular district, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Sir I. Albery: Will the right hon. Gentleman go into any chemist shop or barber's at random in London, and in five places out of six he will be told that none are available? When he says that the same number are being made as before the war, is he counting the safety razors supplied to the Armed Forces?
    Mr. A. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how unfair the shortage of razor blades is to us poor brunettes as compared with blondes?
    Mr. Dalton: I am anxious to be fair all round. The total production of safety razor blades is greater in spite of the difficulties I have indicated, but a considerable part of it goes to the Services. The civilian population, excluding what goes to the Services, have very nearly as many as before the war. If there are defects in distribution, I shall be glad to look into them on evidence from particular areas.

  BOARD OF TRADE (MOTOR CARS)
  Major Petherickasked the President of the Board of Trade how many Government motor cars, of a horse-power of between 14 and 30, are in use by his Department; and how many of a horse-power above 30?
  Mr. Dalton: Above 30 horse-power, none; of 14 horse-power and above, two.

  SPAIN (IMPORTS)
  Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he is aware of the abnormal quantities of petrol imported by Spain; and whether he is satisfied that no proportion of these imports is delivered to the Axis Powers?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): My hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that recent Spanish imports of petrol have been abnormal. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) on 10th March, imports of all kinds of oil into Spain, including petrol, are carefully regulated by a system of quotas designed to ensure that, while Spain can obtain sufficient oil for her essential needs, no surplus shall be accumulated. This system has been in operation for the past

  1027
  two and a half years, and there has been no recent increase in the permitted rate of imports. During the first six months of 1942, however, shipments of the quota amounts were delayed, pending a fresh investigation into the level of Spanish oil stocks, and allegations of leakage to the enemy. Following this investigation, the results of which were satisfactory, it was agreed between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government that shipments should be resumed at approximately the same rate as previous quotas. It follows that the answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made recently by the United States Ambassador in Spain that petrol and petroleum products are being imported into Spain to the full capacity of Spain's tanker fleet? Has the hon. Gentleman any information that that fleet has been substantially increased during the last 12 months, perhaps by tankers being handed over by the Axis Powers to Spain?
  Mr. Foot: That is a separate question. To the best of my recollection there has been no substantial increase of the Spanish tanker fleet. In regard to the first part of the Question, I think that if the hon. Gentleman re-reads what the United States Ambassador said he will find that it was with regard to the resumption of oil shipments during last year.
  Mr. Davies: Has not the hon. Gentleman seen the comment made by Senator Reynolds, of the United States, who described it as a "damned outrage" that these imports should go on to the extent that they do?
  Mr. Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he is aware of the extent that the ports of Spain are being used for the importation of certain products far in excess of the present needs of that country, and is he satisfied that such products do not pass to the Axis Powers for war purposes?
  Mr. Foot: While I do not know what particular products my hon. Friend has in mind, I cannot accept the statement contained in the first part of the Question. The import into Spain of almost all commodities, and certainly of all commodities
  1028
  of any strategic importance, is regulated by our blockade quotas, which are designed for the specific purpose of preventing imports in excess of current domestic requirements. It is a condition of all imports under these quotas that there shall be no re-export and that no similar goods shall be exported. I am satisfied that this condition is generally observed, and that any leakages are insignificant.
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the arrangement that has been working with respect to Spain will be overhauled and considerably tightened, in view of the suspicion that exists, based upon considerable information, that we have not the watertight arrangements there that we should have in these days?
  Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular information in mind, I hope that he will supply me with it. I can only inform the House that this matter is under constant examination and review and that if there wore any well-grounded suspicion of leakage in respect of any particular commodity we should at once hold up shipments of that commodity to Spain.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Will my hon. Friend consider allowing grants of these materials conditional on the release of British prisoners?
  Mr. Shinwell: Would it be possible for the Government, in order to clarify the minds of hon. Members, to submit a statistical statement of the actual amount of our imports to Spain in order to ensure that we are not exercising too great a strain on our shipping resources?
  Mr. Foot: I do not think our shipping resources are involved, because nearly all the imports are carried in Spanish bottoms, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question on the subject of Spanish imports, I shall be glad to give him the figures.

  ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether the latest reports received on the working of the measures of food relief in Greece under the supervision of the International Red Cross and the Swedish Red Cross continue

  1029
  to be satisfactory; whether dried milk and vitamins are now available for Greece; and whether further measures for controlled food relief for children, nursing mothers and expectant mothers are under consideration for any other countries under German occupation, in view of the increasing suffering amongst the civilian population?
  Mr. Foot: My latest information is that the relief foodstuffs imported into Greece through the blockade have been distributed without interference by the occupying authorities. The Neutral Commission has also entered into certain agreements with the occupying authorities for the protection of Greek native produce, though I am not yet able to say how far such agreements are proving effective for their purpose. The monthly shipments to Greece include condensed milk, and the addition of vitamin tablets has also been approved, though none have yet been shipped. As regards the third part of the Question, this matter is constantly under consideration. But it is necessary to take account not only of the possible benefit to the persons whom it is desired to help, but also of the benefit, direct or indirect, to the enemy.
  Mr. Harvey: In regard to the last part of the Question, has my hon. Friend's attention been called to the publication of the Belgian Information Office "Our Daily Bread," and the especially urgent need of Belgium for food for children, infants and nursing mothers? The whole future of Belgium is at stake.
  Mr. Mander: Can my hon. Friend state whether it is still the policy of the Government that the maintenance of the blockade is one of the essential weapons for the winning of the war?
  Mr. Foot: Except for the special exception made in the case of Greece, our blockade policy remains as stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in August, 1940.
  Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Government pursue this policy and do not send food to the starving people, the war will end with the Germans being sleek and fat and all our friends starving and down and out?

  BRITISH ARMY

    Beveridge Report (Troops Overseas)
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Bureau of Current Affairs syllabus on the Beveridge Report and the decision of Parliament upon it will be available to the Army serving overseas?
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): A limited number of copies of all A.B.C.A. pamphlets published is sent overseas.
    Mr. Granville: May I ask whether that will include the instructions which have been issued on this matter?
    Sir J. Grigg: I said that a limited number of all the pamphlets published will be available.
    Major Petherick: Is it intended to enliven Army life by also sending a syllabus of the Scott and Uthwatt Reports?

    Demobilisation Gratuities
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for War whether any arrangements have been, or are being, made to give war bonuses to soldiers at the end of the war?
    Sir J. Grigg: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 4th March, 1942, the question of gratuities for soldiers at the end of the war will have to be settled by the Government of the day in the light of the circumstances then prevailing.

    Farm Work (Pay)
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for War what farmers have to pay for the use of soldiers doing farm work; who receives the pay; and whether the soldiers get any extra pay for the work?
    Sir J. Grigg: Farmers have to pay either at rates comparable with the rates of wages fixed for unskilled farm labourers or, in the case of work for which piece rates are customary, at the appropriate piece work rate. The payments so made are credited to Army Funds; the soldiers are not given extra pay for the work. This is what is done when soldiers are detailed for this duty by arrangement with the military authorities. Soldiers voluntarily assisting farmers when

    1031
    off duty may make private arrangements with the farmer for payment, and may keep whatever money they get.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases soldiers do receive cash from farmers extra to what the farmer has to pay to Army funds, and that they would welcome a little cash recognition of their efforts for the farmers? Will he reconsider this matter?
    Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

    Auxiliary Territorial Service
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War whether the allowances his Department agreed to pay in respect of the children of widows serving in the Auxiliary Territorial Service are now in operation; and whether officers as well as other ranks are covered by the decision?
    Sir J. Grigg: I regret that the amendment of the Regulations has taken some time, but I hope that the changes will be promulgated shortly. Those entitled to the allowance will receive it retrospectively from the beginning of December. In some cases the regimental paymaster has admitted claims and paid the allowance. Officers as well as other ranks are covered by this decision.

  MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT (PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION)
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider, in view of the number of problems and difficulties presented by constituents to their Members on matters dealt with by the Ministry of War Transport, giving additional representation to that Ministry in this House?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I cannot feel that the appointment of an additional Under-Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport would be justified. I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been absent from the House for a short time through illness, but he is now fully restored. Every effort should be made to keep Ministerial offices at a minimum especially in times like these when the ordinary checks are not fully operative.
  Mr. De la Bère; Is my right hon. Friend aware how delighted I am to see him back
  1032
  restored in health, sound in heart and buoyant in spirit, and will he consider the possibility of letting us have a war transport Minister available more often in this House, where matters of great importance in connection with transport are arising?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the present Ministers in both Houses carry out their jobs very efficiently and with great courtesy?

  EQUAL COMPENSATION (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  Mrs. Tateasked the Prime Minister whether, now that the Select Committee on Equal Compensation has reported and the minutes of evidence have been published, the Government intend to implement the Report in its entirety, or whether it is proposed that the House should have an opportunity of debating the Report?
  The Prime Minister: The question of policy is under the consideration of the Cabinet, and there will be no undue delay in coming to a decision. Whether a Debate should take place or not must be arranged through the usual channnels.

  ANTI-U-BOAT WARFARE (ALLIED CO-OPERATION)
  Mr. Granvilleasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the existing machinery for combating the U-boat menace ensures the most effective cooperation between the Allied Forces engaged in this task; and whether he will consider the suggestion made by Field Marshal Smuts for the setting up of an Allied General Staff to supervise anti-U-boat warfare?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative.
  Mr. Granville: Is it not a fact that General Smuts' proposal was for an Allied anti-U-boat Staff, and would not this mean closer co-operation with the Allied Forces, and would not closer cooperation kill more U-boats and save more lives?
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.
  Mr. Clement Davies: How often does this Committee over which the right hon.

  1033
  Gentleman presides meet, and is it not a fact that the preceding Committee, set up by the right hon. Gentleman, met only 18 times in 21 months?
  The Prime Minister: It meets weekly, or more often if there is occasion.
  Mr. Granville: Is it the intention to suggest the setting-up of an Allied General Staff for this purpose, as against a General Staff in this country?
  The Prime Minister: That is fully covered by my answer to the second part of the Question.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend consider asking the Committee to consult more frequently with officers of the Merchant Navy, who, no doubt, would be able to offer some suggestions as to practical methods of dealing with U-boats?
  The Prime Minister: All that aspect is fully borne in mind.

  ARMY OFFICER'S LETTER TO PRESS
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BEVAN:
  48. To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a letter appeared in the "Evening Standard" of Wednesday, 10th March, written by a serving officer attached to an intelligence unit in North Africa; whether he can inform the House if this letter was passed by a senior officer; and whether he has any comment to make.
  Mr. Bevan: In putting this Question to the right hon. Gentleman, I do so with special compliments on his health.
  The Prime Minister: This Question should normally have been addressed to the Secretary of State for War, but since the hon. Member, no doubt from those motives of delicacy in personal matters which are characteristic of him, has preferred to put it to me, I will answer it myself. I have read the letter in question. I am advised that it does not fall under the restrictions of paragraph 547 (a) of the King's Regulations as it deals with political and not with military affairs. It was not passed by any senior officer. The Base Censorship deals with
  1034
  matters of security, which in this case are not involved, and not with matters of opinion. In reply to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, the only comment which I have to make upon the letter is that it appears to express a perfectly arguable point of view and one which is shared by many responsible people, American, British and French, in this theatre of war. As, however, many Members of the House may be at a disadvantage by not having read the letter, I should be willing, if it is desired to pursue the matter, to circulate it with the Votes.
  Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as I have already written and informed him, had I been permitted last Thursday to put this matter as a private notice Question it would not have been put to him, and I should have been exempted from his cheap sneer to-day? In the next place, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that an officer in a field of action is commenting upon the policy of his own Commander-in-Chief, and that the Prime Minister and President Roosevelt have said that the relations between the Vichy officials in North Africa are matters to be determined by General Eisenhower in terms of military necessity, and this letter comments upon it?—[Hon. Members: "Speech."]—Does he realise that we are broadcasting to France every night asking them to sabotage the Germans there and this officer commends those who shoot the Frenchmen who obey our instructions?
  The Prime Minister: It has been made clear from what the hon. Member has said that I would be meeting his wishes in circulating the letter.
  Earl Winterton: May I make one point here without taking any part in the controversy between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that his statement that any officer is at liberty to write a letter on political subjects applies only to Members of this House? Otherwise, is it not rather an invitation to the Army to flood the newspapers with their views on the political situation in this House and elsewhere? Will he make the point clear?
  The Prime Minister: The Regulations-paragraph 547a—is as follows;

  1035
  "An officer or soldier is forbidden to publish in any form whatever, or communicate, either directly or indirectly, to the Press any military information, or his views on any military subject without special authority, and he will be held responsible for all statements contained in communications to his friends which may subsequently be published in the Press or otherwise. He will not pre-judge questions which are under the consideration of superior military authority by the publication, anonymously or otherwise, of his opinions, and he will not take part in public in a discussion relating to orders, regulations or instructions issued by his superiors."
  I am informed—this is not in the Regulation—that an officer or soldier can write to the Press on other than military subjects without the permission of the higher authorities.
  Mr. Bellenger: That is quite contrary to the Regulations.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows better than the War Office. The position was made clear in an answer given by the Secretary of State for War to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), on 16th June, 1942. The hon. Member asked whether there was any ban in Army Regulations which prevents a soldier exercising his citizen's right to write to the Press on other than Army matters, to which the Secretary of State replied "No, Sir."
  Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that up to now there has been a regulation of censorship in the Middle East, forbidding officers and men from writing on political subjects connected with the Service in which they are serving; and is that now to be amended?
  The Prime Minister: I was not aware of any special regulation which has been issued on the subject, and I was not so advised by the War Office, but in my answer I have made it clear that the fact that this letter did not pass through the Base Censorship had been referred to the authorities on the spot.
  Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that numerous officers and other ranks not only abroad but in this country have been forbidden to write articles for the Press? If he will consult the Secretary of State for War concerning one editor of a newspaper who is now serving in the Forces, he will find that editor has to submit any articles which he writes before they are allowed by his superior officer.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the ban against serving soldiers in this country writing to the Press has been interpreted so severely as to prevent medical communications being sent to the medical Press on purely medical subjects?
  Mr. Bevan: In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this whole question at an early opportunity, on the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Fallowing is the letter referred to:
  "To the Editor of the Evening Standard.
  Sir,
  No newspaper is produced in North Africa for the benefit of British troops. And it is very seldom that one gets an opportunity of reading any of the London newspapers. As a result, we are all rather out of touch with events and opinion at home. Recently I had the good fortune to get hold of a batch of British and American papers. I was disturbed to find what a critical and even bitter spirit seems to be arising towards events, and still more towards personalities in this theatre of war.
  There seems to be a widespread tendency to assume that any Frenchman who has occupied any official position under the Government of Vichy, whether at home or abroad, must necessarily be a traitor, or possessed of a Fascist mentality; and that to make use of the services of such a man is to betray the cause of the United Nations and the future of France.
  Such an intransigent outlook can only serve to perpetuate disunity among the comparatively few Frenchmen who are lucky enough to be outside the power of the enemy—and this at a time when the German invasion of the so-called unoccupied zone has at length brought real unity to Metropolitan France. If pushed to extremes, such a policy would create the perfect condition for a bloody civil war in France as soon as she is free. From such a struggle only extremist and violent minorities might hope to profit, and in the resulting catastrophe all hope of a liberal, democratic, republican France would disappear.
  This Pharisaical attitude, which is, I fear, fostered by certain French elements in London, is devoid of any real moral justification. Those who escaped from France and who have played an active part in fighting the enemy have won the respect of all. But they are not, perhaps, the best qualified to judge of the actions of their countrymen in the homeland or French North Africa, many of whom, at acute personal risk, have resisted the enemy in all ways that were open to them.
  The word "collaborator," usually prefixed by the adjective "notorious," seems to have become a stumbling block in this connection. Surely a wide distinction should be drawn between those Frenchmen in official positions, high or low, who have collaborated with the Germans in the internal administration of France and those who have collaborated to

  1037
  assist a German victory. These last are few, and they may truly be called "notorious." But the vast majority of French officials have only retained their positions in a desire to preserve some order and stability in their country and to protect their fellow citizens from the worst excesses of Nazi theft and savagery. To start a heresy hunt against such men who, by one chance or another, now find themselves in a position to aid the common cause would be insensate folly and injustice.
  The French National Committee in London have very wisely welcomed to their aid French Royalists no less than French Communists. Why, then, such a furore at the discovery that some of the leading French personalities in French North Africa have Royalist connections? Why such a campaign of calumny against M. Peyrouton, who, if he had rallied to the Free French Committee six months ago, would certainly have been accepted, but who is: now bitterly denounced by people in London and Washington who know nothing of the liberalising influence he has already brought to bear and of the reputation he has long held in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco as one of the ablest and most just administrators whom France has ever sent to North Africa?
  Surely it is time that a truce was called in this campaign of recrimination. In the last analysis it is Frenchmen who must settle such differences among themselves. Our role must surely be to reduce quarrels among Frenchmen to their proper proportions, and to let it be known that we will help all Frenchmen, except proved traitors like Laval, to play a useful and honourable part in fighting the enemy. Such a policy is to the interest of the North African campaign and the wider cause of the United Nations. It also offers the only hope of recreating a great and free France when victory is ours.
  Yours, etc.,
  RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.
  February 25, 1943. North Africa."

  INTER-SERVICE COHESION
  Captain C. S. Taylorasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the successful inter-Service cohesion that has been achieved in the Middle East since the appointment of a Commander-in-Chief, he will now consider appointing a Commander-in-Chief in Britain and in other theatres of the war in which British troops are engaged?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. and gallant Friend is evidently under a misapprehension when he refers to the appointment of a Supreme Commander-in-Chief in the Middle East, since no such appointment has been made. I entirely agree that successful inter-Service cohesion has been achieved in that theatre, but I would point out that this is the result of intimate co-operation between all three Com-
  1038
  manders-in-Chief (Navy, Army and Air). So far as the co-operation between the Army and the Air is concerned, the Commanders-in-Chief have worked in accordance with my ruling of 7th October, 1941, which I quoted to the House on 7th July, 1942. From this ruling has sprung a most successful co-operation between the Army and the Air in the Middle East. This relationship will be taken as a model for operations under British command elsewhere, and it is not proposed to make any changes at present in the system of command prevailing in the United Kingdom, India or the Persia-Iraq area.

  STATE FACTORIES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Simmondsasked the Prime Minister whether that part of the recent speech of the President of the Board of Trade, at Bishop Auckland, in which he said that State factories should be used for peace-time production represents the policy of the Government?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. Friend, as reported in the Press, said that State factories should be retained wherever possible and adapted to suitable peace-time production; and that it was particularly necessary to consider those factories now established in the former distressed areas. As the House will remember, my right hon. Friend developed this subject in some detail, when replying for the Government in the debate on Economic Policy on 3rd February last.
  Mr. Simmonds: Would my right hon. Friend say whether this is the policy of His Majesty's Government; and would he bear in mind that the majority of hon. Members have a definite mandate to oppose any extension of State trading?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend who debated this matter in the House, was speaking on that occasion for the Government.
  Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman have circulated an account of the locomotives that were made at Woolwich Arsenal after the termination of the last war?
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if, at the end of this war, there is a sale of national property with scandals like those which

  1039
  occurred at the end of the last war, there will be a very great revolt in the country?
  Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be useful if my right hon. Friend dissociated himself from the majority in his party?
  The Prime Minister: I think it is very mischievous to try to cause disunity about this matter.

  EGYPTIAN NATIONALS (BRITISH FORCES)
  Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Prime Minister how many men of Egyptian nationality have served with the British Forces in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt?
  The Prime Minister: I regret that this information is not readily available.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Crown Servants Abroad (Allowances, Taxation)
    Captain C. S. Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that some foreign service allowances to Crown servants abroad are taxed while some are not; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am aware of the position to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and I propose to bring forward a Clause in this year's Finance Bill to exclude from the charge to Income Tax all foreign service allowances to Crown servants abroad which are given as compensation for the extra cost of having to live outside the United Kingdom in order to perform their duties. Hitherto there has been included in the computation of foreign service allowances which are subject to tax an amount in respect of the Income Tax payable on the allowance. If the legislation which I propose to submit to the House is approved it will, of course, be necessary to revise the amount of such allowances so as to exclude any provision for Income Tax.
    Captain Taylor: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his very satisfactory reply, may I ask whether he can say on what date this will become effective, assuming, of course, that the legislation is passed?
    Sir K. Wood: No, I shall have to consider that between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill.

    National Trust (Gifts of Estates)
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what loss of revenue has resulted by gifts of estates to the National Trust in the last three years and the consequent saving of taxation to donors?
    Sir K. Wood: I am not in a position to say what loss of revenue present or prospective may result from gifts of property to the National Trust, and I do not think that it would accord with the secrecy that obtains in matters of direct taxation to disclose any figure that might reflect the liability of particular individuals. It is, of course, inherent in any gift that the taxation liability of the donor may be reduced, but I do not think that any such consideration should be allowed to detract from the merits of a public benefaction.
    Mr. Edwards: In view of statements that have been made in the Press that these are methods, not of philanthropy but for evading tax liabilities, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter further and make a more explicit statement, as it is very unfair to the donors that such suggestions as I have mentioned should be made?
    Sir K. Wood: I think this answer makes the matter perfectly plain.

    "Wings for Victory" Weeks
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the estimated savings during the "Wings for Victory" campaign will be in excess of the amount normally expected in the same period; what proportion of the amount is estimated will be actual savings out of current earnings; and whether the number of aeroplanes produced will in any way be effected by the success or failure of the campaign?
    Sir K. Wood: In reply to the first two parts of the Question, it is not possible to say how much of the amount subscribed during the "Wings for Victory" campaign would have been subscribed in any event, or what proportion of the total will consist of savings out of earnings, whether current or otherwise. In reply to the last part, a successful "Wings for Victory" campaign will help to secure a

    1041
    sound financial and economic basis for the war effort and will, therefore, definitely assist war production.
    Mr. Edwards: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is not an authority in this country who would agree that it makes the slightest difference to production, but that everyone, without exception, would agree that it does increase the charges to the Chancellor enormously; and is this not a fraudulent practice, which should be brought to an end without any further delay?
    Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member may be content that he is probably the only one who holds that opinion on the matter.
    Mr. Stokes: May I say that I share that opinion; and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he anticipates that the genuine savings in these "Wings for Victory" weeks will be more than 20 per cent. and whether all the rest will not be bogus money from the banks?
    Sir K. Wood: I have already informed the hon. Member that I will include in the White Paper which is to be issued about the time of the Budget, full particulars about savings of this sort.

    Post-war Currency Policy
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the discussions now going on at the Treasury between His Majesty's Government and the representatives of the United Nations in Europe, in the presence of an observer of the United States of America on the subject of post-war currency, he will give an undertaking that the country will be in no way committed to any change or new system until this House has been fully informed and consulted?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) on Thursday last.
    Mr. Stokes: I do not happen to know that reply, but will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no commitment will be entered into without its first coming to this House? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply given to the Question last week by the Leader of the House?
    Sir K. Wood: I think my hon. Friend had better look at the reply to which I have referred.
    Mr. Loftusasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in, connection with the inter-Allied currency conversations, the Government have circulated any memorandum on the subject; and, if so, will a copy of such memorandum be placed in the Library of the House?
    Sir K. Wood: It is the intention of the Government in the fairly near future to publish as a White Paper the plan which has been put forward as a basis for discussion on post-war currency arrangements.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that most of what is known as the Keynes memorandum has leaked out in the Press already? Does he not think it proper that a memorandum of this kind should be circulated to Members of this House at least at the same time as it is circulated to the Press?
    Sir K. Wood: I know nothing about it.
    Mr. Stokes: Well, you ought to.
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that the Bank for International Settlements is not intended to play any part in the international post-war currency scheme which is at present under discussion in London by representatives of Allied Governments?
    Sir K. Wood: It would be premature to attempt to decide what functions will be performed by the Bank for International Settlements in the post-war world. It plays no part in the scheme which has been put forward as a basis for discussion.
    Mr. Granville: Can the Chancellor give the House an assurance that no conversations, either direct or indirect, are going on with financial representatives of Nazi Germany?
    Sir K. Wood: I can certainly do so.

    War Damage Payments
    Sir William Davisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that necessary repairs to leasehold property damaged by enemy action are, in many cases, not being carried out, by reason of the fact that the lessee of the premises is without means; and

    1043
    whether instructions can be given to the War Damage Commission to advance money in these cases to meet the necessary cost-of-works payments to make the premises habitable?
    Sir K. Wood: The War Damage Commission has no power to make a cost-of-works payment before work has been carried out. I am not aware of the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend, but if he will inform me of any particular cases he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into them.
    Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend realise how important it is to get houses that are only partially damaged made available for residence as soon as possible? Where the house owner is not in a position to do the work, would it not be better if the War Damage Commission made a grant to the owner for that purpose?
    Sir K. Wood: If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any case he has in mind, I shall be glad to investigate it.
    Mr. McGovern: Is it any good starting work on any of these contracts unless there is a guarantee by the Government that payment will be made?
    Sir K. Wood: I do not accept that.
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that cost-of-works payments will be made in the case of large numbers of properties damaged by enemy action which, at the time of damage, were considered irreparable, whether consequential damage due to exposure to weather conditions is to be included in the cost-of-works payment?
    Sir K. Wood: Section 12 of the War Damage Act, 1941, which applies both to value payments and to cost-of-works payments, provides for deductions to be made from claims if the war damage is increased by failure on the part of the claimant to take any steps for preserving the property which he might reasonably have been expected to take. Subject to this provision, expenditure for making good deterioration due to exposure to weather conditions in a property which has sustained war damage, would not be excluded from a claim for cost-of-works.
    Dr. Thomas: Thank you very much.

    Members' Salaries
    Sir Reginald Blairasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the question of revising the system of payment of the salaries of Members of Parliament, so that they may consist of a fixed amount, together with a further amount based upon the electorate of their constituencies, having regard to the fact that a part of a Member's expenses depend upon the size of his electorate?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I should deprecate any attempt to revise the basis of remuneration of Members of Parliament on the lines suggested.
    Sir R. Blair: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply does not cause disappointment nor surprise although it is the antithesis of democracy which we profess?
    Mr. Assheton: In any event, it is more a matter for the House of Commons.
    Sir T. Moore: Would it not be wiser to base the payment of Members upon the number of supporters they have in their constituencies?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Resolution [23 rd February] reported:

  SUPPLY
    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1943 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
    "That a sum, not exceeding £208,773,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Education and Broadcasting, Pensions, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance and Assistance, Roads and other grants and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944."—[For details of Vote on Account see OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1943; cols. 48 to 51, Vol. 387.]

  COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION (WEST INDIES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): There are, I think, many Members in this House who will be very glad that this opportunity has been given to debate our Colonial affairs. I, for one, am particularly glad of the form that it takes. The Notice on the Paper does concentrate the attention of this House, in this discussion on Colonial administration, upon one particular area where most of the problems are held in common and where, therefore, most of the solutions must be in common too, and I cannot help feeling that that concentration is likely, in this instance, to lead to a more useful Debate. Many hon.

  1067
  Members, like myself, have listened in the past for many years to Debates on Colonial Estimates, and it has been inevitable that, when the Debate has ranged over the whole field of the British Colonial Empire, each successive speaker has taken that particular area or aspect which interested him most. The result, of course, has been not only that the Debate itself has been irregular and inconsequent in form, but that the task of the Minister who had to wind up the Debate was made almost impossible. But even if we do concentrate the Debate, on this occasion, on the question of Colonial administration in the West Indies, it is a very broad subject and, in my opening remarks, I therefore propose to deal only with three main topics, although each of those topics raises quite different aspects of our Colonial administration.
  The first of those topics is the new proposals which have been made for the Jamaica Constitution, the second is the background and general conclusions of the Stockdale Report, and the third is the work of the Anglo-United States Caribbean Commission. They are the chief happenings of the past year in each of the three main fields of Colonial policy: political, social and economic, and international. I am sure hon. Members will realise that because I select them as the chief topics for discussion, it does not mean that there are not many others to which I attach importance, and I hope that if such matters are raised by hon. Members during the course of the Debate, the House will give me leave to reply shortly to them and to endeavour to meet the points. May I turn, first of all then, to the question of the new proposals for the Jamaica Constitution?
  The history of Jamaica, even to those who have studied it cursorily, as I have, is extremely interesting, although we must admit it is not altogether happy. Jamaica, and indeed the West Indies as a whole, has always had a peculiar interest for me, because, in some sort of way, I have a family connection with it. It was an ancestor of mine who as Colonial Secretary during the first Reform Government, completed that great and humane movement which sprang up among the ordinary people of this country for the liberation of the slaves of the West Indies. When one looks back on that, one always
  1068
  wishes that that great humane impulse had not burned itself out with the act of the liberation of the slaves and that it was not carried on into the very difficult period of adjustment which the West Indies, and Jamaica in particular, had to face after that act had been completed. If only this humane interest and sentiment which had caused that great reform had also extended to giving practical assistance and advice after the reform, and in the new situation which had been set up, many subsequent happenings might have been avoided. I might say, with some temerity in the presence of the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that I cannot blame my forefather for that, because very shortly after this act he left the Liberal Party. [Interruption.] In those days there were no branch stations. You had to go from one side to the other.
  Certainly since those days the political history of Jamaica has been a difficult one. I do not intend to go over the whole of that field. I want to pass straight to what we might call the latest manifestations of political ferment in Jamaica, which really date from the visit of what is known as the Moyne Commission a year or two before the war. A feature of all the constitutional discussions which have gone on since that time, both with the presentation of evidence to that Commission and with the proposals made from the Colonial Office and their reception in Jamaica, has always been that whereas certain important political elements in Jamaica have insisted that the best form of Constitution for the island was a bicameral system, it has always been the policy from this side to recommend some simpler form of Government. But when I came to the Colonial Office last year I found for the first time a new situation which had not confronted any of my predecessors. Whereas before certain, perhaps the majority, opinion had been expressed in favour of a two-Chamber system, there had never yet been any complete unity on any particular set of proposals. But I was faced for the first time with an agreed Memorandum subscribed to by all the main political groups at the time, setting out the lines on which they thought political development in the island should proceed, and the main feature of those agreed proposals was the two-Chamber system.
  I must confess to the House that theoretically I, personally, have no objec-

  1069
  tion to a two-Chamber system. Perhaps it is because, unlike two or three of my predecessors who favoured so much the single-Chamber system, I am not a peer.
  Mr. McGovern: There is still hope.
  Colonel Stanley: While there is life there is always hope. But although I do sympathise with their desire for simplicity in the Constitution—after all, making Constitutions is not just a kind of paper game after supper—a great deal more depends upon the spirit in which any Constitution is going to be worked than upon the actual machinery you devise. Therefore, unity of opinion in the Colony is and must be a major fact in determining the kind of Constitution likely to be successful in that particular island. I have set out in a despatch printed as a White Paper the reply of His Majesty's Government to those agreed proposals. In the main the reply of the Government is an acceptance. There are certain points upon which I have suggested reconsideration or modification, and certain points to which I have not been able to agree. I should like to make it plain that those suggestions for modification and those disagreements are not made in any spirit of obscurantism, still less in any spirit of insincerity, in any attempt to give an appearance of a generous gesture and then trying to get it back by other means.
  The proposals as I have made them on behalf of His Majesty's Government do represent a very great advance towards political self-government in Jamaica. It is the genuine desire of the Government that they shall not only meet with acceptance in the island, but that when they have been put into effect they shall be worked, and worked with success. We want the new machinery to be able to withstand the inevitable difficulties which any new Constitution must meet with in its early years, and particularly the difficulties which this Constitution will have to meet with in its early years in view of the great strains and stresses of the world as a whole. But we do hope that by the success of this particular Constitution we shall ensure in the future even further advances in the political set-up of Jamaica towards what is the goal of all of us, which is responsible government. I should add that in setting out and formulating those proposals for acceptance by His Majesty's Government and
  1070
  for communication to Jamaica I had the opportunity of close personal consultation with the Governor of Jamaica, who came back for that purpose, and I need hardly say that he was in entire agreement with the proposals which have been made. I should like to pay a tribute to the great assistance he was to me in their formulation. I do not intend to describe the proposals in detail. They are set out, as I say, in the White Paper which is circulated.
  With regard to their reception in Jamaica, I hope I am not going too far in saying that I believe their reception has been not unfavourable. The position at the moment is that the main political groups are holding special meetings for the purpose of discussing the despatch and clarifying their views upon it, and no doubt they will then communicate, through the Governor, with me again. I am glad that they are approaching it in that spirit—it is what I hoped they would do, meet it and these proposals with reasoned and detailed consideration—because the decision which they and His Majesty's Government have to take is one of the very greatest importance for the future of Jamaica. I think I really cannot close that short summary upon this question of the Constitution in Jamaica better than by quoting from the final words of my despatch, because they express the view of His Majesty's Government, the view, I believe, of the House of Commons and of the people of this country. I said:
  "The offer which is outlined in the preceding paragraph undoubtedly represents a far-reaching constitutional advance, and in formulating my proposals I have been actuated by the desire to meet as far as possible the views placed before me on behalf of the people of Jamaica to bring controversy to an end, and to create an atmosphere in which the post-war problems of the island will be faced in a spirit of mutual co-operation and good will."
  How great the difficulties of these problems are likely to be is clearly shown in the next stage that I want to discuss, the Report of the Stockdale Commission. Hon. Members who have read this Report of the Comptroller for Development and Welfare in the West Indies will already be familiar with how the Comptroller and his staff came into being and with what their main functions are. The appointment of Sir Frank Stockdale as Comptroller arises, again, from the visit of the Moyne Commission. That Commission proposed that a Comptroller, with the aid

  1071
  of advisers, should be available to advise Colonial Administrations in the West Indies and to prepare reports for the Government at home. At that time it was linked with another proposal of the Moyne Commission for the establishment of a West Indian Welfare Fund, which would be financed by an annual grant of £1,000,000 for 20 years. Later, on the introduction of the Colonial Welfare Fund, applicable to the Colonial Empire as a whole, this particular proposal of the Commission was merged into that for the new fund for the Colonial Empire. There is, therefore, no specific fund now devoted to the West Indies, but it was made plain that the amount which the West Indies would enjoy from the general pool would not be less than that proposed in the Moyne Report. I should like to make it plain that Sir Frank Stockdale is in no sense a sort of economic Czar for the West Indies. The execution of all these projects remains a matter for the Governors and Governments of the Colonies concerned. It is not always realised—and a Report of this kind sometimes, because of the way it is dealt with, obscures the reality—that these Colonies, within the limits of their resources, have in the last few years been doing a great deal of planning, and whatever execution has been possible, on their own. It would be unfair to them to give the impression that this stimulus towards a more progressive policy in the Colonies came only as a result of the appointment of this Comptroller.
  The Comptroller is there to advise the Colonial Governments, to assist them, and to make suggestions to them and to help them to work out long-term programmes. He has the great advantage that he can, by knowing what is going on in every Colony, bring the various projects in the different Colonies into harmony with each other. Also, he, with his team of experts, is a sort of projection of the Colonial Office into the particular territories. Any scheme put up by the Governments can be examined on the spot, the difficulties ironed out, the estimates checked, and the time required for approving the scheme when it comes to this country enormously reduced. Already, the Comptroller has direct authority for the expenditure of small sums without reference to this country. On his recent visit here I discussed
  1072
  with him measures to increase the ambit of his authority, and I hope soon to give him the opportunity of accepting immediately small plans without the necessity of reference here. The Comptroller is assisted by a number of experts on agriculture, education, labour, and social welfare. He has an economic expert, too; but that expert did not arrive in the West Indies until the autumn of last year, so the effect of his work is not shown in the Report we are considering. Sir Frank Stockdale has also asked that he should be given a town planning expert, and I have approved of that in principle. It is merely a question now of finding the right individual. I should like to begin by paying a tribute to Sir Frank Stockdale for the excellence of his Report. I think those who have studied it will agree that it is an admirable example of a report of this kind.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is it appropriate at this stage for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say a word about the official, or working, relationship between Sir Frank Stockdale and Mr. Taussig?
  Colonel Stanley: The hon. Member will remember that I said that the third point I was going to deal with was the Anglo-Caribbean Commission. This Report of Sir Frank Stockdale is also quite candid. There is no attempt to gloss over things which he finds wrong or to hide faults and deficiencies. He sets before us a real, frank challenge. Every year, I hope, when he makes a supplementary report, he will be able to show how we have met this challenge which is here set out boldly before us. But this Report does not set out to be a general social survey, to take the bad things on the one hand and the good on the other and to balance them together. This is an attempt to pick out the bad spots, with a view to recommending how they should be put right. It leaves out the improvements which have been made. We have to remember when dealing with not only the West Indies but the Colonial Empire as a whole, that we are judging matters there by standards which are continually changing, and that the standards by which we judge are always rising. That sometimes obscures the fact that the things that we judge are always improving. The other day I was reading a book by the late Lord Olivier. I do not think that Lord Olivier

  1073
  could ever be regarded as a very kindly critic of what might be called the ordinary British Imperialism, or the sort of person who was likely to err in under-statement on that matter. Yet a thing that is quite remarkable is that in 1930 he found in Jamaica such an enormous improvement since he first went there in 1890. It is well to keep in mind that the standards lay which we judge are always improving, and I believe that the conditions which we judge are always improving too—although I would like them to improve more.
  Dr. Haden Guest: That is partly because of the good work done by Lord Olivier.
  Colonel Stanley: Exactly; Lord Olivier as a member of the Colonial Service, and many others, like him, have given their lives to this work. Sections 16 to 43 of the Report set out the general background. I think that the short potted description which those sections give of the different islands and territories in the British West Indies are remarkably interesting. First, they really bring out the immense diversity of the territories with which we have to deal under this one generic term of the British West Indies. They differ in ever way—size, soil, products, population. Yet there are certain main problems common if not to all at any rate to most. The first is that this area is predominantly agricultural. There are oil in Trinidad, bauxite in British Guiana, possibilities perhaps of some mineral development in Jamaica; but apart from that, there is nothing to lead us to believe that there are in those territories any unknown resources of mineral wealth, or to make us alter our opinion that in future they will have to depend on their agricultural products.
  Earl Winterton: Tropical agriculture at that.
  Colonel Stanley: Yes, tropical agriculture at that. Secondly, most of the islands are densely populated—on the basis of their present capacity, over-populated. Thirdly, historically, although not to such an extent as is generally supposed, and certainly to a lesser extent in the last few years, most of the island have had a single-crop economy. They have depended oh the production of sugar for export; and sugar perhaps, of all prim-
  1074
  ary products, has fallen on the most evil days. Subsidised beet sugar production and new sugar countries in the Far East have altered the position of the West Indies very much since their proud days in the early 19th and late 18th centuries, when they were sugar producers for the world. I might call attention to the table at the end of the Stockdale Report, which sets out the survey of the results which have been achieved. The first table shows the schemes which have been approved, which have been submitted to be, or which are still under consideration by the Government. The total money involved in the schemes which have been approved is £1,187,053. Schemes submitted to me at the end of September last year amounted to £844,266, and those under consideration to £3,847,333. I can bring those tables more up to date. Since the date covered by this Report, 30th September, 1942, schemes amounting to £956,989 have been approved. Practically all the schemes which are shown in this book as submitted to me have by now been approved, as well as some which at that time had not even reached me. That shows that we are now, with this new machinery, able to deal with schemes of considerable magnitude at a not unsatisfactory pace.
  I think that the first thought which strikes anyone looking at this summary of the schemes which have been approved is that, at any rate so far as actual expenditure hitherto is concerned, we have been able to make use of only a proportion of the money which a kind-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer has generously made available to us.
  Mr. Maxton: Do not sneer.
  Colonel Stanley: I was paying a frank tribute to my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member really wants to know what I was doing, I was throwing bread on the waters. I thought that by paying tribute to his generosity in the past I should have an increased claim upon his generosity in future.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman expect it to return only after many days?
  Colonel Stanley: Hon. Members will see that the conditions in which we have tried to get this scheme working have

  1075
  been of extreme difficulty. The whole Caribbean area has had many difficulties, and increased difficulties in the past year, owing to the war at sea. Everywhere there is difficulty in obtaining supplies of material and in getting all the necessary technical advice, and in some of the Colonies, owing to the competing claims of war work, there is difficulty in getting labour.
  Dr. Guest: Not in Jamaica.
  Colonel Stanley: I said, in some Colonies. In the planning stage there is bound to be a period before the larger works can be started. I only want, as I told the hon. Gentleman, to lay out a claim now. I am sure that hon. Members will not think that, because owing to these exceptional conditions of war we have not been able to spend the sum allocated, that means that in normal conditions the sum allocated would have been too big. I think that any examination of this Report will make hon. Members feel that the £5,000,000 a year, for which the Colonial Development and Welfare Act makes provision, if the needs of the rest of the Colonial Empire are on the same scale as those in the West Indies—and one has no reason to think they are going to be any less—is not going to be too much but is going to be too little. The next interesting point from the appendices indices is Appendix No. 5, which shows the allocacation of these grants as between the different Colonies. Hon. Members will notice that Trinidad does not appear in the list. The reason for that is that Trinidad, largely owing to natural wealth in oil, is in a more satisfactory financial position than are the other Colonies and considers the grant unnecessary, except where she undertakes works which are central in character and of utility to the other West Indian Colonies, and the help given her has been given to help with technical advice. The other point hon. Members will notice is that the biggest share goes to Jamaica. That is natural, because it has not only the biggest, but by far the biggest population, something like 1,250,000 out of the total of the population of the territory covered by this Report of under 3,000,000, but still hon. Members will see that very substantial sums for development have gone to the smaller Colonies. And it is perhaps there
  1076
  where these sums, though they may appear small in view of the gigantic sums we discuss in this House, are most needed and where the application of quite small sums will do the most immediate good.
  Now I would like to pass to a broad survey of the objects for which this money has been devoted, and for the purposes of debate I would divide them into two classes—economic and social. Although a division of that kind is useful for purposes of debate, it is unreal in actual fact. You cannot really divorce the two—expenditure on economic objects and expenditure upon social objects. The greatest economic aspect of these islands is always going to be the productivity of their own people. Their well-being is going to depend upon that, and that depends upon their health, training and their own self-discipline, and that in turn depends upon health services, education and social welfare services. Just as there can be no economic development in these islands without improved social services, so there can be no proper permanent standard of social services without economic development. But if for the purpose of this Debate I might divide them into two classes and deal first with the economic, this must be predominantly agricultural in character, and to a large extent the question of whether the islands of the West Indies are going to be naturally prosperous or are always going to have a call upon our financial help depends not on causes discussed within this document and not on causes for which this country alone can be responsible, but on far wider world causes outside.
  All of us realise that there can only be a natural prosperity of the West Indian area in an expansionist world as a whole—in a world where expressed demand equals potential supply. That is, I am afraid, a bit too wide for debate to-day. Although that is what, as a country, we must plan for and what I, as Colonial Secretary, must hope for, we have also to plan to supplement that natural prosperity, if it comes from those wider causes, so as to be able to guard against the effect of a world set-up after the war which does not allow such prosperity to arise. Everybody, I think, agrees that for these islands too great a dependence upon a single crop economy is surely unhelpful. Already, as I have stated, in most of the islands that economy is becoming more diversified already than people realise, but it is only

  1077
  fair to point out that, if that over-dependence on the single crop economy is disastrous at one end of the scale, at the other end of the scale, an attempt at too great a measure of self-sufficiency would be equally disastrous. It can only be done at the expense of a standard of living which would be intolerably low. Unless you are prepared to devote a portion—and a considerable portion—of your agricultural production in the West Indies to export in the world market, you have to cut the whole of that area away from those amenities of civilisation to which they have become accustomed. And so, in our development of agriculture in the West Indies, we have to find something between these two extremes, and the Stockdale Report lays the very greatest emphasis upon the development of mixed farming.
  Many of us in this country have an idea—it is quite an erroneous idea—that the West Indies is a place of extraordinary natural fertility. Hon. Members who know it will agree with me that that is a great exaggeration. Its soil does produce certain things, notably grasses and sugar cane, extremely well, but there are many other important agricultural products for which it is not particularly fertile.
  Dr. Morgan: Such as?
  Colonel Stanley: Most of the proteins, and it can only be made to grow them with a certain amount of trouble and a good deal of attention to replacing the fertility of the soil which has been exhausted. One of the real problems in the West Indies to-day is the problem of soil erosion and the loss of soil fertility. The lines upon which the Stockdale Report recommends they should be dealt with are, first of all, and most important perhaps, the improvement of the water supply; secondly, afforestation; thirdly, diversified cropping; and fourthly, animal husbandry. In fact, and above all, by the greatest possible use of really intensive agriculture. Hon. Members will realise that if you are to have mixed farming, diversified cropping and good animal husbandry it does entail a very much higher and a much more widely spread degree of agricultural skill and intelligence. All through the Stockdale Report you will see the emphasis which is placed, either under health or education or social
  1078
  services, on developing this greater skill and intelligence in agriculture.
  Some hon. Members may be disappointed that there is little reference in the present Stockdale Report to economic developments other than purely agricultural. I hope at some time to see in these reports a survey done with greater care and detail, as has been done on the agricultural side, of the requirements for the establishment of secondary industries in this area. We want in this document, because it is the basis upon which alone industrial enterprise can afterwards proceed, a survey of the primary requirements of industry, of the technical training, the skilled labour available, of the power which can be made available to islands with no coal but possibly with undeveloped sources of water-power, and, of course, of oil, and finally of communications. I am very hopeful that now that Sir Frank Stockdale has his economic adviser this detailed survey can now be made and recommendations approved.
  The section on the question of health—Section 55—sets out very well and very shortly the health problems that have to be met. I obviously could not go through the whole of the variety of recommendations which are made. The particular one to which I want to call attention, because to me, with my very great ignorance of medical matters, it seems to be the most interesting and in some ways most important, is the suggestion of the health community system—an attempt to take up into the rural scattered communities the health advantages which you normally expect to find in an urban and highly populated area. Sections 60 to 62 would well repay hon. Members' reading. We do intend and have given authority for the carrying-out of a large scale experiment in this health community system in Jamaica in the parish of St. Catherine. The report on the health side also draws great attention to sanitation, hygiene, and housing—one of the things, unfortunately, which are most affected by the shortage of supplies—and a certain amount has been done and great ingenuity has been shown in devising the use of local material. But even if you are building a house out of local material, it is surprising the amount of stuff—window frames, screws, and the tools with which to build it—which has to be imported from outside when you have a country or area like this which has no actual

  1079
  material resources. The reference to sanitation is interesting because it shows how interlocked are all the problems of the Stockdale Report. They are dependent not upon anything that you can strictly say comes under health; they are dependent upon what has been done for education and social welfare in the development of clubs. Perhaps most important of all is water supply, where, except for the smaller schemes which you can possibly do with local products, the difficulty of importing the materials has presented almost insuperable barriers to the larger scale projects.
  Social Welfare. To me the interesting section here is Section 205, where they set out the objects of social welfare in the West Indies and they make plain—as they should make plain—that these projects for social welfare, these hopes for the development of social welfare, are not in the nature of a relief service. It is not just to do something for people who are not privileged or who are poor, or something which will naturally die away and stop as soon as you can remove their economic position from poverty or discomfort. Social welfare is a permanent part of national effort and just as essential and as important as health and education. Perhaps the most interesting, and to me the most novel, thing to which they call attention is the four Hs' Club. Hon. Members who have seen the reference to the Four Hs' Club in the Report have no doubt wondered what it is. The Four Hs' Club is something like the Young Farmers' Club, although more intensive in its operation, and it brings them in at a younger age and keeps them to an older age. It was started in the Southern States of the United States of America and it has already had an enormous effect in the agricultural rehabilitation of these states. Its motto is:
  "I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service, my health to better living, to my Club, my community and my country."
  It has already caught on extremely well in America, and although it is an idea, not started with us, it is obviously one which has had success already in the United States of America and one which is likely to be equally successful in the West Indies.
  I would now like to turn to education. I have had a long connection with educa-
  1080
  tion in this country in one way and another, either through adult education or as President of the Board of Education, and I have considerable sympathy with the problems which met Sir Frank Stock-dale when he was discussing the future of education in the West Indies. What education there is in the West Indies—and it is lamentably little—is based largely on the 19th century education in this country, and the result is that they are now faced with many of the problems with which we are still faced, or have been faced, in this country. In the first place, there is almost complete divorce between education and life, and most people interested in education would say that this was characteristic of the Victorian ideal. Those who want education to be more closely related to life do not want it merely to be vocational. Because you say, "It is no good teaching people either in form or in subject something which has no relation to a life they are living at the moment or will live in the future," it does not mean to say that education should be confined only to those things which will give them a better economic prospect. But it does mean that they have to face the same difficulties as we have faced here in the last generation or two of trying to make people realise that the years they have spent at school are not just something taken out of their lives but a natural part of their growth and education that continues when their school years are over.
  Another problem they have to face is the dual system in schools. It is a delicate subject to tread on here and is equally delicate ground on which to tread in the West Indies. But the West Indies have one problem in connection with education which we have not, and that is the problem created by the age groups of their population. Owing to the tremendously high birth-rate during the last 15 to 20 years the proportion of children of school age is enormous compared with the producing portion of the population, whereas in this country, with the falling birth-rate, the proportion of producers compared with the proportion of children is very much higher.
  There are only two points I would like to deal with particularly in regard to education. The first is the rural central school, about which there is a very interesting section in the Report. It is very much on the lines of what I was

  1081
  keen on at the Board of Education. It is a real attempt to make school applicable to the life. The second is the question of school meals Something has been done on these lines, and when the Comptroller was here in December I took the opportunity of having a considerable discussion with him on this point. I am very anxious that the provision of school meals for children shall be pushed ahead as far and fast as possible. By that I do not mean that I want to relieve parents of responsibility when they are able to take responsibility, but I do not want to prevent children from getting the benefit of the balanced meals which they can get at school. Hon. Members will agree that part of the trouble with diet in the West Indies is not so much its lack of sufficiency as its lack of balance. Certain products are available in great quantities, and the danger is that feeding in the home may be unbalanced, whereas in the schools it can be made certain that a properly balanced meal is given.
  With regard to research, although it is extremely important, I will not refer to it, for the reason that we have in this House the junior Member for Cambridge University (Professor Hill), who is a member of the Colonial Research Committee and who has been Acting Chairman of the Committee in the absence of Lord Hailey. I am extremely hopeful that during the course of the day he will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I want to say only one thing more on the Stockdale Report. What struck me more than anything when I read this Report, as opposed to looking at the list of schemes which had emerged from it, was this: This is not merely a question of money or of what money can buy; it is not a question of bricks and mortar, concrete, iron, steel and machinery, all of which we can buy if the money is provided by this House. Everything depends not merely upon material products but upon men and women. The agricultural adviser, the school teacher, the welfare worker, the doctor, the nurse, and the club leader—these are the people who will be really vital in all Sir Frank Stockdale's ideas for improving conditions in the West Indies. We can do something in this country; we can help to train them; we can create the material background against which their work will be successful, but we cannot do more than that. They must come from the West Indies, be of the West Indies,
  1082
  and work with the West Indies, and it is upon them more than anything else that the future of the West Indies will depend.
  Now may I pass to the last of my points—the Anglo-United States Caribbean Commission? It may interest hon. Members if I tell them something about the work the Commission has done during its short period of life. Let us remember that this Commission is not only important for what it has done already; it is far more important for what it may do in the future, for the lessons we may learn from it and from the guidance it may give us in the future. The Commission has been in existence for one year and was set up on proposals from America with the function of advising the Government of the United States and the Government of the United Kingdom on common problems of social and economic development in territories for which these two Governments are responsible in the Caribbean area. There are three members upon each side. On the American side there are Mr. Taussig, the Chairman, Mr. Du Bois and Mr. Tugwell, the present Governor of Puerto Rico. On our side there is Sir Frank Stockdale as Chairman. Up to recently I did not appoint two other permanent members because we changed the delegation with the subjects to be discussed. I have recently appointed Mr. Huggins, head of our Supply Mission in Washington, as a permanent member. I had an opportunity in December of meeting Mr. Taussig when he came to this country. He also had an opportunity of meeting a considerable number of members of the Government and of this House, and I know that the impression he left upon them was the same as he left upon me—the impression of a man of great sincerity, a man with a real desire to cooperate and a man with a constructive mind. We had great value from those discussions in London, and I believe that in the future we shall get more value from the work of this Commission.
  It was set up originally to deal with long-term development, but naturally it was drawn at once into urgent war-time problems and proved of great assistance to us in the great difficulties of food supplies created by naval events in the Caribbean at the beginning of last year. It was undoubtedly due to the Commission that

  1083
  the difficulties were crystallised over the whole area instead of Colony by Colony. The Commission called a conference of supply officers, and certain, common measures were thrashed out together. The Commission has been active in setting up and helping to run a schooner pool to economise in shipping between the islands and to make the best possible use of the limited amount still left. Now the Commission is working on fishing research, medical questions, including venereal disease, broadcasting and the provision of materials which are urgently required for the development of the plans I have been discussing in the Stockdale Report. In a short year it has made a valuable start, and I hope we shall be able to evolve a technique of international co-operation. The Commission has not started on a high plane of broad theoretical discussions; it has started on a plane of practical solutions to common problems facing both countries, and the sort of problems which will face them in that area after the war, problems of economics, transport, health and communications which go far beyond the frontiers of one particular unit and can only be solved by common effort. I hope that by means of this Commission we are trying out on a small scale the practical means of solving these problems together.
  I have tried to set before the House under the headings "Political, Social and International" the chief events. I think hon. Members will realise the magnitude of the problems facing the West Indies now and which will face them even more in the post-war years. The problems are admittedly grave and difficult, but I think they can be solved. It will need not only all our efforts and help but much more than that. There are three things we shall want. The first is real partnership between this country and the West Indies. The West Indies cannot solve their problems themselves without our help, and we cannot solve their problems from this country without their help and co-operation. Secondly, we shall want some organisation which will bring together the West Indies and the rest of the Caribbean area which will enable them to find some solution of problems which are as common to Puerto Rico or indeed to Cuba and Haiti as to Jamaica. Finally, we have to try and fit the Caribbean area as a whole into the world, so that an area like that can survive and prosper. The only world
  1084
  where these communities can prosper is a world which will offer to bring happiness to the Caribbean area. Those, I think, are our three main tasks. Only when we have done them shall we be able to feel in-this country that we have fulfilled our trust to the West Indies and only then-shall we be able to be proud of the work we have done. When we have done it, I am certain that, whatever the progress of the West Indies may be towards responsible government, greater development and free institutions—however far their progress may be—we shall always have a West Indies bound to us by a triple tie of loyalty, gratitude, and affection.
  Mr. Creech Jones: We have listened to a most interesting and frank survey of the problems of the West Indies. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State has shown little complacency in regard to the difficulties confronting him and the local governments. We are very glad the opportunity has been furnished of debating West Indian problems, and we hope that there may be opportunities at other periods of the Session to bring into review the special problems of other Colonial areas. There are, of course, in the circumstances of war, considerable difficulties in the way of any coming to grips with the essential problems in our Colonial areas. I think it can be said that there are few regions in the Colonial Empire which have had so many inquests as the West Indies, and few areas where the essential problems have remained to such a large extent unsolved. It is something of a tragedy that, however the circumstances of the years have changed and however world economic conditions have fluctuated, in the West Indies the problems of poverty, disease and economic instability have remained.
  I would like to join with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in paying a tribute to Sir Frank Stockdale and his advisers for the extremely interesting and valuable document they have made available to us. I would like also to extend that tribute to the members of the staff of the Colonial Office, who have worked equally hard on many of the schemes that have been submitted to London. I agree that the black spots in the West Indies have not been ignored and that, as the Secretary of State said, they have not been

  1085
  glossed over. I think it will be generally agreed that the experiment recommended by the Royal Commission to the West Indies of having reports submitted to the House from time to time, surveying the problems of the areas, has proved to be fully justified. I hope the experiment in regard to the West Indies Commission, a Comptroller with advisers, will be extended to other Colonial areas. The time is overripe for setting up such a body in respect of West Africa, and possibly East Africa, by means of which the economic and social problems could be brought into survey and recommendations made as to how certain of them could be solved. In the case of the West Indies, there is also the other advantage that the West Indians themselves can appreciate the common problems of their area; the fact that there is frequently consultation between the respective Governments gives them an opportunity of studying comparative experience and the conferences which are called together from time to time of officials who are performing like duties in the respective territories also serve a very useful purpose. Consequently, as a result of the work of the Commission, there begins to develop a common view of the problems of the area.
  When one comes to study the Stockdale Report, one feels it is a pity that the House is still without the Report of the Royal Commission on the West Indies. That Report might have furnished a very useful background to an appreciation to some of the problems which Sir Frank Stockdale and his advisers have attempted to tackle. At the present time it would be particularly useful to know how far the recommendations of the Royal Commission have been departed from in Sir Frank Stockdale's recommendations.
  I take it that it is one of the responsibilities or duties of hon. Members on this side of the House to be constructively critical. I must confess that the picture given in the Report, of the social and economic conditions in the West Indies, is not too reassuring. I appreciate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's point that the whole picture is not there, but I think it is obvious to anyone who reads the Report carefully that no clear picture emerges from it as to how the many problems it throws up are to be handled in the days to come. Possibly I ought not to complain on that score, seeing that it is the first Report that Sir Frank Stockdale
  1086
  has submitted, and that there are very definite limits to the ground over which he may range; but as one reads the Report one is conscious that there are very acute problems and very great difficulties mentioned without there being offered even a tentative solution of them. For instance, we are left to imagine that the problem of the surplus population in Barbados can be solved only by a system of intensive cultivation. The real nature of the social problem and whether social remedies are possible is not discussed. Likewise, with the problem of land tenure and land settlement, the matter repeatedly crops up as various aspects of the work are brought under review, but one asks how far has legislation gone and what really is being done to overhaul the whole problem of land tenure and how far are schemes for further land settlement now being developed.
  Again, one paragraph after another refers to the increasing apprehension in regard to unemployment, particularly when the work on the military bases comes to an end. Yet there emerges from the Report very little constructive idea as to how the problem of unemployment is to be grappled with in any comprehensive way in the various islands. The same difficulty arises with regard to the basic problem of sugar. Sir Frank Stockdale expresses great apprehension about the post-war condition as regard sugar cultivation. Is the present volume of production likely to be maintained? There is also the accompanying problem of price levels and the problems associated with refineries and so on. While those problems are stated, they do not receive a very satisfactory answer inside the Report. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is right when he indicates that in future the Report should be accompanied by an economic section setting out the broad economic problems that have to be solved in this area. As one reads the Report, one asks all the time questions of this sort. What is the place of the West Indies in world production of certain primary products? How are price levels of export products to be maintained? How can a reasonable income be assured to the primary producers? How in each of the territories are better balanced economies to be effected? What about the problems of trade? How are wage standards and living standards to be built up? How are the resources of the Colonies to

  1087
  be developed, and what about subsidiary industries and industry generally? That is the sort of question which repeatedly occurs to one as one tries to understand the scope and purpose of the Report. As the Secretary of State said, no clear economic plan emerges, particularly in respect of small industries and processing industries, and also, I would add, in respect of agriculture itself. The fundamental problems of land tenure and settlement and price levels are not discussed at all beyond the statement of the problems. Therefore, I think it is important, if one is to get a fair appreciation of the nature of the problems, that the aid of the economic adviser should be sought. Coming to the main proposals of the Report, I notice that already schemes to the value of £6,000,000 have been endorsed. That does not mean the money has been spent, of course——
  Colonel Stanley: Schemes to the value of £3,000,000 are still under discussion.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Shall I say that schemes to the value of £6,000,000 have been submitted?
  Colonel Stanley: It is only fair to point out that Appendix I and Appendix 2 together give the schemes which have been either approved or submitted to me. The other long lists totalling over £3,000,000 are only under consideration or under correspondence with the Governors, and, of course, may never be submitted.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The point I was trying to make was that as far as the Comptroller was concerned, schemes to the value of approximately £6,000,000 have been prepared by him. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain this matter in more detail later. Most of the schemes have been prepared on a five years' basis, though some are on a nine years' basis. I hope very much that, although schemes of this value have been prepared for the period of the first two years, schemes will continue to flow in and will be concerned not only with economic change but equally with social reform. I should like to recall the point made by the Royal Commission that schemes should be financed to the value of £1,000,000 a year for social reform. I appreciate the difficulty of drawing the line between economic and social reforms, but obviously what was in the mind of
  1088
  the Royal Commission was that sums up to £1,000,000 a year should be spent on such problems as education, health services, housing, slum clearance, welfare facilities and land settlement. I hope that, because in the schemes that are presented there is an enormous expenditure on roads, afforestation, the clearance of swamps, the construction of reservoirs and the making of landing grounds for aeroplanes, schemes of economic reform will not outweigh the importance of social reform, and that the money will be no less available for that. I would also enter a plea that the Comptroller should not be unduly restricted in the matter of long term planning. The Royal Commission suggested a period of 20 years. The 1940 Act, of course, proposed the provision of funds for 10 years. The Colonial Office has been in consultation with the Treasury and obtained a modification of the 10-year view. But, if the recommendations of the Royal Commission are to be followed, it will be noted that they said very definitely that they did not want the Treasury unduly interfering in the administration of this money. I hope that long term planning will be effective and that this will be kept in mind and that the Colonial Office, if it has any difficulty with the Treasury, will come to the House and get the wherewithal necessary for the work which it feels ought to be done.
  There is another difficulty in the reading of the Report which is pointed out in paragraph 317. The rate of progress will depend very largely upon the vigour of the executive action of the local Governments themselves. Obviously, it is difficult to get a very clear picture of the lines of reform which are being worked out merely from the Report itself. In regard to the schemes which the Comptroller himself has submitted, they will undoubtedly have to be worked through the local Governors and Governments. That is where my anxiety is. Can something be done to create a greater sense of urgency in the minds of the local Governments concerned? Also, when schemes are being offered by the Comptroller to the local Governments, can it be arranged that all sections of the community which are affected by these schemes are brought into consultation, and will the Secretary of State himself be on guard lest certain admirable proposals that may be made by the Comptroller are

  1089
  not turned down merely because certain plutocratic local Legislatures do not like them? Although consultation is important with all sections of the community, he should be guided not so much by the opinion of certain local Legislatures but more essentially by what the people regards and he regards as essential and making for social well-being.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: I understand that the Legislatures contain official members who are in a majority. How can they be plutocratic?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I do not wish to withdraw the description I have given. The plutocracies of the island are extremely well represented and have considerable influence in the working of the Legislative Councils in the West Indian Islands. Constitutional reform is a matter of great urgency as I shall show later on.
  Another point I wish to make is the exclusion of Trinidad from consideration in the Report. It may be that Trinidad does not seek financial assistance at present, but when the Comptroller's establishment was set up it was understood that the whole of the British Colonies in the West Indies would be under the constant supervision of the Comptroller and that he would, from time to time, discuss problems with the local Governments and that the position in these territories would be reported to the House for the information of the House. I hope very much that, because Trinidad is applying for no financial help at the moment, the Comptroller will not omit continuous contact with Trinidad as to the way in which it is shaping its social policy.
  I am glad to know that the Secretary of State has accorded to Sir Frank Stockdale more authority to deal with some of the problems which arise but I wish he would consider the creation of an effective advisory committee under the terms of the 1940 Act. It was promised that such a committee should be created, its function to include the bringing into review of the various problems of the areas that apply for assistance under the Act. I think that is a method whereby the progress in the Colonies can be ascertained. Such a committee would receive periodic reports and watch the developing situation. The present Report is something of a patchwork. It is broken up in a series of different and unrelated schemes
  1090
  and the real connection with the larger problem of the economic and social development of the West Indies cannot be too easily appreciated. That appreciation should come through an advisory committee charged with studying applications for aid under the Act.
  The Secretary of State has pointed out that agriculture is basic to West Indian prosperity. As far as mineral wealth is concerned, there is little more than the oil in Trinidad, and the bauxite in British Guiana. Apart from that, the prosperity of the West Indies must be built up on agriculture and it is, of course, natural that the Report should stress the need for more balanced economies, mixed farming, a different system of land tenure and the need for the production of more foodstuffs and animal products, as well as the adoption of schemes of land drainage, afforestation, soil conservation, and the rest. I should like to draw attention to paragraph 136, on the top of page 36, where a number of agriculture problems are set out which seem to me to be of fundamental importance. It reads:
  "It is clear that unemployment and inadequate social standards for agricultural workers are the principal causes for unrest. These defects can only be remedied by remunerative prices for agricultural produce to provide an adequate wage level and to enable Government and other responsible agencies to organise better conditions for rural living. Insecurity of land tenure in respect of land rented from landowners is another major reason for the demand for Government sponsored land settlement. It is obvious that there can be no agricultural advance or a contented peasantry until the relations of landlord and tenant are placed on a satisfactory statutory basis which provides for compensation for unexhausted improvements. This reform is one of the most urgent for agriculture in the standards of life in the British West Indies. Furthermore, it must ever be borne in mind that improvement in the standards of life in the West Indies largely depends on a more intensive use of the soil, and that large scale enterprise in many instances has the advantage in regard to efficiency of production. It is possible, of course, for the small man to be brought into the sphere of large scale production by cooperative systems of land use. The Lusky Hill Co-operative Settlement of Jamaica is the first experiment of this nature to be started in the British West Indies."
  It seems to me that these are among the crucial problems that have to be solved. What shall be the level of prices and produce; how are you going to develop the intensive use of the soil; what is to be done in the way of large-scale enterprise; are we to encourage in any degree co-operative farming; what system of land tenure:

  1091
  is to be adopted? It is probably unfair to suggest that Sir Frank Stockdale should provide the answers, but unfortunately, while these problems are stated in the Report, as in so many previous reports on the West Indies, no adequate answer is found anywhere. It is true that a committee is sitting in British Guiana and Trinidad on agriculture, but I hope it is not going to shape its course in the way in which previous committees in these Colonies have conducted their business. They go on and on and never come to conclusions. That is particularly true now in the matter of constitutional change.
  I had intended to say something about sugar, because the Report points out that the standard of living in the West Indies largely depends on the volume of export of sugar. The nature of the problem is indicated, but there is no very satisfactory solution. It is of great importance. I do want, however, to raise quite another point in regard to the social services. Nation building, as the Secretary of State has reminded us, is as much an affair of the people concerned as of the aid forthcoming from the effective governing authority. We may help from the top but, unless there is a response from the masses and deliberate efforts to build up the standards of conduct and to develop an appreciation of responsibility, things cannot go far. There is a great deal in the Report about self-help and self-reliance. When we consider priorities in regard to social change, difficult decisions have to be taken. Should benefits of the best kind be made applicable to a limited section of the population, assuming a very long period to spread them to all sections of the people, or should we decide as in the matter of education, if we wish to break through mass ignorance and illiteracy, to adopt something less good which can be more widely spread and thereby do our immediate job a little more speedily. As far as social progress is concerned, we may have sometimes to adopt the second course when the facts and the cost are too strong for us. I would like to ask how far the Royal Commission's recommendation about taxation to meet the cost of social and economic reform has been satisfied. The Royal Commission said:
  "We consider it reasonable that, in view of the great disparity between the rates of direct taxation in the West Indies and in this country, the West Indian Colonies should
  1092
  make their contribution by bringing their rates of income tax more into line with pre-war rates payable here. We do not recommend that further burdens should be laid on the payer of indirect taxation. This is in our view a fundamental recommendation."
  The changes that are imperative in the West Indies will cost an enormous amount of money. In the light of the past history of the West Indies, the payment should be met by us. But if the British taxpayer is called upon to spend freely on the building up of the social life of the Colonies, an effort should be made in the West Indies to produce what revenue is possible by direct taxation.
  Certain social services are, obviously, not likely to be possible unless they are conceived in wider terms than the individual Colonies. Some of the schemes, such as schemes of social security, must be worked out over the whole of the Caribbean area and the finance must be based not on the capacity of separate Colonies but on the grouping of the Colonies. The problem of the condition of malnutrition of great masses of the population is frequently referred, in the Report. It is the source of an infinite amount of debility and disease, and I hope that it is the serious intention of the Government to pursue this problem and give it every conceivable attention. Likewise, in the matter of housing, I am a little apprehensive whether the proposals in the Report are comprehensive enough to deal with the squalor and the dreadful housing that exist in most of the West Indian Colonies. In the matter of unemployment, again, what is the answer to the fears so often expressed in paragraph after paragraph about what will happen with the closing down of the American bases? The answer is not to be found merely in the creation of relief works. Something more fundamental needs to be done. Then again there is the problem which is worrying most of the workers in the West Indies of the inability of wages to keep pace with the cost of living. How far have we implemented the minimum wage legislation that has been passed in the Colonies? To a very little extent I should think. Is it not time we did something about the extension of the principle of trade boards?
  This problem of wages is one of great difficulty and it is grossly unfair that in any new departure in public works or otherwise, such as the building of the

  1093
  American bases, wage standards should be determined by the lowest wages operating in agriculture in the respective islands. There is need for a wage policy to be evolved, not only in the separate territories, but over the whole of the area. Wide disparities in wage standards as between one island and another create a great deal of friction and ought to receive some consideration from the economic adviser in that area. I would also like to know whether, since the passing of the 1940 Act, the requirement whereby no territory may receive a grant under the Act unless it has put its house in order in regard to labour legislation and trades union standards has been carried out and whether all the territories have come into line in that respect.
  I had hoped to say something about colonial education, in which I am greatly interested. I hope that much more money will be available to tackle some of the basic problems with regard to school buildings, the training of teachers, the raising of their standards and the rest. I hope, too, that there will be a big drive in the field of adult education when the Colonial Office has finished its present deliberations.
  I now leave the Report and come to several matters referred to by the Secretary of State. I wish to say a few words about the Anglo-American Commission and the Jamaican Constitution. The Secretary of State has indicated that there is a great deal of value in international co-operation. That is brought out in the relations which have been built up between the Americans and ourselves in the Anglo-American Commission which is now operating in the Carribean. If the Secretary of State will forgive me, I must express my surprise at the rather unhappy phrasing of his speech at Oxford. Was it really necessary to give the impression of a little contempt for American opinion in the field of colonial administration? I also felt regret that he put over the idea of imperial exclusiveness in administration by using the words "sole responsibility." I admit that directly he used those words he made it clear that he stood wholeheartedly for international co-operation or co-operation between the United Nations. I would urge that, much as it may be right that Britain should not and cannot transfer her administrative responsibilities to an international syndicate, it is imperative that we should give evidence
  1094
  that we welcome third party interest and judgment, that we accept in colonial affairs the principle of accountability, that we are prepared to submit our stewardship to international authority to judge, and that we welcome the fullest co-operation between the nations in solving some of the difficult problems in the colonial field.
  Some excellent work is being done by the Anglo-American Commission. I had had the advantage a few weeks ago of discussing that work with Mr. Taussig in Washington. He expressed his great pleasure at the cordiality of his reception over here and said he returned to America with a great feeling of satisfaction that we and the Americans really meant business and that it was our utmost desire that the fullest co-operation between the two peoples should be brought about in the colonial field. Already, excellent work has been inaugurated by the Commission, and I hope that every encouragement will be given to the development of its work. May I in passing to my final point say how much I appreciate the work which Mr. Huggins is doing in connection with the Supplies Mission at Washington. The way in which the problem of food supplies for the West Indies is being tackled in the difficult circumstances is admirable, and he and his staff are doing a very good job of work.
  I desire, finally, to refer to the problem of constitution-making in the West Indies. We have been tinkering far too long and far too much with constitutions in the West Indies in recent years. We can therefore appreciate the kind of criticism that has come from the Americans in this respect. It is no good our suggesting that people are never ready to practise democracy. When one looks at the present setup of some of our Colonial Governments one sees not too great a virtue in certain of the constitutions. In any case, there ought to be in the West Indies far greater stress on local government. We are still fumbling with the beginnings of local government, and I would urge that far greater attention should be given to this aspect of the working of democratic institutions. I also feel that in our local administrations, particularly in respect of certain of our Governments, there ought to be greater respect for civil liberty. I feel strongly that, time and time again, civil liberty has been outraged in Jamaica and there is cause for considerable apprehen-

  1095
  sion at certain actions which the Governor has taken only comparatively recently. The long imprisonment of Domingo seems to me to be completely indefensible from the point of view of any standards of civil liberty. May I also ask the attention of the Secretary of State to the reform of the constitutions of the "three B's"—Barbados, Bahamas and Bermuda? Is not the time ripe, in view of their generally reactionary attitude to social and economic change, for a review of these ancient constitutions to be made in order that at the very door of America we should at least see democracy functioning?
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on the document he has prepared for the consideration of the Jamaicans. It records a real step forward in regard to both representative government and responsible government. I would like to express my personal appreciation of the tone in which the despatch has been written. It is conciliatory, and as a result has had a good reception in Jamaica among all parties and classes. Obviously, the draft constitution does not give us all that we would wish, but it is fairly acceptable to large numbers of people in Jamaica. There are certain checks in it about which one could be critical, but it makes provision for periodic revision. As the parties learn the art of responsible government the constitution will be adapted to a more democratic form. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the step he has taken in his effort to solve this vexed problem in Jamaica. I hope that after Jamaica re-organised and reformed Constitutions will be extended to the other territories.
  I am fully conscious of the very great economic problems confronting us in the West Indies. They call for an infinite expenditure of time, patience, and capital and call for much imagination. I hope that year by year we shall have reports coming to us recording a rise in the standard of living, healthier economic development and a continuous improvement in human well-being and happiness.
  Sir Robert Rankin: I listened with the greatest interest to the very informative speech of the Colonial Secretary, and also to the comments that were made thereon by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), and I cannot say that I would agree with
  1096
  his remarks that the Colonial Secretary in his speech at Oxford recently in regard to Colonial opinion referred to it with contempt. I desire, however, to speak on one particular aspect of our administration of the West Indian Islands, and perhaps I might say at the outset that I have no commercial interests in those islands. I refer to the present control of imports to the detriment of merchants both there and in this country. The swift growth of bulk purchasing and shipping, not by the Imperial Government alone, but by several of the local Governments, notably those of British Guiana and Trinidad, in respect of manufactured goods has created a very serious situation. From the record of this policy to date it does not seem that increased efficiency has resulted. On the contrary, the Trinidad Chamber of Commerce has testified to the "serious dislocation," which is inevitable, of course, when the accumulated experience of trade channels is ignored. The result has been that merchants in the territories mentioned, and also to a lesser extent in other Colonies, have largely ceased to function as independent importers. Either they are out of the running indefinitely or they have been reduced to the mere status of distributors under official control. Further, the extent to which the placing of orders is taken out of their hands must affect not only themselves but also those British firms on whom they have been relying for shipment. Since many of those firms do not import for their own account but depend for their livelihood upon the commissions earned for their services, it is easy to realise the hardships which have arisen.
  I would refer to British Guiana and to bulk purchasing on behalf of importers, which began in a modest way in 1941. Then it was confined to semi-manufactured iron and steel articles. Stage by stage it has spread until to-day, according to the details given by "The Crown Colonist," the system extends also over manufactured iron and steel goods, non-ferrous metals, mechanics' tools, dry cell batteries, fisheries' equipment, manures and estate requisites. The value of metal goods alone bulk purchased by the Government had reached nearly 500,000 dollars by last September. The same story can also be told of Trinidad. Here, also, importing and sales organisations which could be rendering invaluable service and which will certainly be needed

  1097
  after the war have practically been disrupted because the Government declines to make the maximum use of them. The Control Board and the Bulk Purchasing Department have ideas of their own and the power to enforce them. Merchants in a whole variety of trades no longer themselves import but furnish returns and estimates. The officials do the rest. I do not, of course, overlook the necessities of war; no Member of this House is in danger of doing that; but I do require very much convincing that in this matter of the control of imports the merchants should be almost completely eliminated. They have the experience and first hand knowledge built up after many years of trading and the intricacies of buying and selling in the face of competition. I cannot believe that officials, at short notice and without previous experience, can function with the same competence. After all, it is on the merchants no less than on the agriculturists that the prosperity of the islands will depend. If the merchants continue to be reduced to the status of mere clerks making returns, it is difficult to look to the future with confidence.
  Development and welfare, as outlined by Sir Frank Stockdale, namely, education, health, housing, water supplies and social welfare, which we all so greatly desire for these islands, will be of very little avail unless they go hand in hand with commercial prosperity and, I should also say, with solvency. In the past the islands have owed very much to men with imperial vision. They inaugurated steamship lines with a direct mail contract, they attracted the tourist traffic, they built hotels and they developed the fruit industry. In all these respects we have in recent years had fierce competition and much penetration. Let us hope that there will arise again, as there surely will, men with imperial vision and enterprise who will direct capital, so greatly needed, into rebuilding the prosperity of the islands. And let us give, so far as is possible in war-time, liberty and freedom of action to those merchants who in most difficult days are carrying on the commerce of the West Indies.
  Mr. de Rothschild: It must strike anybody who is taking part in this Debate that one of the features of it is that the three documents that are being discussed were issued at the same time. It shows how closely connected are the ques-
  1098
  tions of Parliamentary franchise, the development of self-government and the condition of the people in the several places referred to. The question with which I will first deal is that which is described as Colonial development and welfare, and it is interesting, and something of which this country can be proud, that the importance of its work was stressed by the Colonial Office even in the dark days of 1941. Lord Moyne circularised the Colonial Governors urging them to continue with the schemes best calculated to raise the standard of living in areas where this was very low. He urged them to do this in spite of the difficulties of the time and in spite of the necessity for ever increasing war-time production. I am glad that this principle has been kept in the foreground, and it is a matter upon which I should like to congratulate the Colonial Office.
  Possibly the most arresting departure is the proposal put forward by the Colonial Secretary for a Constitution for Jamaica on the lines of Parliamentary government in this country, and it is interesting that it should have been published on the same day as the Stockdale Report. It is a new point of view at the present time to realise that political advance is dependent upon economic advance throughout the world. Our attitude towards these matters has undoubtedly changed since the 19th century. It may still be true that freedom in poverty is preferable to riches in bondage. None the less, we are now quite persuaded that freedom in poverty does not flourish, and that political institutions cannot flourish, among economically undeveloped peoples, or people who are backward or uneducated. The creation of Sir Frank Stock-dale's post shows an understanding of this question. There is only one important point in the demands of the Jamaicans which has not been met in the proposals made by the Government. I refer to the Governor's power of certification and veto. I think the retention of this power is a wise provision at the present time, as long as it is coupled with a provision for reviewing the working of the Constitution at the end of five years. Do not let us forget that the larger part of the population of Jamaica is, after all, still illiterate. Some 60 per cent. of the people in Jamaica are illiterate to this day, and very few of the remaining literate section have up to

  1099
  the present joined any political party. There is, of course, a small vocal and important section of the population which is politically conscious, indeed very strongly so This is not surprising, in view of the fact that legislative assemblies have long existed in the West Indies, although the electorate was very small. Now that the electorate has been increased there must undoubtedly be safeguards. Otherwise, we may see arising the danger of juntas, or oligarchic government, in the West Indies. We do not want to see the development there of that queer and curious creature of Central America, the politico, who has impeded the development of democracy in some of those Republics.
  It has been said many a time that self-government is good government, and this is, roughly speaking, a true proposition, but self-government is only good government if it is exercised by morally responsible people. Among sections of the West Indians the standard of moral responsibility is, I regret to say, not very high, according to the Stockdale Report. This is apparent in the quality of family life. Sir Frank Stockdale points out that there is more than 70 per cent. of illegitimacy in the islands, and that a feeling of family responsibility is very rare. These, I regret to say, are stigmata which remain from the days of slavery. It is a standing reproach to the white people who have governed Jamaica and the other West Indian dependencies that family life was disrupted—husband torn from wife—and that illegitimate children were welcomed by slave owners as additions to their own herds. It is a duty which is now laid on us to raise the general standard and tone of life so that these people will become fully responsible citizens ready to assume the responsibilities of family life and ready to play their part in a self-governing community.
  The Stockdale Report has been eagerly looked forward to ever since Sir Frank's appointment, in accordance with the recommendations of the Moyne Commission. It was a wise and far-seeing appointment, and it marked an epoch in our Colonial history. I myself appreciate the high qualities of Sir Frank Stockdale. I ^at with him on the Colonial Empire Marketing Board before the war, and I realised how keen was his intellect, how broad were his views and how untiring his
  1100
  energy and devotion to duty. The schemes under the heading of "Welfare" seem admirable. The health proposals are very satisfactory in scope, covering the islands with a system of health units. It seems to make sound provision for the control of endemic diseases and V.D. It also includes maternity services and the health of the school children within its scope. The educational scheme is also a hopeful beginning, with its insistence on the raising of the standard of teaching and the status of teachers. Social welfare receives a gratifying share of attention with its special concentration on the needs of youth.
  The schemes for development seem to be less comprehensive. May we take it that they are intended only as a first instalment and as an earnest? The White Paper on the operation of the Act states that the West Indies schemes enumerated there form part of a more comprehensive programme. Here I am somewhat puzzled by the question of finance. It is not clear to me how much money Sir Frank Stockdale has left to cover such a programme. Sir Frank Stockdale states in the introduction to his Report that no fixed annual sum is earmarked for assistance to the West Indies. That was emphasised by the Minister at the beginning of his speech. Sir Frank then points out that the Colonial Office has undertaken to make provision on a scale commensurate with the Royal Commission's recommendations, but for 10 years instead of 20 years. On that showing, if I am right, it appears that Sir Frank Stockdale had £10,000,000 at his disposal, or £1,000,000 a year. I imagine that the people in the West Indies are anxious to know whether these annual sums are subject to lapsing if they are not expended during the year. We know, of course, that that is the general policy of the Act, but in the case of the West Indies there are unusual conditions.
  It is two years since Sir Frank Stockdale was appointed and went out to the West Indies. None of his grants was approved earlier than September, 1942, as he obviously had to conduct a thorough investigation before making recommendations. I hope that the sum at his disposal will not be decreased on that account and that he will not have to forgo the £2,000,000 intended for 1940 and 1941. This would seem contrary to

  1101
  the spirit of the Act and to the recommendations made by Lord Moyne. I see that Sir Frank has budgeted so fat for £6,000,000. I should much like to know how much he has in hand for further economic development. That is, after all, the more fundamental side of his work, since, without economic development, welfare schemes are mere palliatives.
  The budget as put forward by Sir Frank Stockdale includes an expenditure of £2,500,000 upon agriculture, which is described in the recommendations of the Moyne Commission as the principal source of sustenance and wealth in the West Indies. We know to-day what the difficulties of agriculture are and how important it is that agriculture should be developed. Those recommendations contend that the standard of life must clearly depend upon the intensive use of the soil, and they therefore place great emphasis on the importance of a soil survey. Is such a survey to be undertaken or has such a survey been made? If Sir Frank gave his unrivalled experience to this problem, it could be undertaken with an expert and very small staff. In my humble submission such a survey ought to precede land settlement and road building. I see that £200,000 is to be spent on a new road in British Honduras; I wonder whether any survey has been made of that district. Some of us may remember what happened at Stan Creek, also in Honduras, where the land was extensively planted with bananas and a Government railway was built to serve that part of the country. No soil survey had been made, and the result was disastrous, as the soil was too acid for bananas, which became smitten with disease. The whole venture proved useless. I hope therefore that soil survey will precede further land settlement schemes.
  In regard to land settlement schemes, I think only two have so far been made, one for £3,000 in British Guiana and one for £4,000 in the Island of Nevis. There is still special need for such a scheme with the Island of St. Kitts, where all the land and all the houses belong to 66 estates, and the inhabitants are without any independence. Sir Frank has pointed out that there is a dangerous drift to the towns. I was glad to hear the Minister state that efforts would be made to create more subsidiary industries in the West Indies, otherwise terrible problems of pauperisa-
  1102
  tion and unemployment will arise such as can only be dealt with by land settlements. Even in the case of employed agricultural workers their work is for the most part seasonal, and it leaves them idle for four months in the year. They need a plot of land of their own on which to produce subsistence crops.
  It is gratifying to see the reception which the Stockdale Report has received. It is a happy augury that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should be actively associated with these progressive documents at the beginning of his term of office. What he said to-day about closer understanding brought about in the West Indies by the work of the Caribbean Commission was heartening news to Members of this House, and especially to those who read that speech which he made only a few weeks ago at Oxford and which was severely criticised in the most important newspaper in the North. But then no man can be a prophet in his own county palatine. A very severe criticism appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" the other day reviewing his attitude to the U.S.A. In his speech the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he had already lived through 25 per cent. of the usual term allotted to Colonial Secretaries during the last 17 years. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may show a keener appreciation of international values as regards Colonies and a greater understanding of the point of view of America or I fear he may reach senility even before the meagre span allotted to the average Colonial Secretary which would be very regrettable.
  I agree with what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says about international administration. That possibility must be dismissed, but the idea of administration under a mandate system still has attractions for many. But if such a system is to work with fairness, it must apply to all Colonies, and the supervisory powers must include all sovereign nations. It is difficult at the present time to put forward any scheme which would entrust the supervision of our Colonies to an international body composed of members of different nations with different outlooks and aspirations, especially in view of the great difficulties which will be caused by the stringency of conditions after the war. But I note that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman left the door

  1103
  open to international supervision, and I am glad he did so. It may yet be a very important matter. No doubt the reports which were furnished periodically to the League of Nations Mandates Commission in Geneva through the Colonial Office were far more full and informative as well as more fairly set out than the reports laid before Parliament concerned with the administration of the Colonial Dependencies. This method is one which I would commend at the present time. However, we should not have a mandatory system applied to the Colonies of one nation only and not to the Colonies of the others. Nor should we have a Mandates Commission on which several of the great nations of the world cannot be represented, otherwise great feelings of jealousy and discontent are aroused such as those which were manifested between the two wars.
  I hope that any misunderstanding which may have been created when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke the other day has been corrected to-day. As for a good understanding with America, it is a sine qua non of the future of the world, and we must not be misled by some of the utterances about the West Indies and our Colonies made in America at the present time. I submit that Colonial questions are often not understood at the present time in the U.S.A. The vocal people in America on this question are really a small minority, and I personally am not disturbed, and my withers are unwrung by the loose-thinking and loose-talking on civil flying or of some ill-informed Senator about the West Indies. To the first you may say we are not fighting at the present time against the tyranny of the industrial rings of Central Europe in order to submit after the war to any thraldom by Pan-American Airways, and to those who urge that the West Indies should be handed over to America in lieu of Lend-Lease repayment, surely we can say that after three centuries of government of that country, after liberating the slaves 100 years ago we are not going to hand over these Colonies as goods and chattels to anyone else to-day or to-morrow. No, we are going to free them, we are going to give them independent government. We are going to promote their welfare and happiness. We are not going to give up all
  1104
  our responsibilities, heavy though they be, after the wonderful displays of loyalty and generosity on the part of the West Indians themselves.
  Professor A. V. Hill: The discussion to-day on Colonial administration in the West Indies and on the Stockdale Report opens up a number of questions of general interest to the Colonial Empire as a whole, particularly those connected with education, especially higher education, with medicine and public health, and with research, scientific, technical, industrial, medical and in relation to general welfare. I hope you will not be too strict with me, Sir, if I stray a little from time to time from the particular application in the West Indies to the more general question. The general application is the more important because the West Indies contain only about one-twentieth of the population of the Colonial Empire as a whole. The Stockdale Report, following three years after the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the Colonial Welfare Act, 1940, marks, one may hope and believe, the beginning of a new and fruitful era in the relations of Great Britain to the Colonial Empire and peoples. The humane influence, which as the Secretary of State said was apparent at the time when slaves were liberated, is apparent to-day. What is being done and what is being planned in the West Indies is part of a deliberate policy and is bound to be followed by corresponding action in other parts of the Colonial Empire. The ultimate goal of that policy is the development of all the Colonies, by and for their own people, as self-respecting and self-governing units within the British Commonwealth. The new Constitution of Jamaica is undoubtedly a step in that direction. In some of these Colonies the ultimate goal may still be far off. In all of them probably we shall have to put up with delays and disappointments; patience, courage and realism will be wanted just as much as faith, hope and charity. If however we really believe in our own form of democracy we must keep that ultimate goal in sight.
  I was very glad that the Secretary of State referred to Sir Frank Stockdale and his party as a sort of projection from the Colonial Office. One can welcome the spirit in the Colonial Office that breathes in the Report itself. Reading the Report,

  1105
  it is obvious that the greatest need of all is for men and women capable by their intrinsic qualities and by their education and training of taking responsibility in all the new services and enterprises now being planned. As the Report itself says:
  "In a democratic world, a healthy free community can only be based on self-help, self-respect and self-determination."
  Men and women are needed, and they can only come in the main from the people of the Colonies themselves. A large section of the Report therefore is devoted to education, primary and secondary education, and the provision of teachers; and frequent reference is made to the need for vocational training, particularly for agriculture. To higher education rather little reference is made in the Report, not, I am sure, because of any lack of interest in the subject, but because the immediate possibilities in that direction are small. May I urge, however, on the Secretary of State that nothing else could possibly supply so convincing evidence of our good faith, of our genuine concern for the best interests of the Colonies and their people, of our ultimate intention of producing self-respecting and self-governing communities, as a declaration of our determination now, and practical and effective steps taken as soon as possible, to provide and extend the facilities and opportunities in the Colonies themselves for higher education. No doubt it will still be a long time before primary and secondary education in the schools will be even approximately adequate either in quantity or quality. They cannot indeed be adequate until the Colonies themselves can produce teachers of sufficient quality in sufficient numbers. For that very reason, as well as for others, plans for higher education in the Colonies should be laid now. We need not, in fact we should not, assume that in any locality Colonial education will necessarily follow our traditional lines. Experiment is wanted, not dogma: and readiness to accept the results of experiment without prejudice. The needs, the traditions, the inherent capacities of the people in the different regions and the practical possibilities of their employment may all be different, particularly in such a diverse region as that of the West Indies. As the Report says:
  "It is no service to a boy or girl or to their country to lead them into the ranks of the unemployed middle-class."
  In that connection I often wish that edu-
  1106
  cationists, and indeed the rest of the world, would ponder on the title—and on the contents—of a book by Prof. T. H. Pear, of Manchester, called "The Intellectual Respectability of Muscular Skill"; but further discussion of that would lead me too far away. With such limitations, however, if our ultimate goal is to be reached, our first step is, I think, to plan adequate educational machinery by which young men and women of ability and character can be trained for responsible posts. The need cannot be met merely by sending selected students for professional training or for higher education to colleges and universities elsewhere. Such institutions must be set up in the Colonies themselves. These must be places, however humble they may be at the start, of higher learning in the best sense, not merely factories for producing machine-made graduates who expect as soon as they have got through their examinations to get comfortable Government jobs. This requires that teaching shall be associated with study and research, followed both for their own sakes and for what they can bring in practical result: and this demands in its turn that the institutions themselves should have financial means to offer pay enough, facilities, libraries and laboratories, and amenities of life, good enough to attract the right kind of teachers and research workers to their staffs. No doubt all this will take a long time, and it is no good going in for too grandiose a scheme in a poor region. It will be better to amplify and extend existing institutions, of which in the West Indies one at least, the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture in Trinidad is of the highest standard. Perhaps in the scattered region of the West Indies it will, as the Report suggests, be better to bring within the compass of a single federal university all the various colleges and institutions, already existing or contemplated.
  It has been a misfortune for many years that the British public has had too little interest and apparently no pride in the Colonies. Indeed it has often been the fashion among bright young intellectuals to pretend to be ashamed of them. This lack of interest and pride has been reflected to some degree in this House, and even to some degree that silly fashion. It is easy enough to arouse excitement about the calling-up of a dozen members of the Oxford Group or about the transport of

  1107
  flowers by train, but it is hard to get up any interest in the 60,000,000 inhabitants of the Colonial Empire. That interest must now be aroused, if mutual advantage is to be gained of the association of the United Kingdom with the Colonies. Certainly if higher education is to be promoted in the Colonies, help will be required from the universities of this country, and perhaps of the Dominions; for training teachers and research workers, for post-graduate and professional training, for visiting teachers and research workers, for external examiners and inspectors. I have even suggested that it may be necessary to take a mission, perhaps with a harmonium rather than a big drum, around the universities of this country to arouse their interest in the other countries of the Empire. Anyhow it will be wise probably to set up in this country some kind of central organisation, to watch over the question of higher learning in the Colonies and to bring their needs and the opportunities they offer continually to the notice of the schools, the universities, and the learned bodies here. These and cognate matters, perhaps even the harmonium, are being discussed within the walls of the Colonial Office. May I say to my right hon. Friend how much I believe that both the Colonies themselves, and the universities in this country, could profit by closer contact of that kind and by more widespread knowledge here, both of the Colonies themselves and of the opportunities they offer to young men and women of ability and initiative to take part for a period of their lives in this grand adventure of Colonial development and welfare.
  The necessary condition of education is health. That is recognised by the provision of school meals for schoolchildren. Improvements in health and improvements in education go side by side. They act and react on one another sometimes even in the inverse way suggested by the Secretary of State, that a higher survival rate on top of a large birthrate may make provision for education extremely difficult. The Royal Commission recommended that at least one school of hygiene should be set up in the West Indies. In the Stock-dale Report very strong emphasis is laid on the modern, the correct, doctrine of preventive and social medicine, of the maintenance of health, and of adequate nutrition, rather than on the treatment of
  1108
  disease. At present, owing to U-boats in the Caribbean and the stress of war, little can be done in this direction because of the lack of highly-trained personnel and suitable equipment and accommodation. The very high incidence of avoidable disease in the region shows, however, how rich a harvest will be reaped when more equipment and accommodation are available. The same high dividend of public welfare may be expected in most of the other Colonies when it is found possible to apply the results of modern hygienic and preventive methods.
  In the large-scale use of such measures we can learn very much from America, and can gain much help. One thing in particular gave me satisfaction in reading the Stockdale Report: namely, the frequent references to collaboration with the Health Division of the Rockefeller Foundation. That matter-of-fact, business-like body is always to be found about whenever a real job of work is to be done in research, in promoting public health or in international co-operation; it is the delight and admiration of its friends, I might almost say the envy. No doubt when similar reports come to be written in later years the practical and generous influence of the Rockefeller Foundation, in research and practical methods, will again be found at work. There is no better example in the world of practical co-operation and good will; and not the least of the services of the Rockefeller Foundation to the West Indies is that of undertaking to train in the United States a number of medical officers in public health. The House may remember that about 50 medical students from this country are now completing their clinical training in America, as the guests of the Rockefeller Foundation. Such traffic must be continued and made reciprocal, in training, research and practical methods.The magnificent achievements of America in public health and preventive medicine are matters of history—not only the history of medicine but the history of the conquest by man of his environment, from the days of the building of the Panama Canal, which those achievements made possible, right down to the radical elimination of disease in the present day which is going on in the neighbourhood of their great air bases in West Africa. America is not uninterested in the British Colonial Empire, as nearly every speech

  1109
  of Mr. Wendell Willkie shows, but such practical and helpful interest as the Rockefeller Foundation and American medicine have offered, always in the friendliest spirit of collaboration, we may hope will continue to be of the greatest value to the health and well-being of our Colonies; and particularly the West Indies, which are so close to the coasts of America.
  In the Colonies in general, as in the West Indies, disease is largely the consequence of social, moral, and economic conditions, due to malnutrition, poverty, and lack of moral restraint. Education, and training in citizenship and moral responsibility, for example by those "Four-Hs' clubs" to which reference has been made, together with an improved standard of living due to greater agricultural and industrial prosperity, should help to eliminate some of the grosser manifestations of this widespread disease. All this is mentioned in the Stockdale Report, but it is true also of the whole Colonial Empire.
  An improved standard of living depends largely on wider and more confident application of research to the problems of Colonial industry, agriculture, products, and resources. For example, one might imagine that the work of surveyors would be regarded as the natural basis for developing the resources of a region. The West Indies are still almost unmapped. The development of Africa still awaits the completion of a geodetic survey of the Continent. The work of the recently established Colonial Products Research Council should be of the greatest assistance in finding new uses for the special products of the region—for example, in the West Indies, of cane sugar—while agricultural research in the regions themselves should aim at controlling the biological dangers of pests and diseases which affect the single crop, and in particular at avoiding the economic dangers of a single crop by enlarging the scope and broadening the basis of agriculture, while, as the Secretary of State said, maintaining the capacity, to export. Fisheries research, research in oceanography, meterology and soil erosion, research on the industrial utilisation within the region itself of its own raw materials, better geological information as to mineral resources and water supplies, veterinary research, and the investigation and control of insect vectors of diseases in plants
  1110
  and animals—all these, by strengthening the agricultural and industrial structure, will tend to make the Colonies more self-supporting, and so to advance their prosperity, their self-reliance, and their dignity.
  In this country we do not yet realise as fully as the Americans do the enormous influence of technological and scientific research on success in industry. We spend per man in industry about one-third as much as the United States do on such research. So far as the Colonies go, a good start has been made by the £500,000 per annum made available for research through the Colonial Research Committee. This may sound rather a lot, but it works out at 2d. per annum per inhabitant of the Colonies. Owing to conditions due to the war, it is not yet possible even to spend that; but in the days to come, I would warn my right hon. and gallant Friend—in case he is still at the Colonial Office, as I hope he will be, because continuity, above everything, is required in these matters—that there will be a demand for several times as much money for research as there is now. To quote from memory the words of General McNaughton, commanding the Canadian Forces here—and I would remind the House that General McNaughton is also President of the National Research Council of Canada: "We shall hold up our heads, stick out our chests, look as bold as brass, ask for all we want, and expect to get it."
  Scientific and technical research has shown very clearly what a rich harvest it can bring to those who use it wisely and with confidence even in the old established industries, and how much more in the virgin fields of the Colonies. I am glad that the Secretary of State does not regard the £5,000,000 welfare fund as too large. He spoke of throwing his bread upon the waters. I would warn him that in the name of my scientific colleagues and myself I am now throwing my bread upon the waters in respect of the Research Fund.
  The question of research and its effect upon prosperity is one not only for the United Kingdom and the Colonies but one for the Empire as a whole, for the Dominions, the Dominion institutions and Dominion universities as well as for those of the United Kingdom. In the autumn of 1941 the Royal Society set up an

  1111
  informal Committee which has come to be called the B.C.S.C.—British Commonwealth Scientific Committee. It was at a meeting of this Committee that General McNaughton made his famous remark. This Committee has now completed a Report, and perhaps I may be permitted to read the first paragraph in it, since it brings out the point about the importance, to the Empire as a whole, of scientific research and development:
  "The scientific problems provided by the war in connection with technical devices and weapons, supply, medicine, public health, agriculture, food, communications, etc., brought scientists from all parts of the British Commonwealth into close collaboration. The efficient organisation of this work necessitated the presence in London of scientific representatives of the various Dominions and the opportunity was taken of instituting some kind of informal meeting ground for the consideration of general problems. The general object was to ensure scientific co-operation in the technical emergency problems of the immediate post-war period and to ensure that the most Should be made of our common scientific resources in the future after the war "—
  and this is the chief point—
  "for improving both scientific knowledge itself and the life of the people of the Commonwealth."
  The Secretary of State referred to the fact that one cannot really divide the social and the economic factors from one another. In the same way one cannot divide the scientific and the social research. I would like to refer to a very wise comment in the Report, the reference being to research in social welfare. The comment is:
  "The most obvious gap in the apparatus of social administration in the West Indies is machinery for research.…Many praiseworthy endeavours…are greatly weakened by the conflict between the purpose underlying them."
  There can be no doubt that dispassionate, objective study of the social and economic conditions in the West Indies, as in all the Colonies, is a prior necessity of all social advancement. The stirring-up of political feeling by oratory and similar methods, as indeed the Report says, is all too easy. The wiser method of disinterested study and examination is far more difficult. This cannot be done only by experts from this country. It needs two things—experts engaged by the Colonial Governments and the prosecution of social studies in institutions of higher learning within the territories themselves,
  1112
  the Government expert and the independent student and research worker working together. These must act and react with one another as they do in this country. We can no more trust to undiluted bureaucracy in the Colonies than we can trust to it here. This confirms the conclusion of my earlier remarks about the higher education. It shows how necessary such education is as the basis for developing the self-respecting, self-reliant and self-governing communities, which are the goal which we have set before us.
  Dr. Haden Guest: The hon. Gentleman the Junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Professor Hill) has stressed the importance of research, and I must say how greatly I agree with him in that respect, although I do not intend to follow him into that sphere of discussion with which he is perhaps the best qualified man in this House to deal. I want to deal with the Stockdale Report, which has been the chief subject of our discussion to-day, and to say how heartily I welcome it, how excellent it is, and how glad I am that the Stockdale Report—this extension, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has called it, of the Colonial Office—has been focused upon the West Indies in the Colonial Empire. The West Indies are the depressed area of the Colonial Empire and most need attention. The Report has been made with the help of many eminent scientists and experienced experts, and I should like especially to refer to Sir Frank Stockdale's medical adviser, Sir Rupert Briercliffe, whose experience on tropical medical conditions must be greater almost than that of any other man in the Colonial Service. But I am not sure that this Report, excellent as it is as a report, gives the House of Commons what it wants. It is a report by a civil servant, and it deals with a very large number of matters in, as my hon. Friend said, rather a patch-work manner. It does not establish—and I think the Minister should himself establish—the priorities of this work and the way in which it is to be done. I do not feel satisfied in respect of this Report that it establishes sufficiently clearly any scheme of priorities. For instance, Sir Frank Stockdale is appointed as Comptroller for Development and Welfare. Clearly development is very much more important than welfare. Development will create new sources of wealth, and it is new wealth and the creation of new

  1113
  wealth rather than welfare subsidies which are required by the West Indies.
  I believe—and the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has reminded us—that the West Indies have not been surveyed. By development in the West Indies you have the possibility of creating much new wealth, and I am entirely convinced that you can, at any rate, create sufficient new wealth to raise the level, if you do it in the proper way, of subsistence of the people in these islands to a very much higher level. In dealing with the question of priorities, let us ask bluntly, What is the central problem of the West Indies? I want to tell the House, and in order to convince my right hon. and gallant Friend the Colonial Secretary, I am going to take my information from the Stockdale Report and also from the Report of the Committee on Nutrition of the Colonial Empire, to which I do not think my right hon. and gallant Friend referred. I want to convince him from this Report of the actual conditions. On page 45 of the Stockdale Report the conditions in Jamaica are described in this way:
  "In Jamaica, where for years unemployment has been endemic, the establishment of the United States bases has not even temporarily solved the unemployment problem."
  It has, of course, partially solved the problem. The Report goes on:
  "Jamaica contains approximately half the total population of the British West Indies, and there has been a tendency for years past for the population to increase faster than the productivity of the Island, a process which cannot but lead to the general lowering of the standard of living of the people unless counteracting factors come into the picture."
  That is a situation which can only be corrected either by emigration from the island or by the creation of new wealth to support the additional population. Anyone who looks at the facts with regard to the West Indies and the population there will come to the conclusion that there is very little help indeed to be obtained in the direction of migration. The problem of the West Indies must be solved in the West Indies, with the sources they have available. The problem is also defined in the Report by the Committee on Nutrition in the Colonial Empire, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to two paragraphs dealing with diet and health and deficiency diseases. On page 90 of Part II of the first Report the Committee, referring to nutrition in Jamaica, states:
  1114
  "the nutritional state of a distressingly large proportion of the labouring classes is definitely bad."
  They mention that there is a divergence of opinion between those who say it is bad and those who say it is not, and they go on to say:
  "The position with regard to children seems, however, to be much clearer. Of 12,000 children examined multiple vitaminosis was found in about 20 per cent., the most striking signs being blindness, glossitis, stomatitis, dry skin and anemia. Evidence of mild rickets is frequently found among younger school children."
  This evidence of rickets in Jamaica is a staggering indictment of the dietary, because rickets is not supposed to occur, according to the rules of the game, as it were, in countries where there is plenty of sunshine. The sun is not lacking in Jamaica, but unfortunately malnourished children are suffering from rickets. It says here in the Report, and I quote it because it has the backing of names of the highest authority:
  "Although no cases of beriberi, pellagra and scurvy have been detected in schools, the condition of many children suggests a near approach to these diseases. The state of nutrition, alike in adults and children, is complicated by the considerable presence of yaws, hookworm infection and malaria. Adverse economic conditions, the poverty of the masses, low wages, unemployment, the over-large family and the high percentage of illegitimacy (71 per cent. of all births) are the root causes of most of the malnutrition found. The average income of 184,000, or 92 per cent. of the employed population, in 1935 fell below 25s. a week and 147,700, or 71 per cent., received an average of 14s. a week. These are the sums earned by the male wagecarner responsible for an average of five persons but in a large number of cases he shirks his responsibility, leaving it to the woman to bear most of the family burdens on an intermittently earned wage of 5s. a week. The difficulty of maintaining families under such circumstances is reflected in the infant mortality."
  I have ventured to bring before the House the facts of the problem which apply fairly generally throughout the West Indies, above all, in Jamaica. There is poverty among the masses of the people, there is want, there is squalor, there is dirt and disease. The Stockdale Report, speaking of Jamaica, states that the Colony will require considerable assistance if its economic resources are to be developed, if its unemployment problem is to be alleviated and its social services improved. Indeed it will, but it requires more than that; the problem must be looked at in a new perspective and that is

  1115
  why I said to the Minister that we ought in this matter to establish new priorities.
  Is it money that is required to solve the problems of the West Indies or is it good organisation? I suggest that although some money is required it is very much more a question of a new and better kind of organisation for a development of the economic resources of the country rather than the provision of large sums of money. We have a tendency in this country—and perhaps in this House—to think that if we arrange for payment of a large sum of money we have somehow discharged our responsibility to the Colonial people whereas what may required is something very different. There is, of course, special recognition of the importance of development in the Stockdale Report, but how is it to be done? I suggest that the labour of the people in the West Indies—let us take Jamaica as a typical example—should be directed to the production of food for their own consumption from land which is quite fertile enough to produce all that is necessary. In that way the first new wealth they should produce should be new wealth of food which would nourish them properly. The Report recognises the importance of this development of new food production. Improvements in this respect have been made in Jamaica but more are needed. Changes are also needed in the Barbados, in Trinidad and Tobago in the direction of greater production of food by the labour of the people on the land.
  In the same Report it is recorded that in Barbados many of the children do not go to school because for the last three days of the week there is no food. That is a very serious indictment of the situation. What is needed is not so much elaborate welfare work but a new kind of social change in the West Indies. There should be created everywhere a self-sufficient peasant agriculture on which the population would support themselves and it must be on land owned and leased by the Government. Otherwise, the difficulties which have arisen between landlord and tenant and with regard to the freehold tenure of land in the West Indies will make the situation impossible. On that point I venture to quote further from the Stock-dale Report. On page 32, in paragraph 125, it is stated:
  "Agriculture in the West Indies has been generally conducted in the past on a purely
  1116
  commercial basis. It has been concerned too much with the production of crops for export in many instances having little or no regard to the maintenance of soil fertility or the needs of future generations. Individual interests have also been paramount. Local institutions and movements for the organisation of rural life have been lacking. In consequence, leadership and the spirit of self-help are largely absent. Public opinion is now awaking to the fact that soil erosion and the neglect of food crops and animal husbandry have resulted in social and economic problems of considerable magnitude."
  In the next paragraph there is reference to the—
  "disastrous results to the community of the freehold system of land tenure, especially the fragmentation of holdings, indebtedness on the land, and the accumulation of land by mercantile interests at the expense of the agricultural community."
  That stresses very strongly the importance and necessity of the cultivation of food crops for the subsistence of the population. I do not want to stray from the West Indies, except to remark that exactly the same problem faces the population in West Africa, and the Nigerian Agricultural Department has been working very successfully on the improvement of the agriculture of the Africans and on the improvement of their standards of life by improvement of the food which they themselves grow. I put forward peasant agriculture, not as an end in itself, but as the foundation on which there can be a general improvement in health and an increase in productivity and prosperity.
  The health problems of the West Indies are extremely grave and they are insoluble without adequate nutrition. To erect a costly medical structure on the basis of the hopeless poverty of the West Indies at the present time would be to give the doctors appointed to do the work an impossible task and to delude ourselves that we were acting wisely. It is a thing very well known to the medical profession, and it is frequently done in the Army, that when something is very difficult, one passes the buck to the doctor. If we do not deal with the fundamental question of the production of food and an improvement in the nutrition of the people, which is the fundamental problem of the West Indies, and if we simply erect a complicated and expensive medical service, we shall not benefit the people, as they could be benefited by a medical service on a proper foundation, but shall merely pass the buck to the doctors because we do not want to tackle the fundamental

  1117
  economic problem of the lack of proper production from the land.
  I do not suggest a revolutionary Socialist programme; I suggest a programme which could be carried out without any violation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Conservative principles, and with the greatest possible benefit to all the people in the West Indies. The medical proposals of the Stockdale Report are, in themselves, admirable. The plan of the health unit is a piece of first-class organisation. I have not the slightest doubt that it is an excellent thing. But I have done enough medical work in the slums of this country to know that it is no good pouring good medicine down the throats of people who are suffering from starvation or semi-starvation. One must give them proper nutrition before one can make medical science really effective. At the present time, the West Indies are riddled with diseases and the prevention and cure of those diseases are impossible with the severe degree of poverty and malnutrition which exist at the present time. Let me quote from the General Report on Nutrition in the Colonial Empire on this subject. In Chapter 5 there is a review of the different diseases which are caused very largely by malnutrition—deficiency diseases such as beri-beri, pellagra, scurvy, Vitamin D deficiencies. Moreover, it is not always realised that malaria, yaws, venereal disease and tuberculosis are all made very much worse by the existence of malnutrition. The Report sums up what would happen if it were possible to remove malnutrition from the Colonial Empire at one stroke:
  "To sum up, Colonial diets are very often far below what is necessary for optimum nutrition…. We do not doubt that if it were possible, as unfortunately it is not, to remove at one stroke all traces of malnutrition in the Colonial Empire, there would be an immense gain in physical health, mental alertness and material welfare. Money spent on improving nutrition should be a sound investment, yielding a dividend in the increased welfare of the community as a whole"—
  and also, I would add, in the increased productivity of those people in any work they do. I suggest that in our Colonial reconstruction work the first priority should be to get improved nutrition. I would remind hon. Members that the question of nutrition in the Colonial Empire has been under discussion for a good many years. At an earlier date, which
  1118
  now seems very remote, it received a very great stimulus from a valuable debate at the League of Nations in 1935. In that debate Mr. Stanley Bruce, who was at that time representing the Commonwealth of Australia at the League, made a very striking speech, which received world-wide attention, on the necessity of the marriage of health and agriculture. That is what I propose should be undertaken with regard to the West Indies, that you should marry health and agriculture, and make it subsistence agriculture primarily for the benefit of the people living there, and that you should take all steps to bring about a great increase in subsistence production in order to abolish malnutrition, which is at the foundation of all the troubles there. That is true today, and it will be true to-morrow unless things are changed. The marriage of health and agriculture in the West Indies, meaning the setting up of peasant agriculture so that the first call of the labour of the people is labour on the land to produce food for their own sustenance, will produce a revolution in the conditions of the people in the West Indies and make possible all kinds of projects of development, such as education and technical efficiency, which are quite beyond their reach at the present time. If this, policy is carried out, it will go far to solve many of the problems of life in the West Indies, it will give the people of the Islands a firm basis on which to build the structure of a happy and prosperous life, and it will be an example and model for work which can be carried out in other parts of the Colonial Empire.
  Captain Peter Macdonald: Shall I be in Order, Sir, in asking a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury on Business?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not be in Order on this occasion. I have been looking up the Rules, and the Report of the Vote on Account has to be put at a certain hour, and the time cannot be extended.
  Captain Macdonald: In view of the importance of the subject and of the fact that a large number of Members will be shut out of the Debate, and particularly as there was half-an-hour's interruption, through no fault of their own, surely it would be possible for us to have another day, or part of a day, for this very im-

  1119
  portant Debate. Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider that?
  Colonel Stanley: If I might answer the question, no one is sorrier than I am that it is not possible to continue the Debate to-day and give a full opportunity for everyone who wishes to take part. It would be a very great pity, as far as I am concerned, if the very much increased interest which has been shown to-day only results in a certain number of people not getting a chance to take part. I will consult with the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the possibility, if not of a complete day, at any rate of some part of a day, which will enable those who have not been able to take part in the Debate to get in.
  Mr. David Grenfell: The evidence is clear that there are ample speakers for a full day's Debate, and it would be for the convenience of the House if another day were allotted.
  Colonel Stanley: I am sure that will be considered. I hope that, at any rate, we shall get some opportunity of continuing the Debate.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that if another day is secured we shall be more or less confined to the subject matter of to-day's Debate, or will it cover the whole field?
  Colonel Stanley: I should hope it would be confined to to-day's Debate. I am hoping that we shall have the normal opportunity on the Colonial Estimates to discuss the whole field.
  Colonel Ponsonby: I should like to add my congratulations to the Government on acting so quickly on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I know Sir Frank Stockdale personally, and I have the highest opinion of his qualities. I have also worked in East Africa with his agricultural adviser, Mr. Wakefield, and no one is a better authority, not only on agriculture but on other broad practical questions. We all welcome the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's survey. I think it is to a great extent an answer to some of our critics, but I could not help feeling some sense of unreality because the Stockdale Report requires a background, and I should like to deal for a few minutes with the background. The hon. Member for Shipley
  1120
  (Mr. Creech Jones) felt, as I do, the difficulty of getting really reliable information, partly perhaps owing to the non-publication of the Moyne Commission's Report. What is the problem? Our aim is to create self-supporting, happy and prosperous Colonies. What are the forces arrayed against these progressive ideals? Perhaps I may call them the three P's—population, production and prices, the last two being, of course, the lifeblood of the Colonies. When we come to look into all these questions we are hampered by the fact that we have no comprehensive reports on this group of eight Colonies. With great difficulty I managed to find out, on the subject of population that in 1896 it was 1,700,000; it had risen in 1921 to 2,018,000, and in 1936 to 2,500,000. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend said it was now close under 3,000,000. This population is confined to these islands and cannot get out. Emigration has practically ceased in the last 12 years, and the Report states that there is little, if any, possibility of transferring a large number of people to less densely populated countries. It shows that emigration is impossible. When you think of Barbados, with a population of 1,200 to the square mile, a purely agricultural country, which compares with 700 in this densely populated country of England, you will see what the problem is, and, if it is true that the population of this group of Colonies continues to increase at the present rate of 2 per cent. per annum, it will be doubled in 35 years. It is a population problem that we have to face, and we have to face it in this way, that, unless schemes can be found for enabling the population to live, a reduction in the number of births is essential if there is to be any hope of improving, or even maintaining, the standard of living. That, of course, in view of what was emphasised by the hon. Member for Ely (Mr. de Rothschild), is a social problem of very great magnitude.
  Then we come to the problem of agricultural production, mainly for export. There again there are no statistics, but I found that the export of sugar in 1928 was 357,000 tons, and it rose in 1938 to 620,000 tons. The hon. Member who spoke last discussed the question of changing over from large estates to smallholders, but it does not follow that that will solve the problem. Then we come to

  1121
  the question of price. The price of sugar fluctuates between £8 and £14 a ton. It is easy to imagine the effect of such fluctuations on producers. If the price falls heavily they cannot make a living. I am only putting these points forward because I would wish our critics on this and the other side of the Atlantic to bear them in mind as a background when considering this very difficult problem. It is certain that this country cannot control overproduction in the world, and it cannot guarantee the financing on a sliding scale of the difference between world prices and the costs of production in all our Colonies. We have here the uncomfortable picture of a rising population at the mercy of world over-production and world fluctuation of prices. I hope that our critics and everyone in this country will study this question and try to understand it, because the Government by themselves cannot solve it. It requires the help and all the intelligence of those who study these matters. It is only by the help of everyone that we shall arrive at what we all desire, and that is that these countries should be self-supporting, happy and prosperous.
  Dr. Morgan: We have just had speeches from some Members who may be expert in their own subjects but who certainly know very little about the West Indies. Perhaps I may be allowed, is one who was born and educated in the West Indies, to try and correct some of the fallacies that have found expression to-day. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Professor Hill), for example, may know his physiology, but he certainly does not know the West Indies. He made two perfectly inaccurate statements, which is surprising from a university representative.
  Mr. MacLaren: Not at all.
  Dr. Morgan: He made the statement that the British electorate were not interested in Colonial affairs. I have said before, and I say it again, that that is perfectly inaccurate. I speak continually in the country on Colonial affairs, and I have never yet found an audience disinterested. The Press, however, deliberately because of vested interests—and we know what they are in the West Indies, not only porcine and porcupinish but leechlike—keep information from the British electorate. So do the B.B.C. They have
  1122
  never yet allowed anyone who represents West Indian democracy to get a chance at the microphone.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge University pleaded for research. I do not mind his pleading for research, for I am as keen on medical research as anyone else, but when he pleads that we should send more experts out to the West Indies, I would remind him of what the people there are saying. They are writing to me by every mail saying, "The one thing you must not do is to send us any more experts." The people want a chance of doing things themselves. Your schemes of social and economic welfare are simply playing with the subject. We pay the Governors £6,000 or £7,000 free of Income Tax, and we are told that it is done on the ground of public policy. The Colonial Office scores. Appointments to such posts as Crown Agents for the Colonies come from their staff on the verge of retirement, and the Colonial Secretary avers that those appointments are on merit, as if no merit exists outside his office. The present Governor of Barbados, salary £3,000 free of income tax, got his appointment in the blitz period from the Colonial Office, as he was the Legal Adviser there. The present Comptroller of the W.I. Development and Welfare Fund before appointment to this Caribbean work was the Agricultural Adviser to the Colonial Office. Their appointments in the main come from the Colonial Office. The West Indies are a regular recruiting ground for patronage. Instead of having a Colonial Parliamentary Committee which we can face here, the Colonial Office pick their men and put them on advisory committees, doing all they can to keep real democracy out, because they are afraid of information about the West Indies leaking through.
  The West Indian people are noting all that. Certain speeches made recently, as the "Manchester Guardian" indicated, have been very unfortunate. The West Indian people are perfectly loyal and decent people who want to live in the British tradition under British laws. They are proud of their association with the British Empire and want to remain citizens of it. They are not disloyal, but they are disaffected and disappointed at the sort of conditions under which they are forced to live. I ask the Colonial Secretary to be a little less formal and a little friendlier when he is making speeches

  1123
  with regard to the people in the West Indies. Critics are not necessarily disloyal. They are perfectly loyal and merely ask that these beautiful islands, which have everything in their favour, should be made really the paradises which they are described in tourist brochures. Having said that and made one or two remarks about the hon. Member for Cambridge—I am sorry I cannot do more—I will come to the Stockdale Report.
  These beautiful islands, geographically the top of the land which once existed between North and South America and described as tropical paradises, are dens of destitution. The Stockdale Report is a very excellent Report and far be it from me, having seen one of my dreams realised, to criticise it too harshly. From the time I was a small boy in the West Indies, meeting people from the different islands, I have often wondered why the islands are kept deliberately separated, with different laws, different customs, different crops, different economies and lack of communications. The people are howling for educational advance, clubs and welfare, and yet they are deliberately kept apart. It always struck me, even as a small boy, that these islands should be amalgamated and federated into one unit. I know the usual argument of the Colonial Office that the people do not want it. The common people do. The present legislative council, which was elected on a high franchise, may not want it, but the common people do. It may be that Jamaica will have to be kept as a separate unit. The others should certainly be amalgamated into one decent unit with a good Governor. At the time of the Royal Commission of 1939, when I knew the proposal was to be made for a welfare fund, I thought that it provided the idea for a federation. Even if the islands were to be kept separate under different Governors with the patronage still being exercised, the welfare fund would provide a central controller federating; the islands for welfare work, for economic advancement and for everything except political progress. The idea, however, is to keep them back at all costs and not to let the people have the right to do things for themselves, even with many reservations.
  I agree that the Jamaican Constitution is a great step forward. I would not be hard on the question of the Governor's
  1124
  veto, and the local people will be unwise if they allow this question to stand in the way of the acceptance of the Constitution. We have vetoes in this country, and the United States Constitution is full of reservations and checks. I congratulate the Colonial Secretary on the effort he has made. It is a fine, friendly gesture. I do not believe in being critical all the time and not giving praise when it is due. Why, however, should Jamaica alone be given a Constitution? What is the reason except its large population and its rather active political section? What have the Leeward Islands done to be left outside? What have Trinidad and Tobago done-Trinidad, the richest Colony in the British Empire—the richest Colony in all the world on account of its oil as well as its agricultural produce—what have Grenada. St. Vincent and St. Lucia done, that they should be left out? Are the people of Jamaica better educated than the people of Grenada or Trinidad? As I have said before, it is easy to write political constitutions—I could write them every day for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—but I should like to see them in practice, even with reservations. I should like to see local councils in the islands, under universal suffrage, engaged with local matters, and also a federal senate doing things that concern the group as a whole.
  By the way, the United States is no model. Let not Mr. Wendell Willkie or any other American statesman start to tell us how to run our Colonial Empire, because we have a very proper answer to him. We can tell him to wash his own face first. I would refer him to the Island of St. Thomas, which the United States secured from the Danes, and refer him also to things done on his own doorstep. We can remind him of San Antonio in Texas, and tell him to clean that den first before he dares to tell us how we are to govern our own Colonial Empire. After all, the West Indies provide not one fraction of the sink of iniquity which is found in certain of the United States towns and districts. We have a perfect answer to the Americans. We have nothing to learn from the United States about Colonial administration. We were the pioneers, and our Colonial record is good as compared with that of others, but the comparison between what we ought to do and what we have done with the material in our hands is per-

  1125
  fectly disgraceful. We are not taking advantage of our opportunity to do what the people are anxious should be done. Why should we not do what the United States have done in the Philippine Islands? They have given universal suffrage with a united Legislature, and temporarily, they have a United States Commission, which exercises a veto and there are reservations. If we did that as a start, with provisions for reviewing the situation in five or seven years' time, we might go on to a constitution with legislative councils and a federal senate and have a decent West Indian Civil Service.
  I plead with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and with the Colonial Office, as members of the Commission pleaded with them during their deliberations, to reconsider the question of federation both from the point of view of the medical services and the agricultural services. From the point of view of general public policy, federation is the thing for the West Indies. Some people in the West Indies have not done very badly and some have done excellently. I think we ought to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) for the excellent housing which his firm among others has provided in Jamaica. Let us give credit where credit is due. It is no good saying that every man is wrong because he is engaged in business. I do not mind British companies in the West Indies making profits, though I have criticised the St. Kitts factory, where they get profits of from 200 to 1,000 per cent. per year out of the estate, and where the poverty-stricken people cannot live on the estates but have to go down to the towns and pay high rents. When that sort of thing goes on I am entitled to say that things are disgraceful.
  In the Stockdale Report we can find an example of the necessity for federation. In the matter of the water supplies the Stockdale Report shows that they have a team of experts available to go out to different islands to attend to the question of water supplies. Why not have a mobile team ready to move as required from some federal unit? Medical experts could run off to where they are required, to islands where epidemics have broken out, others to where the water supplies need attention, thus looking after social welfare in one place and medical requirements in another. That would be preferable to
  1126
  having these little islands, measuring 12 miles by 15 or 20 miles by 20 or 30 by 40, each with its Governor, its Colonial Secretary, its Colonial Treasurer, its Postmaster-General—all getting salaries out of the poor people of the islands. The islands are on an agricultural economy—cotton in one island, bananas in another, sugar in another, cocoa in another—all liable to the vicissitudes of tropical agriculture. Not only do we allow that state of affairs, but they have to import their food. We do not allow the people in the West Indies to have decent production of milk. We talk about animal agriculture policy, but we do not allow them to have decent milk production.
  Colonel Stanley: I want it.
  Dr. Morgan: I am glad to hear that. It is a good thing. Milk is a great necessity from the point of view of nutrition, in addition to the question of consuming home-grown food, but they cannot produce the milk out there. They have to import condensed milk and dried milk in order to suit the profits of the manufacturers of dried and condensed milk in this country. Throughout the Stockdale Report, running through it like a good theme, with variations, in a musical symphony, is this idea of ultimate federation. It is a crazy idea nowadays to have separate Governments in different islands and to super-impose upon them a federal scheme for certain purposes, because that means double officials, different policies and calls for time for consultations, approval, and discussion. It is a crab-like method of getting to the right position. Why not go straight to the goal? If at any time a plebiscite of the people were taken, certainly in the Windward Islands, the Leeward Islands, and Trinidad and Tobago, on the question of whether they wanted to be a federal unit under one Governor, not on the present franchise but with universal suffrage, I have no doubt at all what the answer would be. I have been full of this subject of good government for the West Indies for years, thinking and dreaming of it, long before I came to the House. I have seen some terrible things from the men sent out to be Governors and officers by the selection committee, which is said to have great psychological knowledge in choosing the right persons. Bad men have been chosen when good men were available.

  1127
  Let me return to the question of health in the West Indies. The present conditions are a perfect disgrace. One endemic disease, hookworm, is not mentioned in the Stockdale Report. I believe it is completely left out.
  Captain P. Macdonald: It is referred to.
  Dr. Morgan: Tell me the paragraph. I have read the Report through and through, and I shall be interested if anybody can find the reference to hookworm. I represent the West Indian doctors on the British Medical Association Council. I will tell you why it is not mentioned in the Report, or at any rate not emphasised. It is because Government policy makes the disease endemic. The cure of this disease depends upon the production of proper latrines, dug to a certain depth to prevent the infection. At present the deposits are not prevented from being carried away. Proper sanitation and proper digging of latrines would mean that the disease could be absolutely abolished. I notice an hon. Member laughs, but if he saw the people I have seen suffering from anaemia he would not laugh. He would see expectant mothers with anaemia and mothers bringing up babies with anaemia the same as their own, babies suffering from malnutrition, plus this disease, plus tuberculosis, plus leprosy and malaria. Swamps are not drained, and latrines are not put up. There is no decent scheme, except on the Island of Trinidad. Medical officers engaged purely in preventive work have no opportunities for doing their work properly.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of hookworm, will he say whether, if the natives were supplied with enough wages to enable them to buy boots or shoes, there would be any fear of hookworm?
  Dr. Morgan: People get contamination by touching the soil. The provision of boots would help to a certain extent, but not completely. If these people had the right in their own legislative councils to vote their own money and impose their own taxes, things might be different, and Colonial money might not be sent to the City of London and kept there. They would be able to see that machinery was
  1128
  available for building latrines, and various other health measures could be taken.
  I want to add a word about leprosy. This is an endemic disease in certain islands in the West Indies, and in St. Kitts and Trinidad especially. I saw them there, and it is terrible. Leprosy could be abolished in the West Indies in a generation. There is a very excellent specialist. Dr. Muir, there from the Leprosy Association, and he is doing excellent work. He has been allowed by Sir Frank Stock-dale to travel through the various islands, and his reports are excellent. In one of his reports he definitely says that he would not blame the medical profession for not diagnosing leprosy. He said:
  "I do not blame the medical profession. It is only recently that leprosy has become recognised as a remediable disease, and those who have qualified as doctors in Britain or America, and even those who have taken the Diploma of Tropical Medicine, have had scant facilities for becoming acquainted with the appearances and nature of leprosy."
  So much for medical education in this country. I would beg and plead with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to do something for Colonial nursing. I have put a scheme for a naval training ship before the Colonial Office, but obviously it has been pigeonholed. Goodness knows what has happened to it; I have never heard anything about it. The recent Colonial Under Secretary was very good indeed and discussed these things with me. He was exceptionally encouraging.
  Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman do something for the women and girls in the West Indies to give them a chance to get British education? No matter how hard a West Indian girl works or how good her elementary education results may be, or even if she went to the secondary school; she never has an opportunity of doing what boys have had an opportunity of doing once a year—winning a scholarship. Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman do something to set up a federal nursing service with an agreed course, an agreed training and a diploma that will be recognised throughout the different islands? If a nurse is trained in one island, her diploma may not be recognised in another island. Cannot a federal nursing board have a definite scheme to provide nurses, who can go about the islands and gain experience? Cannot something be done to train West Indian nurses in Great Britain? We have the

  1129
  facilities and the hospitals here. We have sister tutors here; some of them should be sent out to the islands. We have the London County Council here with facilities in every type of hospital—mental, mental deficiency, tuberculosis, V.D. clinics, general, surgical and medical. Cannot there be special hospital groups to give the girls a good training so that they can go back to their own people and try to nurse them through the squalor of disease which has been mentioned here to-day?
  I know some of the objections. It is said that British patients would not like a black nurse. I do not believe it. But what a chance for propaganda. These girls are very fine nurses. Why cannot there be an organised scheme? Some hospitals do it now. Willesden Hospital accepts such recruits. So do the Ancoats Hospital in Manchester. These are isolated examples. Why cannot the Colonial Office use the money in the Welfare and Development Fund in order to make a grant to the London County Council, if the L.C.C. is afraid of a charge falling on the rates, for the setting-up of a decent colonial nursing scheme so that these girls might be encouraged to come to the L.C.C. hospitals? I put up a scheme five years ago on these lines, with the L.C.C. under the right hon. Gentleman who is now Home Secretary. I was told that these nurses must take the trouble to come from the West Indies here to have their health, education and general education for work examined. Why not get them here after examination? I know parents who have been earning is a day and who have saved for 40 years to give their children an education to get them here. When the girls have got here they have found that their health and education were allegedly not up to standard or their aptitude was not right—perhaps they did not stand straight enough—and that they could not be nurses.
  There are many cases of leprosy which filter back to this country by means of retired officers from the Colonies and which are now tramping through the streets of Great Britain unrecognised. I spotted one in my hospital. It came, after having gone to five or six voluntary hospitals for the past ten years. I was lucky enough to know something about leprosy. I had seen it in my youth, I
  1130
  have seen it in my visits to the West Indies. I took my reputation in my hands and said, "That is leprosy." When I was sneered at and laughed at I said, "Bring your microscopes." The microscopic examination was secured after a lot of trouble. I am not trying to frighten the population. I am not telling the whole population of Great Britain that they are going to get leprosy to-morrow. There is no need to be scared about leprosy. It is the same type of disease as tuberculosis, much less, but this sort of thing should not go on.
  One word more, and I shall sit down. An effort is being made with regard to tuberculosis that an expert in tuberculosis should be sent out by the National Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis, to Jamaica. Why do it that way? The specialist who has been chosen may be a very good man, but you have an excellent tuberculosis specialist like Dr. Halliday Sutherland, who can write and who knows tuberculosis, having been trained by Sir Robert Phillip, who started tuberculosis clinics, a man who knows the problem of tuberculosis from top to bottom. Will he be chosen? No. I will tell you why. Because he is not a "Yes"-man. He knows too much. He has an independent medical mind; he is not purchaseable; he could not be kept quiet. Therefore you dare not take that man, who can write—his books have proved he can—and send him out as the expert. It is because these things are done, because the kind of man is preferred who will give little trouble in the West Indies and here and is safe, that information is scanty. I appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am sorry if I have been too virulent, too vituperative. I have always felt strongly about the West Indies. I have always been proud to be associated with the West Indies. I know all classes, rich and poor, black and white, I know them well. I will do anything that will help them. Abraham Lincoln said, referring to chattel slavery, "If I see that thing later on, I will hit it and hit it hard." If I get an opportunity of hitting present conditions hard, I will hit them hard, because I know perfectly well that in the Colonial Office there are facilities, within a generation, by political action, by federation, by welfare, by economic development, to change these delightful islands to be models of Colonial government so that

  1131
  the reputation of the British Government shall be that we are the one country throughout the world which both past and future has given a lead to the peoples of the world in Colonial administration.
  Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I should like to remind the hon. Member of a very old proverb, which is that comparisons are odious. I cannot help feeling that the comparisons he drew between our administration and the administration of the United States are not particularly helpful at the present time. The House listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. I cannot help feeling from my point of view that the most hopeful feature of that speech was the fact that he did not appear to consider that political development was an adequate substitute for economic welfare. Economic welfare in this present and also the post-war period presents features of very considerable difficulty, and it is likely to prove a full-time job for a very big man to make a success of the economic position in these islands at the present time, because I do not altogether agree with what the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) said with regard to the creation of new wealth.
  Firstly, I do not think it is going to be an easy matter to create new wealth in the West Indies, unless one looks on printed paper money as wealth, in which case any Government can print it. But real wealth, it seems to me, is not going to be too easy to create. If we turn to the concluding pages of the Stockdale Report, we find a list of the Colonies which are going to receive grants of assistance. There are two Colonies excepted from that list. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman explained why the Island of Trinidad had not been included in that list. I think I am right in saying that he said that conditions there are tolerably prosperous at the present time. I should like to ask him what his reasons are for excluding that group known as the Bahamas. It is perfectly true that one of the islands, New Providence, is or was up to 18 months ago reasonably prosperous. That was entirely due to the tourist traffic from the United States, but since that time the Bahamas have fallen on pretty bad times. The United States tourist traffic is to all
  1132
  intents and purposes non-existent. It has come to an end through the activities of German U-boats in the Caribbean sea, and in addition to that the only other export which these islands have, namely, the export of sponges, has been very heavily hit through a sponge disease which has developed in the last five or six years. I should like to ask him whether anything has been done with a view to isolating the bacteria which is causing that disease and whether any steps have been taken to reconstruct this particular sponge industry which has been so heavily hit.
  As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, one of the difficulties of the position in the West Indies is the density of population, which of course for islands dependent, as they are likely to be for many years, on agriculture, is very dense indeed. In addition to that, for two of the staple products of the West Indies, the future is, to say the least of it, rather obscure. For more than 250 years the principal export from the West Indies has been sugar and its by-products. It is perfectly true that in the last 30 or 40 years a fresh export has developed which has not only equalled but from one island, Jamaica, has very nearly doubled the export of sugar, namely, bananas, and the latest figures of exports for bananas indicate that the value of the exports of the West Indies is approximately the same as other exports from the whole of the islands. It is questionable whether the export of sugar is likely to go on. After all, the principal purchaser of West Indian sugar has been this country. To-day the Ministry of Agriculture is taking pride in the fact that the whole of the half-pound ration of sugar for the people of this country can be, and is being, produced by sugar beet in this country. That means that in the future the demand for West Indian sugar is likely to be very much reduced.
  People may say that when the war is over and the export of sugar is resumed people will soon use the amount of sugar they did before the war. I very much doubt whether that is the case. Many of us discover that we are better in health with half a lb. of sugar per week than we were before the war with 1 lb. or 1¼ lb. Also, when people have cultivated the habit of doing without a thing it is difficult to build up the demand afresh. So it may easily be that in the West Indies they will not have the wherewithal to buy the staple

  1133
  foodstuffs from abroad which are necessary for the welfare of the people. If the export of sugar from the West Indies is very much reduced, what can we do to provide a substitute? As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the mineral wealth of the West Indies is non-existent or entirely undeveloped, except that Trinidad is rich in petroleum and asphalt. Apart from that, the sources of wealth which would enable them to import the necessary foodstuffs are very limited.
  There are two courses open. One is to develop other exports, and the other to grow substitute crops to enable the inhabitants to feed themselves. It is possible, no doubt, for them to live on what they produce, sugar and bananas, but I cannot conceive an A1 nation being built up on a diet of bananas and rum. We must see what can be done to provide substitutes. What can they grow, first, from the point of view of export, and, secondly, from the point of view of their own consumption? The first thing that occurs to me is cotton. Everybody knows the value and the merits of sea island cotton. It is probably the best that can be produced anywhere. In future there will be an almost unlimited demand for cotton of that quality, for motor tyres and other purposes. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, unless I misunderstood, said that the cultivation of cotton tended to cause soil erosion. I do not think that is necessarily so. Soil erosion has not occurred to any extent in Egypt, and only in those southern States of America where farming has been particularly careless. The other crop which might be grown is cocoa, for which there is a considerable demand in this country. A third is lime juice, which is already produced largely in some of the islands, and for which the demand, in this country, as far as I can see, is definitely on the increase. The other possible course is to grow food which they can consume themselves. Maize grows very well there, but I do not think that maize is considered a particularly desirable food for the human race, although people can live upon it. Rice can be grown to a large extent.
  But the question I would ask is, whether it is possible to grow wheat in those islands? I know that 50 years ago people would have laughed at the very idea of wheat being grown in the West Indian climate, but since then so many new types of wheat have been evolved that
  1134
  there is a possibility that wheat may be found which will form an ear and ripen in that climate. In order to develop these new crops which the uneconomic situation in the West Indies would require, research and education are necessary. An institution of the kind is already in existence—the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture in Trinidad. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that that college was still functioning and that the number of students had been considerably reduced. Why is that college situated in Trinidad? Why is it not in Jamaica? I suppose that the answer is that funds were forthcoming in Trinidad to support it, but does it not seem advisable that an institution of that kind should, at least, have a branch in the bigger island? A branch of that college situated in Jamaica would work wonders in developing the agriculture of that island. Whatever government and administration we adopt or encourage, the first duty of such administration would be to see that the people had a sufficient amount of the food they require.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: It was my intention to discuss the questions of health and agriculture in the West Indies at some length but owing to the time that has been taken up in the Debate by a few of the previous speakers I am unable to do so. Some of us have sat here patiently enough a considerable time while others have indulged in unduly long dissertations so I will confine my few remarks chiefly to a few points about the agricultural position. Indeed, I shall curtail what I have to say about that. The West Indies in the past were dependent upon their exporting capacity. There have been those in our own country who have been inclined to condemn, perhaps those who sought profits in the West Indies as exploiting the islands for that purpose only. That has not really been the case. The reason the islands were used for exporting purposes was that, as the standard of living was raised in this country, vast masses of people demanded sugars and fruits and so on and the islands were used to their full exporting capacity. That was largely the fundamental cause of the islands being used for exporting products to such a degree in the past. The great evil of that was that the islands were dependent upon world prices and when world prices depreciated the natives suffered a good deal on that account.

  1135
  To an increasing population in the West Indies agriculture is of first class importance and should be encouraged in every possible way. Land suitable for agricultural production in the West Indies is very limited indeed. It is situated on steep slopes and soil erosion has been very serious on account of the destruction of forests. The maintenance of fertility, too, is very important. The more intensive cultivation of land is essential if a reasonable standard of living is to be maintained. The local production of foodstuffs and animal products is essential. Much has already been done. It is the intention under the Colonial Development Act to see that this sort of agriculture is brought into being, and it is essential to have intensive cropping and the development of mixed products. Encouragement should be given to stone and hedge contour terracing to help soil preservation. Rural amenities, housing, village life and installation of water supplies should be regarded as of first-class importance. Another thing which must be done is to improve the land tenure conditions. I believe that I am right in saying that much of the land is now held in small freeholds which are split up after the death of the holder, or are frequently mortgaged, and the results are very disastrous. It is important to have long leases from the Crown or whoever may be able to grant them. I do not want to prevent in any way the Secretary of State from answering this very long Debate but those are a few points with regard to agriculture in the West Indies. It is very encouraging to see that the exporters are, on the whole, realising that welfare, as the Report says, must come before wealth.
  I would say this of the Stockdale Report: excellent as it is we should be clear that although the Colonies will depend upon the mother country in the early years of post-war development it would be neither good for their social services nor for their economy that they should always continue to do so. We must help them to get on their feet but we must not pauperise them. Eventually, they must become self-supporting, otherwise development and self-government will become a farce. I am in agreement with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in regard to his speech at Oxford recently. I think he was quite right to show that
  1136
  we are not prepared to hand these islands over to anyone. We are prepared for the Americans keeping theirs and for the French keeping theirs, but we should not be prepared to put our own under even an international commission. An international commission is made up of members who are responsible to their own countries; hence an international commission must be hampered in regard to this question. The sovereign power must belong to this country; we are quite prepared to listen to the advice of an international commission on health economics, transport and the like, but we should not be prepared to hand over sovereign and executive powers to them. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was also, in my opinion, right when he said that maximum prosperity was only possible in an expansionist world and that there must be world demands for products and free passage across the sea. He also said that secondary industries—and here I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest)—should be encouraged if they absorbed labour relevant to agriculture but that uneconomic and secondary industries should not be encouraged. I am sorry that I must now cut short my remarks, but I know that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to give a brief reply to this long Debate and I wish to give him time.
  Colonel Stanley: I can only speak by leave of the House and I apologise for trespassing on Members' time but I feel that it would not be courteous, after such a Debate as we have had, if I did not make some reply, however brief, to some of the points that have been raised. I sympathise very much with the point raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald). I think it is a great pity that we have not been able to give all Members who wish to do so an opportunity of speaking and I very much hope that it will be possible at some future time to find an opportunity of continuing this Debate. My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary has pointed out to me that it might be done either by dealing with it on some Adjournment Motion which would, of course, necessitate agreement being reached among parties to terminate the Business of the Day early enough to enable such a Debate to take

  1137
  place, or failing that, to allocate an early Supply Day, although that may make it rather late, as Supply Days do not start until after Easter. However, I hope that after discussion through the usual channels some means will be found of continuing this interesting Debate.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: If it is a Supply Day, I hope the Debate will not be extended over the whole Colonial area.
  Colonel Stanley: I could not agree more with the hon. Member. I hope something of that kind can be done. This is the first time in my experience of the House—not 39 years but, I think, about 18—with the exception of the Debate on Palestine that I have listened to a Debate in which Colonial administration has been confined to one area. I think it has been a great success and I hope we shall be able to have more Debates of this kind, referring to different areas, in the future. I am afraid I shall be able to deal only briefly with some of the points that hon. Members have raised. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) drew attention to the experience that we have gained in the West Indies from having the Comptroller there and asked about the possibility of an extension of this system elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that one of the difficulties of the Colonial Empire is that no one area resembles another in its problems and difficulties. I do not think any one machine, even if it is successful in one area, is probably the right machine to transfer to another area; but certainly, we can learn a great many lessons from the work that has been done with this particular kind of machine in this area and from that experience we can see what we can do to help other areas by perhaps a rather differently adapted machinery.
  I thought the hon. Member was a little unfair to Sir Frank Stockdale when he complained that the Report did not deal with fundamental questions such as the price level of sugar. I do not think one could really expect the Comptroller under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act to devote part of his Report and spend part of his time as Comptroller in looking into the price level that sugar will have after the war. Important as that is, the factors that will determine the price level of sugar will obviously depend upon things
  1138
  far outside the purview of such an Act as this. Therefore, I do not think one can blame Sir Frank Stockdale in this respect. I do not think the hon. Member for Shipley need be unduly worried that there is not a sense of urgency among the Governments and Governors, as opposed to the Comptroller, about the necessity for these proposals. I have had an opportunity of seeing at least one of the Governors and an opportunity of talking at great length to Sir Frank Stockdale himself, and I would like to pay a tribute both to the Governors and to the Comptroller on the way in which they have settled down to co-operate one with another in this machinery. I think that the Governments and Governors are, on the whole, just as anxious to press forward with these reforms and this development as the Comptroller is.
  The hon. Gentleman then touched on the very difficult subject of the Advisory Committee. This is a matter to which I have been giving a very great deal of thought. No doubt it is a matter that we shall discuss again when we come to the broad discussion of the Colonial Estimates. With regard to the present set-up of the advisory machinery to the Colonial Office, I assure the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) that the members of the various Advisory Committees are selected by me solely with the idea of getting the best experts in the particular lines. The one thing I want them to do is to say the truth and to think the truth. I am not in the least frightened of somebody doing that on my Advisory Committees. However, there is a definite gap, I think, in the system of advice I have on the economic side, and I am considering how and when that ought to be filled; but frankly, I am not certain that the same sort of body which one wants to advise one on big economic questions—perhaps as to the allocation between regions in the Colonial territory, the priorities between one form of development and another—is the body to which one wants to submit, as under the White Paper to the Colonial Development and Welfare Act one is supposed to do, the details of schemes costing £840 or the provision of a water supply in one small village or small island. I am not sure that you are not creating a wholly unnecessary bottle-neck of administrative detail and I should certainly like to think that over very carefully before I advise the House on what we ought to

  1139
  do about that Committee under the Development and Welfare Act.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) spoke, perhaps more in sorrow than in anger, about some words that I was tempted to use at Oxford. As far as I could see, he began rather in criticism, but he then went on in detail to agree with every word that I said and ended with a peroration so much more robust, virile and forthright than anything I could ever attempt to imitate, that I am afraid, in the cold light of to-morrow morning, when he goes to open with trembling fingers that newspaper which is no doubt the Bible to which he referred, "The Manchester Guardian," he may very well find a severe rebuke.
  We were very grateful to have from the junior Member for Cambridge University (Professor Hill) some of his ideas with regard to higher education and research. I will not deal at length with higher education. It is a tremendously important subject, one of the subjects where general principles probably have to be evolved which are common to higher education in all the Colonies. My Education Advisory Committee, which is in touch with the Research Committee, is now engaged on that very problem of the whole set-up of higher education, and in particular university education, after the war. I was delighted to hear that the hon. Member, accompanied so far as I could see by a large number of intellectuals interested in research, is going to descend, at some time or other, upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and make demands in the most violent way, accompanied with physical demonstrations, that the amount spent on research should be increased. I hope they will do so. I suppose this combination of physical terror with intellectual pre-eminence is the sort of thing to which he referred in this book with the odd title of "The Intellectual Respectability of Muscular Skill"—what I should call in my simple way the brawniness of brains.
  The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) made an extremely interesting speech. As he is not here, I do not know that I need reply very much to him except for one thing he said, which leaves quite a wrong impression and ought to be corrected. He
  1140
  talked about what should be the object of Sir Frank Stockdale's experts and said that the work of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act should be the creation of new wealth. From the way he talked about it, it looked as it you were going to send an expedition to walk round the West Indies and that suddenly they would look under a stone and say, "There is some new wealth." The whole of the Report is the creation of new wealth. I agree that it is very disappointing to realise that, no doubt, wealth in the West Indies can only be created very slowly, by a large number of measures, each small in itself, and that there is no sudden, short, quick, easy way to the creation of new wealth. I think it is a great mistake to give the impression that something can be done which will suddenly transform the whole economic future of the West Indies and that the sort of small detailed considerations which we have been dealing with here, represent much too unromantic and pedestrian a way of attacking the problem. The hon. Member called particular attention to the question of nutrition, and I agree that that is one of the most important problems. It is for that reason that I am so much interested in the part of these proposals which deals with the question of school meals. Do not let us forget that poverty is not the only difficulty.
  There is a great lack of the sense of family responsibility in some of the islands which adds to the difficulties. It is for that reason that the problem of nutrition of children at any rate is probably best dealt with through the school meal. When the hon. Member went on to say that our goal in the West Indies must be a reversion to subsistence agriculture, I entirely disagree with him. We must leave the extreme which existed at one time of a single crop economy. But to go down to a subsistence agriculture and depend for everything merely on what you can get out of the soil of the West Indies, with no attempt to exchange the products you can grow for manufactured goods and raw materials which other people can send in return, is to condemn the West Indies to an intolerable standard of life far lower than anything you can complain of today. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) put his finger on the most difficult part of the whole problem, which is that the increase in population at the

  1141
  present moment is bearing no relation to the increase in the productive capacity of the islands.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) said that I ought to be less formal in addressing the people in the West Indies. I do not think I have been too formal and I will certainly try to avoid any undue formality in future. He made a very interesting speech, the main point of which was the question of—call it what you like—federation, integration, amalgamation, some form of closer political administrative union between the various territories in the West Indies. Obviously, with two minutes to go in a Debate of this kind, I cannot enter into a discussion of that question except to say this. In all my reading of history I have always found, and I expect other hon. Members will agree with me, that the only successful examples of federation that have ever been are examples where the desire to federate has come from the bottom.
  Dr. Morgan: It is there.
  Colonel Stanley: No federation succeeds by imposition from the top. It comes from the discovery of common difficulties, common solutions and measures which have to be taken gradually, allowing it to build up into a desire for the political structure. That is not the first but the last step in the coming together. With regard to the question of colonial nursing, I will certainly look into it. I was very attracted by the hon. Gentleman's idea.
  The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) had a word to say about the Bahamas. They were not included in the scope of the Moyne Commission Report, and as they were not included there they were not included in the scope of the work of the Comptroller, because that arose from the Moyne Commission. I gather that it was left out of the Moyne Commission because the Bahamas were felt to be, owing to their position with regard to America, more a kind of touring spot for Americans and not to have exactly the same problems as the rest of the islands. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that because they are not covered by the Stockdale Report it does not mean that they are not covered by the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, which covers the whole of the British Colonial
  1142
  Empire. I said, "are not covered"; I ought to amend that by saying that they would not be excluded from the Colonial Development and Welfare Act provided they had in existence the kind of labour legislation which, alone, entitles a Colony to some at least of the: benefits under that Act. I was sorry to hear about sponges. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be glad to hear that the disease has apparently passed its worst, but it will be some time before the islands can grow sponges of sufficient size to commend themselves to the ordinary consumers. The hon. Member will see also that sea island cotton is dealt with in the Stockdale Report. Finally, with regard to the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas), I quite agree with him that our aim should be to put the Colonies on their own feet and not to make them entirely dependent.
  It being the Hour appointed for the interruption of Business, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Report.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee on the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS
  Ordered,
  "That Mr. Charles Williams be discharged from the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports and that Commander King-Hall be added to the Committee."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

  DISPOSAL AND CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS
  Ordered,
  "That Colonel Clifton Brown be discharged from the Select Committee on the Disposal and Custody of Documents."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  HOUSING PROBLEMS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]
  Mr. James Griffiths: I desire to call the attention of the House and in particular of the Minister of Health to

  1143
  some of the grievances of tenants which I raised with him at Question time on 4th February. In the time available I can do no more than list a number of grievances which have been brought to my attention and ask the Minister to take urgent action upon them, because I wish to leave time for some of my hon. Friends who wish to put forward points of their own. I will recite a number of grievances which I have investigated and of the authenticity of which I am perfectly satisfied. We owe a debt to the men and women who have been transferred or evacuated in the national interest. Tens of thousands have gone to new homes in order that they may obey the nation's call either in the Services or in industry, and an obligation lies upon us to protect them in every way. The protection they get now is completely inadequate and not worthy of the Government or the House.
  The first grievance relates to the practice which has grown up of demanding key-money as a pre-condition of the letting of a house. I have a number of examples of this. The worst is the case of a man evacuated on national service. He was desperately anxious to keep his family with him. He heard of a house which was vacant and approached the landlord and was told that he could only hire it provided he paid £50 as key-money. In his desperation that man paid the £50. I raised his case in the House, and the Minister said the man had his remedy. The man is now taking his remedy, and in due course the case will come before the courts, and I hope the courts will deal adequately with it. Very often people do not take action in court because their need for houses is so desperate. Next I would ask the Minister to take action to stop the furnished apartments ramp. If he says that he has not the power, let him get the power, because this House will give it. It if frankly a ramp. In order to make a house into a furnished apartment a new dodge has been introduced known as the table and chair dodge. You get a table and chair and put them in a room and call it a furnished apartment, and at once you take it out of the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and you can charge what you like. The Minister may shake his head, but the point is that poor people are often helpless in these matters because they have no legal knowledge. Every hon.
  1144
  Member has examples of the furnished apartments ramp which he could give to the Minister.
  Thirdly, there is the case of sub-tenancies. It is growing up, particularly in the case of houses of some size with five or six bedrooms. They are divided up and let in a series of sub-tenancies. I have a case of a house which, if rented as a whole, would not fetch more than £2 a week, but it has been divided up into a number of sub-tenancies and is now bringing in £5, £6 or £7 a week in rents. That is a very bad form of exploitation, and it is increasing rapidly. I direct the Minister's attention to it and ask him to deal with it.
  About the sale of houses, the Minister may say he has no jurisdiction, but very often people are evacuated and find that the only way to obtain accommodation is to purchase a house. Otherwise, they must remain separated from their families for the period of the war. I have some examples, particulars of which I am prepared to give to the Minister in order to satisfy him. The first is of a house within 30 miles of London. The house was sold six months before the war for £950. It was re-sold last year for £1,500. I am giving only examples which I can verify. The second example is of a cottage which was sold three months before the war for £575 and was re-sold three months ago for £1,075. Other instances in the countryside have been brought to my notice which I have not been able to verify in which houses, which were actually condemned before the war, were sold at £500 or £600.
  Let me mention one other point. My attention has been called to the practice which has grown up in one town in the North-West of England—I am told it exists in other towns in the South—by which agents for landlords canvass tenants and ask them whether they are willing to give up their tenancies for a consideration—not immediately, but at the call of the landlords. They are told that if they are prepared to do so when called upon, they will receive £25 or £50 in cash. The agents then proceed to advertise the houses for sale with vacant possession. The houses are controlled, but they get out of the control by the tenants being induced to accept the £25 or £50 so that the houses can be advertised. One example is of a house, value £450, sold in the circumstances I have

  1145
  described for £855. I will give full particulars to the Minister.
  On the question of standard rents, I have no end of cases of people who are finding it very difficult to get a statement of the standard rent from the landlords or from the local authorities. As one who has a very great deal of respect for local authorities, I say that in remote districts the part-time clerk of the council is very often an agent for a set of landlords. That creates a difficulty and the Minister ought to look into the matter. I have stated the grievances and the complaint is that what the Minister, the Ministry, and the local authorities do is not adequate.
  I would make three suggestions. The first is, Why not do the big thing, which seems to get to the core of the problem? Give power to the local authorities to secure control of all the vacant property in their areas, for them to let it and control the rents. Surely that is the right thing to do. If we evacuate people, if we transfer people to places, we have no moral right to do that unless we secure that when they are transferred they are not exploited. I cannot see any way of doing that except by requisitioning all vacant property. Let it be in the hands of local authorities, and let them decide who shall have it, based on need, and not on ability to pay. If the Minister came and asked for power of that kind, and authority to confer that power on local authorities, I believe the House would unanimously give him that power, because we all desire to see these people protected against these forms of exploitation. In the second place local authorities should be requested to set up tenants' protection committees to which people who have been transferred and have grievances about their rents can go. I do not think we can say to them, "Go to lawyers." We ought not to place on them the onus of the expense of legal advice. Finally, I ask the Minister and the local authorities to give publicity to these matters, to these grievances. They are growing in number, and, believe me, there is a sore feeling, a very strong feeling, about them. I hope this is not the last occasion on which we shall debate this matter, which is a matter touching the lives and welfare of the people very closely. I hope that we shall get an indication from the Minister that his Minis-
  1146
  try intend to take some really strong and adequate action about this matter.
  Mr. Silverman: I do not want to take more than two or three minutes at the very most, because we are all very anxious to hear what the Minister has to say about the point which my hon. Friend has raised. I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said, and with his proposals, but of course that would deal only with or mainly with houses that are vacant. These Rent Acts have been in existence now for nearly 30 years. In the course of those 30 years, especially in the last few months, it has become patent that the Acts themselves are inadequate. It has become perfectly clear to anyone who either politically or professionally has had anything to do with the administration of these Acts, either before the war or since the war, that a number of anomalies have become perfectly clear which only amending legislation can put right. Take this point about the furnished house. When my hon. Friend said that if you put in a table or a chair or any other furniture you take the premises outside the protection of the Act, the Minister shook his head, and appeared to indicate that he dissented from that view. I respectfully agree with him. It is not correct. It does not take the premises outside the protection of the Rent Acts, but when you look at the Rent Acts to see what is the protection afforded by them, you find it is so ill-defined that it is impossible to administer.
  It is quite true that the Act provides that in the case of furnished premises you shall not charge an unreasonable or extortionate rent, but it nowhere defines what is an unreasonable or extortionate rent, and if my right hon. Friend has had the curiosity to compare the decisions of courts in some parts of the country with decisions of courts in other parts of the country, he will find it perfectly obvious that the standard of what is reasonable and what is extortionate differs with the length of the magistrate's foot. The protection afforded by the Act is so nebulous as in practice to amount to no protection at all. One of my hon. Friends showed how you could get out of the Act altogether by inducing the tenant to accept a 14 years' lease, on the assumption that a 14 years' lease gave him greater security; than the protection given by the Act. But it does not. The Act gives indefinite secur-

  1147
  ity while certain conditions remain. All I want to remind my right hon. Friend of is that, in answer to a supplementary question by me a little while ago, he promised to consider sympathetically the appointment of a Select Committee, to examine these anomalies and to propose remedies that could be applied quickly. It is certain that until you have a comprehensive amending Act you will not get justice applied and you will not get the common will of the people on this matter carried out. A great many things can be done administratively, as my hon. Friend said, and those ought to be done forthwith. But the time has come when the whole machinery of the control of dwelling houses ought to be overhauled and brought up to date.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am indeed very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and I am sure the House is grateful. Hon. Members will do me and my immediate predecessors the justice of realising that a very keen watch has been kept from the centre upon the various problems involved in the housing position of this country, from the very beginning. Circular after circular and advice after advice to the local authorities on particular points have followed one another from the centre. That close watch was necessary because here we are dealing with one of the universals of human need, shelter. When there is a particularly difficult artificial situation the watch kept on the operation of that situation upon the life of our people is bound to be even keener than would normally be the case. I say straight away that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue; and I am grateful to him from a second point of view.
  I think that on one or two points he over-stated his case, and that on others he under-estimated the difficulty of finding a solution. [Interruption.] Take the point about furnished lettings, for instance. Three Government Committees have sat on that problem. They were appointed by different Governments. One was presided over by Lord Salisbury, one by Lord Marley, and the third by Lord Ridley. All those Committees, appointed by varying Governments, came to the conclusion that to solve the problem was not so easy as to state it. One moment's
  1148
  thought will show the House the central difficulty. It is, of course, that there is such an infinite variety of accommodation. There may be infinite variety of circumstances, even under one roof, and it is not easy for Parliament to bring forward a law and to state it in such definite terms as would solve the infinite problems that would arise.
  Since when this matter was raised in the House at Question Time, key-money was the point specially stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), I will begin with that subject. Like hon. Members, I hope that we shall have other opportunities of dealing with it. I want to show that I am alive on this issue, and that I do not want to shirk any issue. Here you have a case where the protection is almost—not quite—complete. I want to make that protection quite clear to people outside. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure they are, for giving us this opportunity of doing it. What is the law about key-money? It is obvious that legislation to control the maximum rents which may be charged for houses would have little effect if landlords and their agents—and indeed tenants, in the case of sub-letting—are to be able to reap a rich harvest by charging a premium or key-money and holding up accommodation for the highest bidder. Parliament has realised this. The very first Act passed to restrict the increase of rent—the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restriction) Act, 1915—contained a Section making it illegal for any person to require the payment of a premium or key-money in addition to the rent and enabling the tenant to recover from the landlord any sum so paid after 25th November, 1915. This Section had, however, no sanction behind it. This was a serious detect and, when the Acts were consolidated and extended in 1920, a Subsection was added making the breach of this Section an offence for which the offender became liable to a penalty not exceeding £100 (Section 8 of the Rent Restriction Act, 1920). This Section is still—I want the House and the public outside to note this—the operative provision, and it has been applied, with some minor consequential Amendments, to all the houses which were newly brought under control by the Act of 1939 at the beginning of this war. So the protection there is a formidable one.

  1149
  The Section provides that a person shall not, as a condition of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of any dwelling-house which is controlled, require the payment of any fine, premium or other like sum or the giving of any pecuniary consideration whatever in addition to the rent. Any person requiring a payment in contravention of the Section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100, and to refund any sum which has been improperly paid in this way.
  There is one gap. It was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) at a recent Question time. The gap is this: The Section does not apply to the grant, renewal or continuance of any tenancy for a term of 14 years or upwards. I have looked this up. It appears to have been added to facilitate the granting of long-term leases at a small rent, plus a premium. The House took particular notice of it and acted on that notice because there had been a legal case which showed that to be impossible under the Act of 1915. That was why the House took the view that it ought to facilitate the granting of the longer leases for the protection of the tenant, and so that became the law. I have said, in answer to my hon. Friend who first raised it—I have not heard of more than one district where at the moment abuse of this provision is taking place—that I have noted the matter among other things for possible legislation.
  There was also another way in which, despite Section 8 of the Act of 1920, a sum equivalent to a premium could be extracted, and that was by requiring the prospective tenant to buy furniture or fittings at prices greatly in excess of their value. That has been safeguarded by Section 9 of the Act of 1923, which provides that, where the purchase of any furniture or other articles is required as part of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy or sub-tenancy of a controlled dwelling house, the price shall, if requested, be stated in writing, and if the price exceeds the reasonable price of the articles the excess shall be treated as if it were a fine or premium and the provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1920 shall apply. The House will see, therefore, that the law provides very full safeguards against
  1150
  the evil of key-money. The Rent Restrictions Acts apply to the great majority of the houses in the country—in fact, to about 90 per cent. of our 12,000,000 houses.
  I am not overlooking the other points which have been raised. I will note them carefully, and no doubt we can have further discussions about them. I want to take advantage of the opportunity which my hon. Friend has given me of making an appeal to the public in this matter. After all, here is a case where the law is, on the whole, adequate, and if action is not taken by those against whom offences are committed the law is impotent. What is wanted here is the public spirit and the moral courage to make the Statute law effective. The public must co-operate with the law makers and with those who administer the law, otherwise the law itself is impotent. It is for the people with evidence to achieve the ends for which the law was framed——
  Mr. George Griffiths: Cannot the local authorities take up the case for a tenant? Will the right hon. Gentleman push that through, so that local authorities will do it, because the tenants themselves are too poor?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has taken up half a minute of my time in which I might have made a complete statement. I was about to come to that. Local authorities have power to undertake prosecutions for breaches of the law, and I am confident that they use it and will continue to us it to the full. But it is obvious that they cannot do their duty unless tenants do theirs. We have been keeping a very keen watch on this all through the war. Two and a half years ago I urged local authorities to exercise special vigilance on this and other provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts. I have been getting reports from 1,500 housing authorities every six months, and I am glad to say that over the whole field I have not had many complaints of exploitation of this kind. But in order to make quite clear our view as to the action which should be taken, I am arranging now to send to local authorities a special poster which, among other things, will contain the following sentences:
  "The charging of a premium or key-money is illegal and subject to a fine up to £100. Tenants of unfurnished premises cannot be evicted without an order of the Court, which

  1151
  can be given only in special circumstances. The Council have power to prosecute for offences but they cannot act unless complaints are made to them."
  I ask the Press to take notice of this and to help us, as they have done in the past, by making this known. In so far as the law is not complete, we shall watch developments and analyse the reports we get, and I have no doubt that in the course of future Debates I shall be able to go more fully into details of actual cases. It is our desire to see that the war is not exploited to the disadvantage of those who, in the national interest, are on service in various parts of the country.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: There is only a minute left. May I say that several of my hon. Friends would have liked to take part in this Debate? I know that the right hon. Gentleman has not covered all the points he would have liked to have covered, and I would ask him to use his influence in order to see whether we can have an early day for a discussion of this matter more fully.
  Mr. E. Brown Mr. E. Brown signified assent.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

  BRITISH-MADE TANKS (RUSSIA)
  BRITISH-MADE TANKS (RUSSIA)
  FORCES BOOK CLUB
  FORCES BOOK CLUB
BRITISH ARMY
  Medical Grading
  Medical Grading
  Home Guard
  Home Guard
  Aliens
  Aliens
  Caretakers
  Caretakers
  Vaccination
  Vaccination
  Arundel House, Stroud
  Arundel House, Stroud
  Family Lodging Allowance
  Family Lodging Allowance
  Men Under Arrest (Dependants' and Family Allowances)
  Men Under Arrest (Dependants' and Family Allowances)
  Middle East (Retail Prices)
  Middle East (Retail Prices)
  North Africa (Soap Supplies)
  North Africa (Soap Supplies)
  University Graduate (Release)
  University Graduate (Release)
  GERMAN TROOPS (BRITISH UNIFORMS)
  GERMAN TROOPS (BRITISH UNIFORMS)
  GERMAN MARK IV TANK (ARMAMENT)
  GERMAN MARK IV TANK (ARMAMENT)
  BATTLE OF EL ALAMEIN (CASUALTIES)
  BATTLE OF EL ALAMEIN (CASUALTIES)
  PRISONERS OF WAR AND MISSING (FAR EAST)
  PRISONERS OF WAR AND MISSING (FAR EAST)
  LIQUOR PRICES (CONTROL)
  LIQUOR PRICES (CONTROL)
  PIGEON-BREEDING, SCOTLAND
  PIGEON-BREEDING, SCOTLAND
  FOOD SUPPLIES (POTATOES)
  FOOD SUPPLIES (POTATOES)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Bank Notes (Forgeries)
  Bank Notes (Forgeries)
  London "Warship Week" (Banks' Subscriptions)
  London "Warship Week" (Banks' Subscriptions)
  Income Tax (Friendly Societies)
  Income Tax (Friendly Societies)
  Napier Company Assets (Purchase)
  Napier Company Assets (Purchase)
  State Pensions Scheme (Estimated Cost)
  State Pensions Scheme (Estimated Cost)
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Wages (Taxation)
  Wages (Taxation)
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Training of Civil Servants (Committee)
  Training of Civil Servants (Committee)
  Rubber Boots
  Rubber Boots
  Board of Trade (Inspection Staff)
  Board of Trade (Inspection Staff)
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES (VALUATION)
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES (VALUATION)
  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS (INDEX)
  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS (INDEX)
  TOWELS SUPPLY (MINERS)
  TOWELS SUPPLY (MINERS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Defence Regulations (Prosecutions)
  Defence Regulations (Prosecutions)
  Concentration of Industry (Compensation)
  Concentration of Industry (Compensation)
  Hand Knitting Wool
  Hand Knitting Wool
  Used Cardboard (Manufacture of Toys)
  Used Cardboard (Manufacture of Toys)
  COLLIERY CANTEENS
  COLLIERY CANTEENS
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
SCOTLAND
  Public Assistance
  Public Assistance
  Youth Registration
  Youth Registration
  HOUSING REPAIRS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS)
  HOUSING REPAIRS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Advertising Campaign
  Advertising Campaign
  Milk (Tested Samples, Gloucester)
  Milk (Tested Samples, Gloucester)
  TUBE SHELTER ACCIDENT
  TUBE SHELTER ACCIDENT
  WOMEN'S INTERNMENT CAMP, ISLE OF MAN
  WOMEN'S INTERNMENT CAMP, ISLE OF MAN
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Work Directions (Women)
  Work Directions (Women)
  Tank Production
  Tank Production
  PALESTINE (REFUGEES)
  PALESTINE (REFUGEES)
  SEWAGE SLUDGE (USE IN AGRICULTURE)
  SEWAGE SLUDGE (USE IN AGRICULTURE)
  "DESERT VICTORY" FILM
  "DESERT VICTORY" FILM
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I do not think it is necessary for me to describe the policy of His Majesty's Government regarding the food production campaign, and I will confine my remarks to the various clauses of the Bill. The main purpose of the Bill is to enable us to continue to carry out a policy which I feel has not been altogether unsatisfactory. From time to time we learn by experience that various amendments to Miscellaneous Provisions Bills are necessary, and it is for that reason that this Bill is before your Lordships and also, I am afraid, that to a certain extent the Bill can be termed legislation by reference.
If it will be for the convenience of your Lordships, I propose to deal first with the clauses on land drainage which are Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive and Clause 10. Before I deal with each individually I will give a few figures to show the activities which have been sanctioned during the war period up till the end of February, 1943. There have been sanctioned 10,830 mole drainage schemes, 19,725 tile drainage schemes, 66,011 farm ditch schemes and 5,338 drainage schemes for small areas, while 163 catchment board main river schemes have been sanctioned. The total number of schemes is over 102,000 and the amount of land which has been affected is not less than 4,500,000 acres. Some of the 163 catchment board schemes were too big to be carried out during this war, and these have therefore had to be postponed until easier times. I may add here that this Bill is in no way intended to amend the Land Drainage Act of 1930, and its provisions are introduced only
642
in order that we may continue the work which we have undertaken.
Coming to Clause 2, the purpose of the clause is to provide a further extension of the period for which grants to drainage authorities remain available under Section 15 of the Agricultural Act, 1937. This period has already been prolonged by fresh legislation, but in order that we should not feel that we cannot plan for the future the time limit has been suspended. Clause 3 is intended to remove a small minor obstacle. Previously, under the Act of 1930, drainage schemes could only be carried out with a grant provided they were on agricultural land. Owing to the war emergency, certain places such as a golf course may have been mole drained, and a golf course did not come under agricultural land for that purpose. To bring that class of land into line this clause has been introduced. Clause 4 contains a series of minor amendments to Section 14 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1940. The changes proposed provide for a variation of approved schemes whereby the Ministry may regain payment of expenses incurred by drainage authorities in preparing schemes which subsequently prove abortive, and deduction from the landowners' share of the cost of a scheme of contributions made from other sources. I should like to add that there is a provision which enables a landlord, in the case where drainage operations have caused extra expenses through neglect on the part of the tenant, to obtain repayment of sums paid by him.
Clause 5 refers to reclamation schemes carried out by and on behalf of the Minister under the Defence Regulations. Under the 1941 Act the Minister has power to recover the proportionate expenditure on such schemes either from the drainage board, if the work in question has been carried out within the board's area, or, alternatively, from the landowners whose land has increased in value for agricultural purposes. No special provision is made to deal with exceptional cases where work may be done in connexion with the catchment board's main river. It is clearly inequitable that anyone should be charged with the cost of work other than the catchment board. Clause 6 is likewise needed in connexion with reclamation schemes. This clause is only operative during the war.

643
Clause 7 is designed to remove the anomaly by which statutory drainage authorities, unlike other local authorities, are authorized to pay the expenses incurred by their members when they undertake work by travelling round the country. Under the present scheme they may only allow expenses if members attend meetings of the full board. Under war conditions it is very often necessary for many inspections to be made by subcommittees and this will allow them to have their expenses repaid. Clause 8 provides for assessment of drainage rates to be adjusted so as to take into account any increase effected in the value of rateable land by improvement works carried out wholly or partly at the public expense. This is a purely temporary measure, and the clause accordingly provides that any assessment made by a drainage board in pursuance of this new power shall lapse when there is a fresh quinquennial valuation which, owing to war conditions, was not carried out in 1940. The object of Clause 10 is to give effect to representations made by the National Farmers' Union and the Catchment Boards' Association. Amendments to this clause will be proposed at a later stage and therefore I will leave the matter until that stage is reached.
Now I will deal with some of the other clauses starting with Clause 1. This is a retrospective clause which increases from one-half to three-quarters the amount provided by the Exchequer towards the cost of acquiring and transporting lime for use on agricultural land. Clause 9 is, I think, reasonable. Where water has been supplied either by direction from the county war agricultural executive committee or under a scheme approved by them, it is right that the landlord should recover from the tenant interest in the shape of rent on his capital outlay. Clause 11 deals specifically with grazing. At this moment the only area which we can see will be involved is on the Fells in Cumberland. There is a large area where grazing has more or less become a right through many years, and it is felt that where, either by ploughing and reseeding or drainage, this grazing may be very largely improved, it is only right that the people who graze the land and therefore benefit from such improvement should pay a reasonable proportion of the outlay. Clause 12 refers to the extension
644
of time from six months to twelve months in order that no further moneys should be lost to the State owing to the previous time limit having been too short.
I come now to Clause 13. Section 23 (2) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, enables the Minister, where he has taken possession of land under the Defence Regulations, in cases where the land was at the time possession was taken not being cultivated, or not being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, to acquire that land. It may be that where certain land was taken over under Regulation 50 of the Defence Regulations, he is entitled to possession of that land for three years after the war but at this moment, as soon as the war ends, the Minister is not allowed to carry on any work on that land. This clause merely makes it possible for the Minister, whilst still in possession, to carry out any such work should be think it necessary.
Clause 14 extends Section 26 of the Act of 1940. This facilitated the ploughing up of grazing land previously let on 364 day tenancies and land not being used for agricultural purposes or land acquired for building which, pending development, is vacant or let for grazing, by excluding the land from the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and thus securing that it could be ploughed up in the interests of the food production campaign. If Section 26 had not been enacted it would, in fact, have been necessary for owners of such land to let it on ordinary agricultural tenancies which would have necessitated a twelve months' notice to quit being given on either side and would have rendered the landowner, if lie wished to obtain possession of the land after the war, liable to give a twelve months' notice to quit and to pay the compensation laid down under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. The period of exclusion from the Agricultural Holdings Act provisions, laid down by Section 26, was a period beginning after March 21, 1940, and extending for a period not exceeding four years. The present clause merely extends the period for a further period of four years.
Next I turn to Clause 15 about which there has been a certain amount of discussion in another place. It was very fully discussed and I think was received with satisfaction. Under subsection (1)

645
from the outset of the war the Minister has taken the line that since the power and direction given to plough up permanent grassland is derived from Section 1 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, the tenant who ploughs up grassland under direction from the war agricultural executive committee is absolved from any liability which is directly attributable to compliance with such directions. The Minister has stated that any permanent grassland which has been ploughed up during this war is now to be deemed as arable. This condition was explained in the leading professional institutions as long ago as December, 1940. Various questions have however been raised as to the position of landlord and tenant on changes of tenancy and conflicting opinions have been expressed. It was at first thought that the position of the tenant was safeguarded, and that the landlord was left in a precarious position. But I think it is safe to say that this is in no way the case. The question of limiting the section to the period of the war has received very careful attention, but it is considered that this would leave the position too uncertain, particularly in the case of a tenant who has taken a farm during the emergency.
The proviso was inserted in another place after representations by various interests. In the laws of this country, there are certain customs whereby a tenant during the last year of his tenancy under his agreement has to leave a certain proportion of that land as grassland, and he is entitled to a certain proportion of crops from that land. Since owing to the war that tenant has been compelled to plough up extra grassland, that grassland will now be deemed arable land, and therefore the tenant would not be in a position to claim an away-going crop, not only on the proportion of the arable land when he went into that farm, but also on a proportion of that land which had been ploughed up since. So far as England and Wales are concerned this was not the intention, and there do not appear to be sufficient grounds for enabling the out-going tenant to claim an away-going crop in excess of the fixed proportion of the arable land as settled at the commencement of his tenancy, especially as the result might be to throw an unjustifiable burden on the landlord or incoming tenant.
646
I think that, having regard to what occurred in another place, it would be convenient if I read to your Lordships at this juncture the statement which was read by my right honourable friend regarding the position of landowners in the matter of ploughing up grasslands. He stated that by an agreement made and published in December, 1939, the Minister of Agriculture at that time was authorized by His Majesty's Government to announce
"that where grassland was ploughed up a landowner would be entitled to claim compensation at the end of the war if the annual value of the land, or the farm of which it formed part, had been diminished as a result of being ploughed up. The compensation will be based on the cost of restoring the land, that is, reseeding, or alternatively a sum calculated by reference to the amount by which the annual value of the land is diminished. Nothing in this clause affects that agreement to the prejudice of the landowner, and the fact that we have inserted this clause for the purpose of clarifying the position as regards tenants quitting during the war or subsequently does not impinge on or alter in any way the agreement. It is true that the option as regards restoring the land rests with the Minister, but without giving a pledge as to application in any particular case, it is anticipated that the large majority of cases will be dealt with by reseeding as an essential part of our post-war policy of maintaining the fertility of our agricultural land."
Subsection (2) of Clause 15 refers to the last year of a tenancy. The county war agricultural committees have had a certain amount of difficulty in planning crops on these farms during the last year of the tenancy owing to certain agreements and customs. For instance, the agreement may provide for a certain acreage of arable land to be left as bare fallow during the last year of tenancy. Under war conditions the committees feel that they may have to issue orders for a crop to be sown during the autumn after a notice to quit on the following Lady Day. If a tenant under notice to quit at the ensuing Lady Day complied with the direction to carry out this work, he would on quitting have to leave the growing crop without compensation. Obviously this is unfair and the position constitutes a hindrance to the maximum production of food in war-time. The incoming tenant would in practice pay heavy compensation arising from the provisions of the subsection, and the position of the landlord should not be adversely affected. While this clause gives the tenant the right to claim in respect to the matters referred

647
to, it in no way adversely affects the right of the landlord to claim for what is usually known as dilapidations.
Clause 16 refers to an area of land which the Minister, through his agents, such as a county war agricultural committee, may have taken over from the point of view of further production of food, where, owing to needing only the actual arable land, he has left such matters as the farmhouse and spinneys, or small woods in the occupation of the tenant. By agreement the Minister may now purchase the land which is included in the farm but is not agricultural land. Clause 17 deals with the control of artificial insemination. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe very kindly sent me a pamphlet this morning on this very important and interesting subject. But I am afraid that I have not yet had time to read it. The purpose of this clause is purely to have powers of control as and when it may become necessary to use them. There are at this moment at Cambridge and Reading two experimental stations. While it may be said that this development may have a great future, if left uncontrolled it may also lead to great evils. It has been thought right and proper, therefore, to have a clause of this kind in the Bill. Clause 18 refers to the office of inspector of corn returns, and transfers the business of receiving returns to the Ministry of Agriculture. Clauses 19, 20 and 21 refer to Scotland. Then there are the Schedules. If in what I fear is a very insufficient explanation of the various clauses I have failed to make any point clear, I will do my best to answer any questions, with the leave of your Lordships, later in this debate. If, on the other hand, your Lordships see your way to give this Bill a Second Reading, I hope that you will do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I do not expect that many of your Lordships will have read this Bill from beginning to end, but, if you have done so, I am sure you will agree with me that it is a signal example of legislation by reference. I hope that those who have sought to understand it have had a sufficient library of other legislation available to enable them to do so. It so happens that in
648
some matters in which I was specially interested I have had some of the relevant Acts available, apart from a body of personal experience, and I should like to say that I think that this is an exceedingly useful Bill. In many respects it provides powers which it is advantageous that the Minister should have at the present time. In particular, I would refer to the clauses giving more power to the various authorities in connexion with the execution of drainage schemes, and particularly Clauses 4 and 6. I know that some noble Lords are more cognizant of these matters than I am, but I should like to ask the noble Duke whether he will give us a little more information with regard to Clause 10. I do so, quite frankly, because I myself am interested in a particular case where the drainage of a very large area of land which is still waterlogged has been held up by the inability of the authorities concerned to secure the removal of a dam which is holding up the level of water for some 500 acres of good land and effectually preventing its adequate drainage.
I see that in Clause 10 (1)—which, quite frankly, I have had to read several times in an endeavour to understand it—it is provided that compensation will not be payable "by reason of the alteration or removal of any dam by the board in the exercise of any powers …" and so on. I should like to ask the noble Duke whether that means that in a case where a dam is holding up the efficient drainage of an area of land, and the removal of it is included in a scheme, it will be possible to remove the dam and to secure the efficient drainage of the land without being prejudiced by liability to pay an unknown amount of compensation for the removal of the dam. In the particular case which I have in mind the dam is of no use to anyone, so far as I can learn. It is a great nuisance to the land, but the person particularly interested in it strongly objects to its removal. I shall be glad if the noble Duke will throw a little further light on what this interesting subsection means. If it means what I think it means, I shall be very glad.
I support very heartily the provision for the release of tenants from liabilities arising out of the ploughing up of grassland contained in Clause 15. I think that a good many of these old provisions are quite out of date and not in consonance

649
with the advance of science. It has been proved abundantly all over the country during the war that old grassland has been immensely improved by being ploughed up. It can be reseeded with seed mixtures which will make it hereafter a very much better pasture than it was before, and it certainly is not right that where this ploughing up has been done by order of a county war agricultural committed, the tenant should be prejudiced with regard to his agreement in the case of land of that kind, which in the vast majority of cases has been improved by the ploughing up. I understand that the relief which common sense requires will be provided under this clause, but here again, when I read the page and a half which this clause takes up, I am not so sure of what is actually provided as I was when I read only subsection (1). I think that the interpretation which I have given is right, but perhaps the noble Duke will confirm it in his reply.
I am sure that we all welcome the powers which the Minister is taking over artificial insemination. Artificial insemination will be extremly useful it properly controlled and directed, but it may be exceedingly harmful unless it is so controlled. I am glad that this step is being taken at the very beginning of its development; it will be altogether to the advantage of the herds of this country that it should be subject to the kind of control which is contemplated. I have no other comments to make on the Bill except to express the sincere hope that other noble Lords have understood it better than I have.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like to express hearty agreement with the last sentence of my noble friend Lord Addison's speech. I agree with him about the extreme difficulty of interpreting rapidly and accurately a Bill which contains so large a number of clauses which refer to previous legislation, and I entirely endorse what the noble Lord has said on that subject. I think, in passing, I may say that the Legal Department of the Ministry of Agriculture possesses some outstanding artists in the matter of very skilfully framing Bills containing so much legislation by reference. I welcome this Bill as a very valuable war-time measure, largely intended—and I hope in this respect it will be successful—to smooth out certain irregularities which have been
650
found to present themselves in applying the existing law to war conditions in the national interest. There are four main parts of this Bill, the first dealing with the larger grant that will now become available in respect of lime, and the second consisting of the land drainage clauses to which I should like presently to make more specific reference; while the other parts deal with artificial insemination, and compensation to farm tenants consequent on the ploughing up orders in order to increase the food supply during the war period.
I would only say in regard to the provision relating to lime that there will be a strong temptation, when only one-fourth of the value of lime will have to be found by the farmer, to use lime as a fertilizer, which it is not; and if excessive use of lime becomes prevalent, at any rate among the less well-informed farmers there will be a danger of exhausting, rather than increasing, the fertility of land, particularly where the land becomes progressively deficient in humus and becomes more and more composed of merely mineral elements—which is a real danger as the war progresses—and a larger number of white straw crops are taken off the land in succession one to the other. Of course in areas like Wales and the South-West of England, where the rainfall is heavy, and consequently the land is relatively sour, and where the soils on balance are relatively heavy and lime has, of course, a very valuable mechanical effect in disintegrating heavy soils, possibly the use of lime to a great extent may be pursued with comparative impunity. But I do rather fear that there will be a temptation to use lime when really what is wanted is a phosphatic or potassic fertilizer, both of which, as we know, under war conditions are more and more difficult to obtain.
As regards the land drainage clauses, I am bound to say that until with some expert assistance I studied these clauses in detail, I was a little bit puzzled as to what the real intention of some of them was. However, I have very carefully looked into them and, speaking as Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Land Drainage of England and Wales, I myself am satisfied that all these clauses are needed. Some of them at any rate are needed very largely because the Report of the Royal Commission, for which I was myself largely

651
responsible, was not in effect carried out in the manner that that Commission adumbrated and thought probable, and for this very important reason. That Royal Commission sat in the year 1927, and before the Bill which was intended to implement its Report came before Parliament, fortunately or unfortunately—and I am not going to commit myself as to which it is—agricultural land was derated, with the curious result that a very large proportion of the fund which was considered to be obtainable for the purpose of land drainage became unavailable, or, if the scheme which was outlined by the Royal Commission had been carried out, the burden would have fallen very largely upon house and other rateable property, to the exclusion relatively of agricultural land.
But there is another unfortunate feature about our drainage law, and that is that whereas we contemplated in 1927 that the catchment boards were the most important desiderata in order to centralize the control of land drainage in authoritative hands, unfortunately as it turned out, and largely for the reason which I have already given, there is no one authority with any large comprehensive, dominant power in this country in relation to the drainage of agricultural land. We have the catchment boards, it is true, some of them doing very good work, others far less active, but we also have the continuance of the internal drainage authorities which, operated under the county councils, can only levy a rate of 2d. in the pound at the most; with the result that a very large area which ought to be drained, and which under war conditions it is vitally important should be drained, is not being drained to-day, owing to the lack of a proper contact between catchment boards on the one hand and the internal drainage boards on the other, and the lack of sufficient public money to oil the wheels of a nationally essential process.
All I can hope is that the time may come, and as soon as possible, when the whole of the drainage law, as set out in the Land Drainage Act, 1930, will be thoroughly overhauled, and a new measure of a more comprehensive character and a more workable character will be passed by Parliament. In the meantime these stopgaps are essential if we are to render our drainage system at
652
all adequate to the demands that war-time presents. I think I am right in saying that in 1927 we calculated that about one-fifth of potentially the most fertile land in this country was more or less water-logged. I doubt whether one can put the proportion very much lower, even to-day. It is perfectly true that in areas like the Trent and the Ouse, where there are very efficient catchment boards, considerable improvements have been made, but in other areas those improvements have yet to come. And when you bear in mind that owing to the lack of drainage you are losing at least 50 per cent. of the full output that is obtainable from that land, it very severely limits the food output in time of war that our land drainage system is not more effective.
As regards artificial insemination the noble Duke was good enough to refer to a little pamphlet which I sent him yesterday, but it was only as a reminder that as long ago as 1927 this policy of artificial insemination of live stock was being seriously considered, and being considered at that time in relation to the desirability of importing pedigree Landrace swine from Denmark into this country in order to improve the average standard of our bacon pigs. A paper that I read before the Farmers' Club, a copy of which I sent to the noble Duke, had, by the way, some rather impressive illustrations in it showing what were the parts of a pig that badly wanted improving amongst our breeds in this country. In that paper I stressed the desirability of instituting with all due safeguards artificial insemination as applied to the swine industry, but unfortunately—and this is always the danger in this connexion—some of the breed societies were not merely sceptical, but inclined to be hostile, and the whole matter dropped.
The crying need for artificial insemination to-day is undoubtedly in regard to the animal repopulation of the occupied countries of Europe. Over enormous areas in Central Europe to-day, there are relatively few live stock, the live stock having been taken ruthlessly by the Germans out of those countries or destroyed in loco for the feeding of their own civilian population or the feeding of their troops. After the war, if we are going rapidly to bring anything like adequate relief particularly in the matter of food to those devastated countries, it will be of the first importance to repopulate with farm animals, particularly dairy cattle and pigs,

653
those areas, as soon as possible with the help of artificial insemination. The process should be relatively easy. Without it it is difficult to see how anything can be done with the desirable amount of speed.
But there is another factor. The chief veterinary experts in this country have recently pointed out—and I believe they are quite unanimous—that a very large amount of the bovine diseases from which our cattle suffer here in England and Wales, and to some extent in Scotland, is due to the use of bulls which are more or less affected with some contagious disease that is calculated to affect the milk supply. And they go so far as to say that the average yield in this country of 500 gallons for each cow is much too low, and that it could in the course of some five to ten years be increased to 750 gallons per cow by the simple process alone of artificial insemination of dairy cattle. If that is so, the case for artificial insemination is very strong. I would like to ask the noble Duke whether it would not be possible to entrust the chief bovine breed societies with the task of carrying out this artificial insemination and controlling it under the general supervision of the Ministry without all the delay of red tape and possibly with the inefficiency which is sometimes associated with the intervention of the bureaucracy. I feel very stongly that we have, at any rate so far as our cattle are concerned, highly responsible breed societies in this country, and I believe that every one of the cattle breed societies are perfectly competent to undertake this responsible job and so to regulate the use of the semen as to render the intervention of the Government Department comparatively unimportant. At any rate if we are to get this insemination carried out rapidly and effectively, I would venture to say, let us trust the breed societies.
There finally comes this question whether or not Clause 15 does justice to the agricultural landowner in respect of old pasture land, particularly in the West of England and the South-West of England, where magnificent dairy pastures have existed in days gone by—whether that clause does really do justice in its present form to landowners in cases where there is a definite contract between the farm tenant and the landowner that if the pasture land is ploughed up, if it remains arable land in the hands of the tenant during the war, or during any other period, he should eventually have either
654
to seed it down or compensation should be paid for the loss of its fertility as pasture land. I would only say in passing that these farm tenants have to a large extent fed their crops upon the inherent fertility of their landlord's pasture. There is no question about that. I am inclined to dispute what was said by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Addison) that pasture land is improved by being ploughed up. All I can answer to that is that if the war were to last some seven or eight years and several white straw crops were to be taken in succession off that land, it is perfectly certain that unless the land were generously treated either by farmyard manure, which is not now easily obtainable, or with artificial fertilizers, which are becoming more and more scarce every year, there is no doubt whatever that the land would degenerate and would certainly not be improved so far as fertility is concerned by the war-time policy of ploughing up pastures.
LORD ADDISON: What I said was that seeds of grass and clover were being sown down with the ploughing and that this improved the pasture enormously.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: All I would ask the noble Lord in response to that is, can be demonstrate that over the greater part of England and Wales to-day, what we call "seeds"—seeds that is of grass and clover—are being sown down in all cereal crops? Certainly that is what farmers are needed to do, but in fact, as we all know, in a large part of England is not being done. I venture to hope that those who sympathize with this clause as it stands in the Bill, if they want to see justice done, if they want to operate ordinary fairness to at any rate the better class of landowners, will encourage farm tenants in every case to sow down grass seeds and clover seeds in their cereal crops. If that is not done there is no doubt that a certain amount of deterioration will take place. What I want to put to your Lordships is this. We have a great reputation in this country, which is recognized in other countries, for remaining true to an agreement to which we put our hands. I dare say your Lordships know that in South America to-day every important contract is executed—I think the exact words are—" on the word and honour of an Englishman." All I want to say is that I think we have to be extremely

655
careful, if we are going to maintain the sanctity of contract in this country, not to allow any Government to tear up contracts by Act of Parliament. At any rate that is my strong view.
Whether or not under war conditions it is fully justifiable I will not attempt to discuss, but I venture to say, as regards the reassurance given by the noble Duke, that it is not in the Bill. It is a reassurance which I think has at least mollified if not satisfied the Central Landowners' Association, and certainly landowners will not forget that assurance given, I think, in 1939 by the then Minister of Agriculture and reiterated now in both Houses of Parliament in relation to Clause 15 of this Bill. But it is nothing more than an assurance given by a Minister It is not in the Bill. I venture to think it ought to be in the Bill. However that may be, I realize that we are passing through extremely critical conditions, I realize that we want to give farmers all the hope and confidence we can give them. They are doing a very difficult task under difficult conditions particularly as regards the supply of labour, and I would not suggest that anything should be done which would make them think that they are not going to be treated fairly both by the State and by the landowners.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend the Marquess of Crewe, I desire to say that we in this quarter of the House unhesitatingly support the Second Reading of this Bill. We realize there are many anomalies—we who live in the country realize that to the full—and they should be redressed, especially those in regard to land drainage and the ploughing up of grassland. I say nothing about the gloomy subject of artificial insemination except that it would seem more suitable for debate in the Committee stage or perhaps in a more private place. Generally speaking, however, I think it would be a good plan to give this Bill a Second Reading and on behalf of my noble friends I express the hope that your Lordships will accept it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, the Government have introduced this Bill as a food production Bill and your Lordships will not wish to oppose it. I am
656
not going to add to the length of this debate but will confine myself to asking the noble Duke to make a little clearer the position as to Clause 4. The subsection of that clause to which I refer says in effect that if you have an old and bad tenant who for forty years and more has not cleaned out ditches, as his covenant required him to do, you may clean them. You can wipe off that debt which he continues to owe and substitute for it that he should pay interest on the cost of cleaning out the ditches. It is better than nothing, but it is nothing like so good as the old arrangement under which the tenant had to clean the ditches or be responsible if he did not clean them. It gives the poor landowner a little cash in pocket, but a very little cash, and it leaves the tenant grinning from ear to ear. It was contended in another place, I understand, that the clause as it now stands does away with the old contract between landlord and tenant and substitutes, not as an alternative but as a binding agreement, the replacement of the old section by a clause providing that the landowner should get interest on his outlay. What I want to know is whether that is an alternative or whether it is the only remedy which the landowner now has at his disposal.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, I think it will only take a few minutes for me to answer questions raised by those noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, asked me a question about Clause 10. As I announced, Amendments will be put down at the Committee stage and so I rather skated over that clause. The situation is that this clause does not entail the removal of the dam. It only covers repair and maintenance of the dams or sluices.
LORD ADDISON: I called attention to it because of the words in the Bill "by reason of the alteration or removal of any dam by the board." I do not ask the noble Duke to go any further into the matter to-day, but I hope that he will look into the matter before the Committee stage.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: As regards Clause 15 I come geographically between two noble Lords and I hesitate to disagree with them. If it was a question of subsection (3), whereby the tenant shall receive compensation at the end of his tenancy for any loss he may have suffered by ploughing up during the war, it really

657
comes to the original year in which that tenancy or agreement started. If during this war certain land has been improved during the war by that tenant, he shall receive from the landlord compensation and that landlord will recover his due by the increased rent paid by the incoming tenant on the land so improved. The noble Viscount mentioned insemination, but I do not see how the control can be handed over to the breed societies because they do not come under statutory status which this control will have if it is left in the hands of the Government.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I interrupt to say that I did not advocate that the breed societies should exercise control? What I suggested was that they should act as agents of the Government in carrying out what is wanted.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I can assure the noble Viscount that they will be consulted before any arrangements are entered into. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, who raised a point on Clause 4, I would point out that the last words on page 5, lines 33 to 42, substitute the terms of the clause for the terms of the existing Act. I have had little time to look into the question, and I hope that if the noble Lord is not happy about it he will raise the point at a later stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that Lord Denman take the Chair in all Committees in the House this day, in the absence of the Lord Chairman of Committees.
Moved, That the Lord Denman be appointed to take the Chair in Committees of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees.—(Viscount Cranborne).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor).
Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[LORD DENMAN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Determinations under s. 4 (1) of 4&5 Geo. 6. c. 12 to be by reference to prices current at 31 st March, 1939]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to add to the clause:
"(3) Where war damage has been occasioned to leasehold property and by reason thereof the tenant has disclaimed his lease and the landlord has accepted such disclaimer the payment to be made under the principal Act shall be a value payment.
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to meet a point which I raised on the Second Reading of this Bill. When I raised the point I had hoped that the Government would have seen their way to put down an Amendment dealing with it. This was not only because they have far greater facilities for deciding what are suitable Amendments, and far greater facilities for passing them, but also, because, as I explained on the Second Reading, I am in a very invidious position in moving this Amendment seeing that I am personally interested. I am afraid the Government have not seen fit to put any Amendment down, so I have to bring it up myself.
I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I have to refer to certain elementary facts which are within the cognizance of all your Lordships. First of all, I should remind your Lordships that a great deal of the urban property in this country is held on ground leases, both residential and business. These ground leases have been largely acquired by their possessors by very substantial premiums. Secondly, I should remind your Lordships that by war legislation every property owner, both landlord and tenant, is compelled to insure against war damage, with the Government. That has no doubt been enacted with the very laudable intention of spreading the loss occasioned by enemy action over the whole community. I should like also to remind your Lordships that under the War Damage legislation a tenant when his property has been damaged by enemy action is given the right to serve a notice of disclaimer on his landlord, provided he acts promptly. If the landlord accepts the notice the lease is at an end. If the landlord does not want to accept he has to serve a counter-notice expressing his willingness to do the necessary repairs

659
himself. The last fact of which I should like to remind your Lordships is that by the War Damage Acts the War Damage Commission is empowered to decide whether any specific damage is to be compensated for by means of a value payment—which is normal in cases of total loss—or on a cost-of-works basis.
This Bill is primarily designed to simplify the task of the Commission in deciding, in any given case, whether to proceed by means of a value payment or by means of a cost-of-works payment. In the case of the Commission deciding to proceed by means of a value payment then no question arises. The value of the property, before and after the damage, is assessed and the difference is distributed between the various interests affected in proportion to the loss which they have sustained. But in the case of the employment of cost-of-works basis very different consequences ensue. In that case the tenant who has given up a valuable lease gets nothing. The Government repairs the property at the expense of the Commission, and the landlord is left with the property repaired by the Commission, freed from the lease, and makes a profit out of the tenant.
I do not think that that is an equitable position. I realize that it may be said that it is the tenant's own fault if he gives notice of disclaimer when he has got a valuable lease. But I think the answer to that criticism is this. Under the Act the tenant has to act promptly after the damage—I think he has got about a month in which to decide whether he is going to give a notice of disclaimer or not—and if he does not act he loses his right to disclaim. In many cases, indeed in the majority of cases I think, the tenant cannot tell what damage has been done to the property before a detailed examination has been made. Still less can be tell whether the Commission is going to decide to proceed on a value or on a cost-of-works basis. I think that reasoning must have appealed to the Government and to Parliament when they passed an Amendment Act called the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) (Amendment) Act, 1941. That Act gave to the tenant a right to give a conditional notice of disclaimer, and, in effect, gave him the right, if the Commission ultimately decided to proceed on a value payment basis, to disclaim, or if it proceeded
660
on a cost-of-works basis, to retain his lease. I can imagine your Lordships saying: "What more does a tenant want?" I quite agree; what more would he want? Unfortunately that Act was passed in 1941. It received the Royal Assent on August 7, 1941. Your Lordships will remember that the Battle of Britain and the great fire of London happened in September, 1940. The bombing of Coventry occurred in November, 1940. I think that it is no exaggeration to say that the bulk of the damage so far sustained had been incurred before August 7, 1941. Therefore the bulk of the damage is within the mischief that that Amendment Act was designed to meet, but outside the remedy which it provided.
May I give you a simple illustration of how it works? Let us assume that there are two properties—No. 1 and No. 2 Blitz Parade. Both are held on ground leases and the ground leases are worth, say,£5,000 each. These two houses, No. 1 and No. 2 Blitz Parade, are hit by enemy bombs and are largely demolished. The tenants cannot tell actually how much damage has been done, but they know that it is far beyond what it is permissible to expend under the existing Government rules, and they both give notice to disclaim. They both file their claims to the War Damage Commission and claim the £5,000 which they have lost. When the Commission ultimately comes to decide what is to be done with these two places, they decide, let us say, in the ease of No. 1 Blitz Parade, to proceed on a value basis. That is all right. The value basis is assessed, the tenant gets his £5,000 and the rest goes to the landlord. But in the case of No. 2 Blitz Parade the Commission decided to proceed on a cost-of-works basis. In that case the tenant gets nothing at all, although he has lost the £5,000. The landlord gets the shop, repaired by the Government, freed from the lease, and in fact makes a profit of £5,000 out of the tenant. I do not think it is possible to justify that.
I have read in The Times a number of letters criticizing the Government's attitude in this matter, and using very strong language. Some of the writers said that the Government were guilty of sharp practice or double dealing. I am not associating myself with that language, because I have worked in terms of too close intimacy with many members of the

661
present Government to imagine that they would be guilty of conduct justifying that description; but I am still frankly puzzled to know why the Government adopt this attitude. My suggestion is that the Bill shall provide that in all cases where a tenant has disclaimed, and the disclaimer has been accepted, the Commission shall treat it is a value payment. In other words, as the tenant has suffered a total loss, he shall be compensated as for a total loss. I am quite prepared, however, to accept any suggestion from the Government, either to limit my Amendment to cases occurring before August 7, 1941, when the Amending Act received the Royal Assent, or to accept any form of words which deal with this injury. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25 at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My noble and learned friend mentioned this matter in the debate on the Second Reading, and he asked that those responsible should look into the point which he made, in order to see whether it would seem to them right to try to meet it. I need not assure my noble and learned friend that I have not only looked into it, but looked into it with every desire to make a proper proposal, and not solely because, as he has told us most candidly, in the case of a property in which he was interested things had worked out badly, but on the general ground that we all want, as far as may be, to frame this legislation in a way which is just. I am sorry to say, however, that I do not think it is possible to make an Amendment along these lines. The Government could not recommend the Committee to adopt this Amendment, and could not accept it. I think that what my noble and learned friend said makes it clear that he makes this proposal with a view to its being retrospective.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No. My words provide that, when the Commission come to decide in any case, this shall be done. It is when the Commission hereafter come to decide in any case between the cost-of-works basis and the value payment that I wish it to be provided that it shall decide on value payment if the lease is being disclaimed and the landlord has accepted the disclaimer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not concerned with any question of drafting or form at all; I merely want to understand what is proposed, and I certainly thought that the proposal was intended to be retrospective. If it is not to be retrospective, we shall have a sharp contrast between what has already been done in tens of thousands of cases by the War Damage Commission, and what will be clone in future, and I think it will be manifest that that would not be right. I want the Committee to realize, if they are taking an interest in this point, which is rather a complicated and technical one, that there are innumerable cases in which the tenant, after the property has been damaged by war action, has disclaimed his lease, and in which the landlord has then repaired the premises, the War Damage Commission providing the money necessary for that purpose, and in which the landlord, having the property, has dealt with it by letting it, selling it, mortgaging it, or in some other way. There is not the slightest reason why that should not happen.
Take the ordinary case of a shopkeeper who has perhaps seven years of his lease to run, and who is holding the property at a rack-rent—because that is the best case to take. If the property is being held at a rack-rent, and the property happens to be destroyed, the shopkeeper, the tenant, does not suffer, provided he has to pay no more rent at all, apart from the possible expense and inconvenience of moving to another place. The rack-rent is the full annual value of the property, and the fact that his occupation of it comes to an end does not do him any harm, because the law provides that he has not to pay any more rent if the place is rendered unfit for habitation. That has happened in tens of thousands of cases; in every one of those cases the tenant holding at a rack-rent has disclaimed, as he was perfectly entitled to do, his tenancy, and has gone away, moving somewhere else. Thereupon the landlord, out of his resources, has repaired the property. He receives from the War Damage Commission the expense of so repairing it—the cost-of-works payment—and deals with the property as his own. That has been happening for the last two and a half years.
This Amendment would provide that if it was a leasehold property (and in my

663
instance it is), and if the tenant has disclaimed the lease because of war damage (and in my instance he has), and if the landlord has accepted the disclaimer (as in my instance he has accepted it), then the payment to be made under the principal Act shall be a value payment. No one will suggest that these two kinds of payment are to be made in respect of the same property. The War Damage Commission have to decide in each case which is the proper sort of payment to make, and no one will suggest that they should make both. The broad policy is to make a value payment only where the property is not worth making good; if the property is worth making good, a cost-of-works payment is made. Tens of thousands of such instances have already been dealt with and disposed of by the Commission during the last two and a half years, and I am at a loss to understand how it could be right to provide that the making of a value payment, which is really in the nature of compensation instead of rebuilding the property, is not to depend, as it has done from the beginning, on whether the War Damage Commission find that the property is not worth making good, but is to depend on whether the tenant chooses to disclaim or not. That is the proposition.
I am most unwilling to discuss, and I do so most diffidently, the particular kind of case which moved my noble and learned friend to consider this matter specially, although we all know very well that he has produced his suggestion now purely in the public interest. As a matter of fact, however, when my noble and learned friend's own property was damaged, there was no provision in the law by which the ground lessee could surrender his lease as of right at all; he would have had to go to the County Court and get leave to do it under the Act as it then stood. But what happened, unless I have misunderstood the position, is that my noble and learned friend was advised—it is not for me to criticize the advice, but I am surprised at it—that, although he had a valuable lease, he should offer to his landlord to surrender it, and the landlord accepted the offer. I am extremely sorry that that has worked out badly for anybody, most of all for my noble friend, but that is the real situation. The landlord in such a case accepts the offer; thereby he acquires for him-
664
self what I am afraid is a valuable leasehold. It may be that that was not a very good bargain to make, but it has nothing to do with the question whether there should be a value payment or a cost-of-works payment, because that depends not upon the judgment of the tenant as to whether he would like to surrender his lease, but upon the judgment of the War Damage Commission as to what is the proper way to treat a particular damaged property.
Some people have thought—I heard the observation made on the Second Reading—that if a house is seriously damaged it must be right from the tenant's point of view to disclaim the lease. There could not be a greater confusion. That does not follow at all. If the expense of making good the property will result in the property being worth more than what is spent to repair it, it will always be right to make a cost-of-works payment and to rebuild it. We are engaged in rebuilding a portion of England by this process and you can see it going on in various places. It is not, therefore, for the tenant to say: "I think I would like to disclaim my lease and now I insist that there must be a value payment." It is for the War Damage Commission to say whether there should be in the circumstances a value payment or a cost-of-works payment. And I am very much afraid that in the instance which my noble friend has in mind—I regret it most heartily—the matter has worked out badly.
Now my noble friend says he does not wish his proposal to be retrospective. I misunderstood him so far. Then the question is whether there is anything wrong in the law as it stands now. I do not quite agree with the way he stated it. Let me, therefore, state it as I understand it, because it seems to me to be a perfectly fair law. The present state of the law is this, that the War Damage Commission have to decide in each case, as I have said, if a property has suffered war damage, whether the payment to be made is to be a cost-of-works payment or a value payment. The broad policy is to make a value payment only where the property is not worth making good. If the property is worth making good, well then make a cost-of-works payment. There will be cases in which a cost-of-works payment will be the better course, even though the property has been substantially destroyed.

665
It depends simply on whether the value of the building will be greater than the cost of making it good. That is the whole policy of this branch of the law.
If the tenant surrenders his lease to his landlord (which is a matter of agreement) or if he chooses to disclaim his lease under the war legislation—which he could not originally do in the case of a ground lease without the leave of the Court—then he has no further interest in making good the property; and if it is decided that there should be a cost-of-works payment that of course goes to the party that makes good the property; in the ordinary case it would be the landlord. If, on the other hand there is a value payment to be made, the existing law provides that the tenant, even though he has disclaimed his lease, may in some cases have some share in it. As I pointed out, he would not in fact have a substantial share if he was holding at a rack-rent, because he does not suffer since he has not got any more rent to pay. It seems to me that is all quite right, and that is the way in which it is being worked. A value payment is really nothing more than cash compensation paid after the end of the war to the various parties interested in the property at the time when it was damaged, in proportion to the injury they have suffered. I hope I have made that plain.
It is an extremely technical matter and I apologize for keeping the Committee, but I am most anxious to show my noble and learned friend—I know he will believe it of me—that I have really looked into this thing as closely as I can. I have no prejudice in the matter and I should be delighted if we could make a change in the law which would be satisfactory to him. But there is no call for a change in the law; it is entirely just and right, as I have described. And if there was a case in which a lease was voluntarily given up, that is most regrettable if it does not turn out to be good policy. But it is not due to anything that this Statute contains. Therefore I am bound to say I do not think it possible for us to say to the War Damage Commission at this time of day, after they have dealt with tens of thousands of cases and actually paid the money for rebuilding or reconstructing property, that that was all on a wrong principle, and that the right principle is that whenever a tenant chooses to surrender his lease he must be entitled to insist that the premises shall not be built up
666
again but that there shall be instead a value payment in which he is to have a share. I cannot say how much I regret having to give this answer, but I have seen no alternative. I really have no doubt at all that the tenant should not give up a valuable lease without the most mature consideration, and now, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, that is made abundantly plain because he is able, if he likes, to give what is called a conditional notice of retention, in which case he will be able to see how it works out. For these reasons I am afraid I cannot recommend the Committee to make this Amendment
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend for his explanation. I did not discuss my own case at all. I was discussing the broad principle which has been not only noticed by myself but noticed by other property owners. I am a little surprised to hear my noble friend say that there were tens of thousands of cases which have been dealt with heretofore because I hold in my hand a copy of a letter written on February 15, just a month ago, to the National Federation of Property Owners, from the Treasury, signed by Mr. Usher, and there he demurs to the National Federation of Property Owners' proposal. Their proposal was that in cases where this present Bill made a difference between cost-of-works and value payments that should be dealt with by this legislation. Mr. Usher explains why he does not want to do that. He said:
"Further, it has been felt that, having regard to the fact that determinations have been taken in only a very small number of cases and of those cases only a few will be cases in which conditional notice of retention has been served, legislation of the complexity that will be required could not be justified."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was not using any rhetorical expression. I took care to find out. It may be that the expression tens of thousands was not quite accurate. But there have been many thousands of cases in which a tenant has disclaimed his lease and a cost-of-works payment has been made. It would be quite impossible to rip up these thousands of settlements. I got the information direct from the War Damage Commission.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I thank my noble friend very much, but it is rather odd that the Treasury took such a

667
different view and made that an excuse for not dealing with this particular case. Of course I accept my noble friend's explanation. Then my noble friend says that lots of cases have been dealt with. Be it so. They have been dealt with, and they will not be affected by any Amendment which now empowers or directs the Commission, in cases where they have to make determinations in the future, to act according to the directions which I suggest should be put into the Bill. That does not involve that the Commission ought to alter or rip up any decisions which they have made, but it only decides that in future the Commission, when they decide questions between value and cost of works, would act on the direction of my Amendment. I only want to point that out to my noble friend. I do not think, therefore, that is a good point.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Minor amendments as to rentcharges]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment to this clause is just a drafting Amendment. The words in the Bill are too narrow, and a wider expression is required.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("the owner of") and insert ("any person entitled in respect of ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps, my Lords, without being too much out of order, I might be allowed to say, as my noble friend (Viscount Hailsham) is here, that I have ascertained about Mr. Usher's letter. His letter related to formal determinations of value payments. The Commissioners' thousands of determinations are cost-of-works payments. The whole of my observations about tens of thousands were in relation to cost of works.
The Schedule [Amendments consequential on Section One of this Act]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The words appearing on the Paper, which I move to insert in the Schedule, are a necessary adaptation to Scotland and
668
ought to have been in the Bill as originally drafted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, after ("incumbrance") insert ("or, in the case of a hereditament in Scotland, from any ground annual or other incumbrance and any liability to pay feuduty").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

EVIDENCE AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CHINA AND THE MIDDLE EAST.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to call attention to the situation in China and the Middle East; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be very unlikely that four members chosen from both Houses would agree entirely on everything that they saw; therefore I want it to be understood that any views that I express are entirely my own, and that I am not committing any of my colleagues in anything I say. It is difficult in these very crowded times in which so much happens to give your Lordships a full picture without being far too long. First of all, I would like to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and your Lordships, for doing me the great honour of selecting me as one of the Mission to China. It was a great honour and privilege, and indeed a great responsibility. I felt that it was my duty to bring before your Lordships a general account of what I saw.
We have referred already to the wonderful reception that the Chinese people accorded us. I am quite certain that that reception emanated from real friendship for the people of this country. I found not one single discordant note the whole time we were there. The Chinese people, in conversations I had with many of them, seemed fully to understand the difficulties that we have passed through and that we are in to-day. I refer in particular to that episode of the closing of the Burma Road. I found no Chinese make any adverse comment on that. They thought it was the only thing we could do in the circumstances. I do not

669
know whether the terrific burden that China is bearing owing to this war is realized here. I understand that they have had at least 5,000,000 casualties in their Army. That is, even with this great population, a tremendous tragedy. There are people who think that perhaps China could prosecute this war with greater energy, but from what I saw of the armaments of the Chinese Army I entirely agree with what I believe is the Generalissimo's policy—not to be drawn into a full-dress battle with the Japanese who are equipped with modern weapons because if he did so he would be defeated. His policy, so far as we could judge it, is to go on harassing the areas which the Japanese are occupying, and also to carry on as far as they can guerrilla warfare.
I think we were all tremendously impressed with the smartness, the discipline and the splendid bearing of the Chinese soldiers that we saw. There is no doubt they thoroughly understand the weapons they have. They are hard men and I feel absolute confidence that when they are fully equipped they will make short work of the Japanese. I saw a most remarkable thing one day. We inspected a division drawn up in line and at the double this division formed three sides of a square in front of the platform from Which we were going to speak. They did it at the double and they might have been moving as one man. It was a most remarkable piece of drill, and I do not believe that any but our very best troops here could have done the same thing. We visited one of the front line positions of the Chinese Army. I took special notice myself, being an old machine gunner in the last war, to see how they got their guns placed and to study the methods that they adopted. I must say that they think out their strategy and their tactics extremely well. I am not surprised that the Japanese are chary of attacking them.
Their Air Force of course is a small one, but I believe it to be most efficient. We met General Mao Pang Chu, who commands the Chinese Air Force, and we formed a great opinion of him. There is an administration which is first class. Then we met that great General, the American General Chennault. We were all delighted to see that he was honoured by His Majesty some time ago, and we are glad to see that he has been promoted.
670
General Chennault is a very remarkable man. He gives one the impression of being a great leader and a most efficient commander of any Air Force. Our flights through China were in Chinese military planes, piloted by Chinese, and we were all very satisfied with the happy take-offs and the happy landings we made under the pilotage of the Chinese pilots. In the matter of the supply of war weapons, the Chinese with the greatest possible ingenuity have managed to extricate and get away from the occupied areas a certain amount of machinery. They have improvised other machinery out of apparently very little material indeed and they are now producing small arms, small arm ammunition, trench mortars and, lately, shells for the artillery they have got. Some of the machinery is almost of the Heath Robinson type, but it works and they are getting the stuff out, which is the great thing. There is no doubt whatever that the Chinese intend to fight through to the end, that they intend to drive the Japanese not only from China proper, but from Manchuria. When one sees the conditions under which they have had to fight against a fully equipped, well armed, pugnacious nation, one wonders how in the world they were able to stop the Japanese from overrunning the whole of their country.
There is a calm assumption of victory throughout China which is most impressive. It is remarkable that in spite of the war there is throughout the whole of the administration of China a general idea of preparation for a democratic Constitution after the war. The Generalissimo is preparing the nation to that end. There are at present two organizations. One is called the Peoples' Political Council. That is not an executive organization, but it contains representatives of all political Parties in China. I think that the correct expression to use in regard to it is that it is an advisory body. It has its sessions and meetings. The organization which has executive authority and chooses the Government is an organization called the Kuomintang of which the Generalissimo is the head. There are about 300 odd members. I should say that all the big men, all the great men in China are in the Kuomintang. I feel sure that ultimately there should be a very up-to-date democratic Constitution. All the present systems of government all over the world

671
are being studied most intensely and it seems to me there is no doubt that they will arrive at something probably better in democratic government than any nation at present operating the democratic idea.
I should like to say a word about schools and universities. There are one or two very interesting things about them. Discipline is very strict. I believe that to be thoroughly sound and the students seem to welcome it. They appoint leaders for their classes. Each member of a class has to be leader of the class for at least a week. That gives a sense of responsibility, and I think that perhaps here, instead of having boys who are prefects all the time, it might be well to have occasional leaders. That gives all an experience of responsibility and it seems to be a matter we might seriously think about. There are universities which are teaching the people civil administration, and they are also teaching the people—deliberately teaching them—how to be good citizens. They teach them that citizenship does not mean paying taxes and doing nothing else, but that more is expected of the really patriotic citizen. All this was on the highest plane and something one could not fail to admire.
Next I would turn to industry. The whole of the commerce and trade in China quite naturally has been thrown out of gear. But the curious thing is that whereas in the past raw materials have been taken many hundreds of miles to the factories, those establishments being now in Japanese hands, new factories are being built where the raw materials are found. I see enormous possibilities of development throughout China as a result of this taking place. We must not forget that China is isolated. There is no question about it that China is in the grip of a blockade far more than is any other nation in the world. As your Lordships are all aware, the only way in and out of China is over a very high mountain range—the end of the Himalayas. It does not seem to me to matter how much transport you may be able to take through the air over those mountains. I feel that before we can expect any great difference in the position in China we must get that Burma Road open and get the ports open, so that where now we are sending only hundreds of tons of material we can send thousands of tons.
I now wish to touch on a subject that I am afraid is a little controversial. Your Lordships are aware that the Americans have given the Chinese a loan or credit of £100,000,000 while we have given them a loan or credit of £50,000,000. The Americans have got no restrictions whatever on their loan, while we have restrictions on £40,000,000 of the loan that we have given. I am going to make a very strong appeal to the Government to remove all restrictions from that part of the loan. I ask the Government really to give serious consideration to this. What is £40,000,000? It sounds a large sum but it is not the amount of three days war expenditure at the present time. I believe that I am right in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the other day that we are spending £14,000,000 a day on the war. Therefore, as I say, a sum of £40,000,000 does not amount to our war expenditure for three days. Then we are contemplating, after this war—for we all agree with the principles of the Beveridge Report—an expenditure of £800,000,000 per annum on various social services. I feel that we want to be generous in dealing with the Chinese, our great Allies, far away, isolated, and in the grip of a terrible blockade. I beg the Government to consider this matter and, if they possibly can do so, to waive any restrictions on this loan. I am certain that the Chinese in any case will be absolutely fair, and I am absolutely certain that if we do as I suggest this money will be expended in our country and will mean trade for us.
The methods of the Japanese are identical with those of the Germans. Of the brutality that is being shown to the Chinese you find much evidence when you go to China to-day. There are 50,000,000 refugees, at least, from the occupied areas and the numbers of inhabitants of the occupied areas who have been massacred or are now starving cannot be calculated. They are undoubtedly very large. Do not let us ever forget that the Chinese were the first to suffer from the action of an aggressor. It began in 1931 when the attack on Manchuria was launched. In spite of the length of this war the Chinese are just as strong in their views now as they were before, and they are determined to fight on until victory comes. I hope that we here will do all that we can to help China to make

673
herself what she ought to have been in the past, the great predominant nation of the Far East. The Chinese have thousands of years of culture behind them. They are a people of great intellect, and they are most industrious. Above all, they are a peace-loving people. I am sure that China, after the war, will enter upon a completely new era, and we shall see there what we are seeing here to-day, that many women will come into the picture headed by that great lady Madame Chiang Kai-shek, with whom there will be, I hope, Madame Sun Yat Sen and Madame Kung. These ladies make up a very distinguished trio of sisters. We must further not forget that there are many millions of Chinese citizens who are big men in our Colonies and Dominions.
Before leaving this subject I would like to say one word about our Ambassador in Chungking, Sir Horace Seymour. I believe, and I feel sure that my colleagues will agree with me in this, that he is doing a great work there, and that he is going to be a very much beloved man in China. Under the leadership of that great General and statesman, General Chiang Kai-shek, I believe that the outlook for China after the war is a bright one. I feel that we have made many lasting friendships in that country. If we have not done so it means that I have got to begin to think again. My own mentality has certainly been very deeply impressed with the feeling that I have made friends in China who will be friends for the rest of my life.
And now just a word about Turkey. As your Lordships are aware, we got a very charming invitation from the Turkish Government to visit them. It would be difficult to say very much concerning what we saw, but I can tell your Lordships that nothing could have been more friendly and more kindly than the manner in which we were received. I feel confident that the Turkish people and our own people are real friends, and I can see no reason why we should not continue to be so. I am certain that it is the intention of the Turkish people that we shall be so. We passed into Egypt on two occasions. The Egyptian Government officials were very kind to us. We were taken in charge by Sir Miles Lampson, now Lord Lampson, and introduced by him to all the great men of the country.
Finally, I come to our visit to the battlefield. if you want to be inspired by something fine, I do not believe that anything could give you such uplift as to go to the battlefield of North Africa and see our men there—weather-beaten but hard, with a very fine spirit of loyalty to their cause and with fine discipline. When one thinks that they suffered reverse after reverse and then turned all that into victory after victory, it is a great privilege to mix with such men. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that there is nothing wrong with the British Army, and I am sure that if he had been with us he would have taken the same view.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I have said so in this House many times. I think that the noble Lord was away on his important Mission when, during the last debate on the Army, I took the opportunity of paying a very high tribute to the British Army.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. I left this country just after a debate in which the noble Lord suggested that there was something wrong with the British Army. I did not know that the noble Lord had changed his mind; I am very pleased to hear that he has done so. If he had been with us, I am sure that he would have taken the same view that we did about these magnificent soldiers of our Army. There is no doubt about their efficiency. We went amongst the men—the Generals wanted us to do that—and talked to them. Never before have I met such a grand spirit as there was amongst them.
I am sorry not to see the most reverend Primate in his place. I was here a short time ago when he made a speech in this House on the Beveridge Report. I could not believe what I heard, and so I took the trouble to read the report of his speech very carefully afterwards. I wrote to the most reverend Primate and said that I was going to mention this subject to-day, but, as he is not here, I shall mention it in his absence, because I feel that perhaps he does not want to bother with it. I am going to read a passage from his speech which to my mind is a very grievous one. I am quoting from the Official Report for February 25, 1943, column 315. The most reverend Primate said:
"I am quite certain that those who are in close touch, for example, with the troops in

675
our camps, would say that nothing could be better for the morale of the Army at this time than the clearest possible declaration from the Government with regard to what they take to be possible in the implementation of the Report."
The reference is to the Beveridge Report.
I shall read the whole passage, because it is not very long:
"Many of them no doubt live from day to day without very much thought about the future, but those who are thinking about the future are thinking, as the noble Lord just said, mainly about the question whether there is going to be after this war such a time of distress as followed the other war. Some of them experienced it as children and some of them heard about it from their parents."
This is the part of the speech which I wish that the most reverend Primate was here to deal with:
"It does occasion profound anxiety, and that anxiety does, to some extent, damage their own zeal in the cause they serve, because anxiety is always rather a weakening element in any man's make-up."
As an old soldier, I take a very serious view of the fact that it should be suggested that, because the date or the method of the implementation of the Beveridge Report should be held up, or was not exactly what it was thought that it was going to be, it should damage the zeal of our soldiers in the cause they serve.
I was hoping to see the most reverend Primate here to-day, because I feel that he must have said something that he did not mean. We are all worried about the future; there is not a member of this House or of any other house who is not; but to make the suggestion that the most reverend Primate made, that our men at the front, who have fought so gallantly, should in any way withhold their fighting powers because of the Beveridge Report, distresses me very much indeed. I am very distressed to think that anyone should make that suggestion against men who have fought so long and so splendidly, and I do not believe that even in the camps in this country the soldiers there are affected at all in the way suggested. I believe their morale to be good, and I believe that they will never be deterred from doing their duty by any political or social matter.
In conclusion, I wish to say this. From the time that we left these shores there was evidence on the sea, in the air, and on the land, of the colossal effort that this
676
little country of ours, of only 45,000,000 people, is making. We travelled right across Africa. Your Lordships know the route quite well. Everywhere we saw evidence of this stupendous effort, not only on the part of our Forces but on the part of the managements and the workers here. Believe me, there cannot be much wrong with the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, and I do not believe that there is much wrong with the general conduct of this war either by the Government or by the managements or workers of my country. Having seen all that I have seen, I am intensely proud that I belong to a race that can do such fine things. I beg to move.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the Motion so ably moved by my noble friend. As he has already said, the conclusions to which four people will come after a tour of that sort are not likely to be identical. But there is one thing that I know we are all at one about, and that is our intense admiration for everything we saw in China and our appreciation of the privilege it was to represent Parliament on this Mission. I very much welcome the statement of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on the 4th March, when he reminded your Lordships that China is a United States strategical sphere. I think this fact may have been insufficiently realized in this country. I wish to make only one comment on that statement, and that is to express a hope that that condition will not be too rigidly applied on every possible occasion. As an example of what I mean your Lordships are well aware of the great achievements of the small American Air Force led by that gallant and great Commander, already referred to by my noble friend, General Chennault. I was very glad to read the tribute paid to General Chennault by the Leader of the House the other day, and to see that he had been awarded a British decoration. Having had the good fortune to meet General Chennault, I can confirm what my noble friend has said, that we were immensely impressed by him. We heard much independent testimony, both in China and in India, as to his prowess, and we were told that, with a small force of never more than 12 medium bombers, 80 fighters, and 2 reconnaissance machines, he had at the time we left China destroyed 296 enemy planes, confirmed, 216 probables, and as many

677
more damaged, for the loss of only 35 American planes. In addition, considerable damage had been done to shipping and to other military objectives.
I have no wish to enter into the realm of strategy, a subject which I consider myself ill qualified to discuss, and which I in any case join with many of your Lordships in deprecating as a subject of debate in Parliament. But I would suggest one thing. It is that that small force under General Chennault is clearly not sufficient for sustained operations against the enemy, and that in view of the remarkable results that have so far been achieved by that force it is logical and reasonable to suppose that a somewhat larger force, say, 30 medium bombers instead of 12, 100 or 110 fighters instead of 80, and 6 reconnaissance machines instead of 2, with, say, 50 transport planes to supply this force with fuel, ammunition, spare parts, etc., might play such havoc with the Japanese Air Force and with their shipping as to compel the enemy to divert numbers of his fighter aircraft from areas where they can ill be spared, thus constituting a serious drain on the Japanese air strength. Failing such diversion it is probable that such a force as I have mentioned would, in a comparatively short time, so disrupt the enemy's sea lines of communication as seriously to affect his operations in the South-West Pacific.
Japanese shipping in Chinese waters is extremely vulnerable. There is little or no protection against air attack. Aerodromes are available in Free China from which Allied fighter planes can support our bombers and can operate over Formosa, and Formosa, where the warning system is bad and the anti-aircraft defence is poor, is a focal point in the Japanese supply lines to the South-West Pacific. It would certainly appear that the damage that could thus be inflicted on the transport of essential Japanese war material and on shipping which Japan cannot replace, or can only replace with great difficulty, would be of greater value to the Allied cause than anything which could be done by an equal number of planes in any other theatre of war. In particular, the laborious and costly operation of driving the enemy out island by island from the South-West Pacific might be greatly facilitated if his lines of supply were paralysed by a flank attack from China.
678
To go back to where I started, when I expressed the hope that the strategic sphere condition would not be too rigidly applied, it may well be that the United States are unable to spare the number of planes which I have tentatively suggested as a reasonable addition to the present force in China. If such be the case I would beg of His Majesty's Government not to rule out the possibility of this country providing the small numbers required. I am not asking for any reply or statement of any kind from the Government; I would, of course, have given notice if I had had any such desire. All I ask is that this matter may be most carefully considered in the light of the results which have already been achieved. It might even be, by a compromise to be arrived at, that this country could provide the extra bombers, fighters and reconnaissance planes, while the United States supplied the transport planes. In any case, I would propose that that additional force, wherever it came from, should work under the orders of the existing American Command. There are strong arguments, of course, in favour of British machines taking their place alongside those of our American Ally. Such an arrangement would certainly have the best possible effect on our relations with China.
There is only one further point in this connexion, that of replacements. It is probable that these might amount to about 15 per cent. per month, or about 4 or 5 bombers and about 15 fighters. I venture to submit that the small number of planes required—a very much more modest figure than was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on the 4th March—makes it difficult to believe that the present resources of the United Nations, despite their preoccupations elsewhere, are unequal to the demand. I was extremely interested to see a small paragraph in the Press a day or two ago intimating the creation of a separate China Air Command under General Chennault. To those of us who to the best of our ability studied the situation on the spot no possible announcement could have given greater satisfaction. If the sequel to that arrangement is the increase in the strength of that force, one feels very strongly that that would be by far the most useful and practical step which could be taken at the present moment in prosecuting the war in the Far East.

679
There is a great dearth of British Press correspondents to-day in Free China. I feel that that should be mentioned. Since the return home of The Times correspondent some months ago, to the best of my knowledge he has not yet been replaced, and there is not one single British newspaper correspondent to-day in Free China. I suggest that that is a thing that wants putting right as soon as possible. My noble friend mentioned the Kuomintang. I should like to say what a great honour we felt it to be not only to be asked to attend a session of the Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang—the first time any foreigner had been allowed inside—but that we were also asked to address them. When we arrived we found Dr. H. H. Kung, the Vice-President of the Executive Yuan, giving a general survey of the war and of the financial situation. As soon as he had finished, the Generalissimo, who was presiding in his capacity as Party leader, welcomed us in a warm little speech and we then all replied for two or three minutes each. The speeches were very well received, and afterwards we had the privilege of meeting large numbers of the members of the Kuomintang. It was interesting in that connexion to see the President of the National Government, Dr. Lin Sen, taking his place as an ordinary member sitting in the front row, while the Generalissimo as Party leader presided.
We also had the privilege of meeting, by consideration of the Generalissimo, the leaders of the minority Parties. We took a great liking to them all. First and foremost the Communist leader, General Chou En Lai, the Communist representative in Chungking. General Chou En Lai was a very frank and open chap, and it was clear from what he told us that while the war lasted he and the whole of his 500,000 Communists up north, had only one thing in mind and that was to assist the Government and the Generalissimo in driving the Japanese out of China. The leaders of the other Parties are also extremely likeable men. Of course they are not allowed much political organization, and I presume they have to do most of their work somewhat underground. One thing which perhaps we stressed more than anything else in the many speeches that we were called upon to make was the fact that the Chinese war
680
was our war too. I do not know how many times we impressed upon our audiences that whatever happened, if the European war should be finished first, our forces would be sent East to throw the whole of their weight into the defeat of Japan.
I want to say a word about entertainment. I would like to describe one scene. After a very long day up in the north-west we arrived at the railway station at midnight, three hours late on programme time. We should have been there at nine o'clock. When we arrived we found the whole of the approaches to the station packed thick with 30,000 people holding up flaming torches. They had been waiting there for three solid hours on a bitterly cold night in order to see us off. I mention that particular episode as being typical of the marvellous reception we had wherever we went in China. We had the same sort of welcomes at Paochi, Chengtu, Kunming and other places, and everywhere we went, whether it was a large town or a small village, whether we were attending a public function or a private one, whether indoors or out of doors, in almost every room we entered and every street we passed, in every arsenal, cotton mill, coal mine, every little workers' factory which we visited, in all the hospitals, orphanages, schools, wherever we went, there were flags and bunting. As we entered a door there were the crossed flags of Britain and China, there were pictures of His Majesty the King and the Prime Minister, there were slogans up on the wall in English stressing Sino-British unity, there were V's for victory on the walls.
A few days ago I was bidden to attend a Government luncheon in honour of the Chinese Military Mission and the reason I have given your Lordships that narrative about our entertainment is to call attention to the sad contrast in our method of hospitality. One walked through the sombre portals of a very excellent West End hotel—no flag, no bunting, no picture, no decoration of any sort, an atmosphere of austerity. We had a cocktail, we walked into the dining room, a cold, arid white tablecloth down the length of the table, not a piece of silver. I will not suggest that the forks were not silver, but there was not a piece of plate, not a sign of anything. To make matters even worse, when the Chair-

681
man got up to make his speech of welcome to General Hsiung, who did not speak or understand English, there was no interpreter to translate the Chairman's speech for him, and the Chinese Military Attaché, who was sitting next to him, had to keep up a running whispering commentary to our chief guest, trying to put him abreast of what was being said. When we were in China, every time we attended these entertainments, the moment the Chairman had made his speech in Chinese up came the official interpreter and read through the whole speech in English for our benefit. I do beg that if and when tile time comes, as we all hope it will, that some representative Mission comes to this country from China, we shall exercise a little more imagination in our form of entertainment and show a little warmth instead of that iceberg aridity to which I have referred. England will not lose its identity thereby.
I would like to associate myself very much with the tribute paid to Sir Horace Seymour and to tell your Lordships that on several occasions in the course of conversation spontaneous tributes were paid in my hearing by both British and Chinese alike to the great work that the British Ambassador is doing out there. I had intended saying a few words about things we saw in India, all of interest, but there is no time now and it must be put off to another occasion. My noble friend has, I think, sufficiently described our time in Egypt. We saw many interesting things. I would just like to stress one thing and that is the need, if I may venture to say so, for the British Council work out there to be increased as much as possible. I was very glad to see that the Chairman, Sir Malcom Robertson, arrived in Cairo while we were there. There are various ways in which the work of the British Council could, I think, be increased with great benefit. One thing in particular that is required is to assist the Anglo-Egyptian union which is doing remarkably good work out there. We were privileged to attend a reception which they gave for us. We all made them a little speech and the atmosphere was just too friendly and nice for words. But they are inadequately housed, and I venture to suggest that funds should be made available through the British Council for the construction of new and more suitable premises.
Nothing could have exceeded the great hospitality we received while in Cairo
682
at the British Embassy. It has been my good fortune to be a guest there on many occasions during the past three and a half years of war and my prolonged sojourn there this time has only served to intensify the admiration I have always felt as a detached observer for the work of that great servant of the Empire, Sir Miles Lampson. It was a source of great satisfaction to us that we should have been there when the announcement was published of his Peerage. It is greatly to be hoped that still higher and even more arduous duties may await this massive pillar of the State with his engaging personality and his unique experience of the Oriental mind. Such elevation could only result, I feel sure, in great benefit to the country and the Empire.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, it is indeed a privilege to be the first speaker from this side of the House to thank the two noble Lords for the full and fascinating report to which we have just listened. I think it is a matter of the utmost satisfaction to all of us that your Lordships' House should have been so worthily represented, and I cannot help feeling that the emphasis both noble Lords placed on the additional things we can do for China was particularly happy. I am sure it will receive the consideration of the Government. Since the two noble Lords spoke in your Lordships' House immediately after their return from China, I have happened to meet several Chinese friends who are in direct contact with Chungking and the Embassy in London. All the reports they have received confirm what we have already heard about the immense popularity and really striking success of the Parliamentary Mission. Those of us who listened to the account of their journey given by the delegation a short time ago to members of both Houses in the dining room in another place, realize that since their return they are completing the good work they have so admirably begun. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that they set out as British missionaries and came back as Chinese missionaries. Indeed I am quite relieved to find that neither of the noble Lords has in the least degree lost the power of speech in his native tongue.
I would venture to make a very short contribution to this discussion because I imagine I have had a rather exceptional

683
opportunity of studying the attitude of the British public towards China. My experience of popular sympathy to the Chinese people as victims of Japanese militarism and of the intense admiration felt for the manner in which, without Allies and practically without arms, they resisted the attack of a modern and well-equipped Army and Air Force, goes back as far as the late summer of 1937. It was then, as your Lordships will remember, just five and a half years ago, that the Japanese began their occupation of Northern China. Soon afterwards, in I think typically British fashion, a small group of men and women, holding the most varied opinions and pursuing every sort of occupation, met round a table to talk over what should be done for China. They decided to form a committee of which I still have the honour to be an officer, though not participating as a soldier in their activities, with the object of stirring up and giving expression to public opinion, in order also to raise money for medical relief for the sick and wounded, and in order further, I confess, to be a thorn in the side of our Government until they had given all the assistance in their power to China. To-day I am happy to say it is no longer necessary for the committee to exercise that function.I remember two illustrations which I venture to offer which show, I think, the deep sympathy for the Chinese cause that is rooted in our working people. In those early days public meetings on China were mainly attended by wage-earners and I remember how, after a collection had been taken for the Chinese wounded, it was pointed out that a half-crown on the tray had been given by a man who had no other means besides his unemployment benefit. Even more striking was the action of the dockers at Southampton and Middlesbrough. Those men risked their livelihoods in order not to load cargoes of scrap iron on to Japanese ships for Japanese munition industries and in order not to unload Japanese goods which were intended for sale in this country. I have no doubt at all that popular sentiment is even stronger and more widespread now than when those incidents happened, and it provides a sound basis for co-operation both during and after the war.
I certainly do not wish to raise the problem of military assistance from which both noble Lords who have just spoken
684
so carefully steered clear. Those problems were discussed exhaustively in your Lordships' House a fortnight ago. The question how much can be done in the Pacific, in view of commitments in North Africa and other parts of the world, is best left to those military and political leaders who can see the war situation as a whole. I do believe, however, that serious thought and discussion should begin now about ways and means of keeping peace in the Pacific after Japan has been defeated. I hope this subject will be taken up by Mr. Eden while he is in Washington. Reference at his first conference to the need for making it impossible for Japan to start another war, suggests that that may be the case.
It is obvious that no really satisfactory solution can be found for the problem without agreement between the British Commonwealth, Russia and the United States and, of course, China. Vice-President Wallace, in his recent remarkable speech, referred to the necessity for closer co-operation between the United States and Russia. This is surely a splendid opportunity for our Foreign Secretary to act as the honest broker between the parties. I hope we shall make it plain to all concerned that we shall not shirk our joint responsibility as one of the United Nations for keeping the peace in every part of the world. The Pact with Russia to stamp out aggression in Europe for twenty years after the war may well be regarded as a model for collective security on a large scale. If we can promote agreement between those Powers on which the security of Asia will depend, and induce them to join with us in collective action against any country that may break the peace in the Pacific, we shall have done much to ensure the stability of the post-war world.
Second only in importance to a collective guarantee of security for China in the future, is the provision of the many kinds of modern economic equipment that will be needed to raise the standard of her people and to realize the potential wealth to which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has already referred. We are witnessing a gradually developing industrial revolution in China, a most useful symptom of immediate progress in an agricultural community which has been severely retarded in this case by civil and international strife. There will be a demand immediately after the war for skilled technicians, for machinery, for machine

685
tools, and also, of course, for the means of building a vast network of roads and railways that will open up the immense territories of China. These demands can only be satisfied if Britain and the United States are prepared to participate in the framing of plans for the economic future of China. Nothing could be more advantageous in the long run to manufacturing and export countries like our own than an increase in the purchasing power of the inhabitants of these densely populated Asiatic areas. They form the greatest potential market in the world. Here we have a possible factor in the maintenance of employment in the older industrial nations. It is clear to everyone since the abrogation of our last concession on Chinese soil that we do intend henceforth to respect, in the letter as well as in the spirit, the independence and integrity of China, and a degree of public control over foreign trade and investment should be able to prevent private economic interests from exerting the unfair pressure that has too often marred, in the past, the development of backward territories.
I should like to conclude—I hope that if have kept my promise of being, perhaps, the briefest of ill the speakers today—by making two practical suggestions for a better understanding, an even better understanding, between ourselves and the Chinese. The first suggestion is that the two-way traffic of visitors from China to Britain and from Britain to China should be steadily increased. We have been delighted to receive recently the Military Mission to which my noble friend Lord Ailwyn has referred, one of whose members I also had the honour to meet. But we should welcome other Chinese visitors, and most of all, I think, the brave and beautiful and accomplished wife of the Generalissimo, Madame Chiang Kai-shek. No ambassador from China would be more welcome than this gracious lady, and our disappointment would indeed be biter if her doctors should not allow her to cross the Atlantic. I wish we could also arrange for an exchange of representatives of a number of leading professions. The success of the recent visit of a group of Turkish journalists to this country encourages the hope that we may give some Chinese journalists a similar opportunity to study our war effort at first hand. The remarks of the noble Lord who has just spoken have made it plain that there is an urgent need
686
for a batch of British journalists to be dispatched to China. We might also introduce Chinese teachers to some of our educational institutions and give them an insight into our educational methods. The more frequently this interchange between unofficial representatives of the two countries can take place, the more intimate and lasting will be their mutual understanding.
My second and last suggestion is that the Government, in conjunction with the British Council, should give more help—even more help than at the present time—to the Oxford Committee for Sino-British Co-operation, which is presided over by the Warden of All Souls. The excellent work done by this Committee has already earned the gratitude of the Generalissimo himself, that great man whose brilliant leadership has unified the Chinese nation by focusing on his person the patriotic loyalty of his fellow countrymen. One knows, indeed it is common knowledge, that the Chinese have a deep respect and reverence for learning, and to-day they treasure particularly text books that go out to them bearing on their fly leaves the magic name of Oxford. They, no doubt, have no desire to draw any invidious comparison, but they do need a greater number of English books for their universities, and other centres of higher education. And they require above all any of the most practical laboratory equipment for research in chemistry and physics that we can send. We could not more certainly earn the lasting gratitude of China than by helping to keep alive, in spite of the wanton destructiveness of the Japanese, that love of knowledge and proud tradition of learning which are among the salient and most delightful characteristics of the Chinese people.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I would like to join with the noble Earl who has just spoken in paying a very sincere tribute to the gallant people of China; a people who have always had Great Britain's good will, and whose courage and endurance to-day evoke the admiration of the world. Sentiments of good will have ever been present in your Lordships' minds since before even the days of Lord MacArtney, who was the first Ambassador to that country in 1792, and no two more suitable representatives of your Lordships' House could have been chosen to make such sentiments known to these

687
brave people and to their leader, the famous Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. The two noble Lords, with very distinguished records in the Navy and Army and wide experience in public life, have created a deep impression in the minds of those they met in China, and having spent some years in the Far East myself, I know how much good can be done by two well chosen ambassadors such as the representatives of your Lordships' House most certainly were.
The occasion of this debate gives an opportunity that your Lordships will welcome of learning more about the present conditions that our Ally is facing both internationally and nationally, and also of hearing something of the future plans for post-war co-operation as between her, ourselves and the other members of the United Nations. That high ideals are afoot is clear from the pronouncements of leading figures both in the United States of America and in Great Britain. Mr. Wendell Willkie, to quote one, following his recent visit to China as the President's special envoy, has stated definitely that "racial exclusiveness is a thing of the past." His Majesty's Government, as your Lordships will remember, have, by their recent action, signified their agreement. It is not sufficient, however, to desire an end unless one both wills and plans the means of achieving it. Might I remind your Lordships that in 1868 the United States of America, by the Burlingame Treaty, granted the Chinese rights of free immigration and of citizenship, but between 1880 and 1894, Congress hastily framed laws that abrogated such rights? So your Lordships will appreciate the difficulties that must be faced in achieving those high standards of idealism adumbrated within the folds of the Atlantic Charter. But it is only by facing up to these problems now that we can hope to gain that measure of understanding that alone can enable us to reach an effective solution of these problems.
Propaganda has already been referred to by previous speakers in the debate. Propaganda, both Oriental and Occidental, has conjured up the vision of a new China, and the Generalissimo, without any question the greatest leader in China since the Revolution, said in 1929 that only the abolition of "unequal treaties," which granted ex-territorial
688
rights to foreign nations, was then needed to ensure national prosperity. These rights, as your Lordships know, by the United States of America, by Great Britain and by other countries have been surrendered. The Press of this country has, with one or two exceptions, refrained from informative discussion, and the B.B.C., by its well-known policy of exclusion, has prevented a thorough-going investigation of the Kuomintang's picture of the new China. I think your Lordships will agree that for the past ten years the voice of British traders, formerly made known through Consulates, chambers of commerce and local associations, has been mute. For the same period, a very heavy censorship has been exercised over all sections of the Press in China. No information, therefore, has been supplied as of old through the China Year Book concerning those things which are of importance and the full understanding of which can alone lead to our being able to help forward the welfare of the people of China to the fullest extent, as we would wish.
During all this time, public opinion has been reassured in the belief that, as the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said in 1927, "the old China is dead, and the new China is destined to play a leading role in world affairs as a modern democracy of free institutions." It is more than ever necessary that your Lordships should be fully informed, so that the real China may be seen, appreciated and understood, and not a China of the mind, proceeding from the propagandist brain. Perhaps the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, in his reply will give your Lordships some information on the following points. First of all, what relations now exist and are likely to exist after the expulsion of the enemy between the politicians of the present régime and their opponents, and notably the Cantonese Party, the Northern War Lords and the so-called Communist faction? Secondly, perhaps he will tell us something of the nature and scope of the revised codes of Civil and Criminal Law, and of the methods by which justice will be administered to the foreigners in China who are now answerable thereto. Thirdly, perhaps he will deal with the status and organization of the opium traffic; and lastly, with the plans that the Government of China have in view for dealing after

689
the war with the millions of armed men now engaged in guerrilla warfare.
We have a very deep admiration for the Chinese who are waging war, and who are beset with manifold difficulties, of which we have learnt from the two noble Lords who formed part of the important Mission which has just returned from China; but, if we look deeper, we must consider, I suggest, in addition, and pay tribute to, the way of life and the moral philosophy underlying it, and the nature of the political economy based on that philosophy. We see here something that has stood the test of time more successfully than that of any other type of civilization, and the admiration so engendered will surely make us the more anxious to help them with our far greater knowledge of the application of science and engineering to war, and make available the fruits thereof. When the noble Lord replies, I hope that he may see fit to inform your Lordships very fully on these matters, as only with a complete understanding can we hope to play our part in developing the great possibilities for the good of mankind in general that lie ahead. The noble Viscount, I feel sure, will speak with especial feeling on the Far East, in view of the very active and distinguished part played by his grandfather at the commencement of this century.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, this, I think, is one of those happy occasions, all too rare in your Lordships' House, when the Government are not required to make a reply in the ordinary sense of the word. This Motion, as I understand it, has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in order to give himself and his companion, Lord Ailwyn, the opportunity of making a report to this House, which sent them on a Parliamentary Mission to China, on what they have seen there and what the Mission was enabled to accomplish in strengthening the relations between the two countries. I think that they have given an exceedingly satisfactory report. They have told us to-day a stimulating story, and even an inspiring story. It is always difficult for us here in this country, with the best will in the world, to visualize exactly how things lock at the other side of the world, just as, no doubt, it is very difficult for the Chinese to visualize exactly how things look here.
690
The two noble Lords who, with their companions from another place, have bridged space physically, have enabled us to-day, by their vivid accounts, to bridge space mentally, and I think that they have increased very greatly our knowledge of the unremitting efforts which are being made by all sections of the Chinese population in Unoccupied China in aid of the cause for which they, as we, are fighting. They have also, if I may be allowed a small digression, increased our admiration, if it could be increased, not only for the Chinese people and for their leader the Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, but also for General Chennault, for the really magnificent fight which is being put up by him and his small band of fighters.
The Japanese have been accustomed—most impertinently, I have always thought—to describe this great and terrible war against a peaceful neighbour as "the Chinese incident." I suggest that it might far more truly be described by the people of China as "the Japanese incident." No people have had a greater or more ancient history than the Chinese. Wars and invasions have happened to the Chinese people again and again during the last two thousand years. But none for long has been able to interrupt the even tenor of Chinese civilization. We may be confident that the present troubles will be no exception to that rule, and that in the long, stately pageant of China's history the Japanese aggression will count merely as an episode. This episode may, indeed, well have one good result; it has already tended, and it will tend more in the future, to unite China to a greater extent, perhaps, than she has been united for many years in the recent past. The furnace through which she is passing will tend to weld her into a still greater unity under the inspiring leadership of her Generalissimo.
Moreover, there is another event which I think has had advantages for the Chinese people, and indeed for the world as a whole. The recent treaties which have been signed between China and His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America will be exceedingly valuable in defining the relationships between the countries concerned and in removing anomalies, and will give an opportunity for putting the relations between us and the Chinese people on a status of absolute equality.

691
That is an important and invaluable advance, and I believe it should be the beginning of a new and happy chapter of close collaboration between the two countries.
Noble Lords have mentioned the importance of Allied assistance to China. As the House knows, I dealt with that less than a fortnight ago in answer to a Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I do not propose, if the House will allow me, to go over the same ground again. There is, however, one aspect of assistance to China which was not directly covered by the noble Lord's Motion, and that is the financial aspect, and perhaps the House will allow me to say a very few words about that. As the House knows, it has throughout been the policy of His Majesty's Government to give all the assistance in their power to enable China to carry on her war against Japan.
In addition to support which His Majesty's Government have given by way of the Chinese Currency Stabilization Fund and the Stabilization Board of China to the external value of the Chinese currency, we agreed in December, 1941, to make arrangements that would ensure that no financial difficulties should prevent the Chinese Government from obtaining any of their requirements for war purposes in the sterling area. These were to take the form of Lend-Lease; that is to say, of terms involving no payment by the Chinese for munitions and equipment obtainable in the sterling area, and a loan of £50,000,000 for other requirements for war purposes at such times and on such terms as might be agreed between the two Governments. Owing to the difficulties of transport since the Burma Road ceased to be available, it has not been possible for the Chinese Government to import anything but the most urgent military requirements, and such of these as we have been able to supply have been under the Lend-Lease agreement and against the unexpended balance of two previous credits. My noble friend Lord Teviot raised the question of the other form of assistance, a loan to China, on which, as he knows and the House knows, negotiations are still proceeding. For a number of reasons, some of which I think he indicated in his speech, negotiations are not yet concluded on that loan. I think the House will therefore not expect me at this stage to make any public statement on the
692
matter, but I can assure Lord Teviot that I will convey what he has said to-day to the proper quarter.
China has played an immense part in the past and, as I think we all believe, has an even greater part to play in the future. In this vital struggle for liberty and justice we are all of us proud to be associated with that wise, patient and heroic people. We are brothers in arms, and it is the privilege of brothers in arms to aid each other. It is a mutual privilege, and it is a mutual duty. It was, I think, Lord Ailwyn who said that the Chinese war is our war and that they had impressed that fact upon the Chinese people. It is equally true that our war is China's war. It is a mutual obligation, not a unilateral obligation; it is only on that basis that this war can be won. Lord Ailwyn also referred to the fact that China is a United States strategic sphere, and I think he said that he hoped that that did not mean that we should dissociate ourselves too rigidly from her affairs. If I remember aright, I have already given that assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in the debate a fortnight ago; but I am very ready to repeat it to-day. We recognize to the full an obligation to assist China, and that obligation, so far as lies in our power, we are determined to fulfil. Our sense of obligation and our determination to help China has evidently, from what we have been told this afternoon, been transmitted by the two noble Lords to the Chinese people. It is quite evident that, so far as lay in their power, they have made the position clear, and I think all of us in this House owe them a most sincere debt of gratitude for the part they have played in improving relations between the two peoples.
Equally important, I think, is the service they have performed by their visit to Turkey. There is, I think, no question about the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to Anglo-Turkish friendship. As noble Lords know, relations between our two countries are based on a Treaty of Mutual Assistance signed on October 9, 1939, which is valid for fifteen years. The intimate and cordial relationship that exists between Great Britain and Turkey is vividly illustrated by the Prime Minister's visit to Adana last January. The communiqué issued after that visit shows the identity of interest between the two countries and the determination on our part to see that Turkey is supplied with those things which are

693
requisite for the defence of her national integrity.
I think that community of interest was illustrated also by the visit of the British Parliamentary Mission to Turkey. It was in the closing days of last year that the Parliamentary Mission reached Ankara, and it is evident from what we have been told this afternoon that there too they played a very considerable part in making clear to their Turkish hosts the views and the outlook of the British people in this struggle. By these means they have, I have no doubt, done a signal service to our relations. The fact that this Mission was the first of its kind to be sent abroad by the Mother of Parliaments, and that it went out of its way to visit Turkey was certainly not lost upon our Turkish hosts. In spite of the handicap of communications in war-time we have been able to welcome in this country also guests from Turkey. A party of leading Turkish journalists visited this country last summer, and only recently a Mission of Turkish production experts have been able to inspect the manner in which we have organized our war effort. I am sure that the fruits of our experience will prove of immense value to them. Another party of leading Turkish publicists has recently visited India, and there is also at present in Egypt a party of high Turkish officials who have gone to survey the manner in which we have dealt with intruders in Africa.
I mention these visits because I am sure that the only way we really improve relations between countries is by mutual intercourse. In war-time mutual intercourse is a most difficult thing, unfortunately, to attain, and there is always a danger that, unless positive steps are taken, the nations, instead of getting to know each other better, may tend to be pushed apart. That would be deplorable, and therefore I hope and believe that this system of exchanges of visits which have begun in so happy a manner may be continued until, at the end of the war, the normal intercourse of civilization revives again. Great Britain and Turkey are Allies, each having the fullest confidence and trust in the other. We are also friends inspired with the same ideals, and we may look forward to a future in which the community of interests and the similarity of outlook which inspire us both will draw us ever closer together.
694
In the course of his speech this afternoon, Lord Teviot spoke very impressively about what he had seen of the Desert Army. It is not for me to deal with that subject to-day. It goes rather outside the scope of the Motion. But I would say this. I do not suppose that there is any one of us who is not deeply moved every time we think of the achievements of that magnificent force; of the things they have done, the things they are doing and the things that we expect them to do in the near future. I welcome very warmly what the noble Lord said on that subject this afternoon. We have been a little apt in the past to depreciate the feats of our own Armed Forces. It is rather a national failing. I hope that the time is coming now when that failing will be eradicated from our national character.
In conclusion I would say this to your Lordships. Those two noble Lords who have addressed us this afternoon have acted as our ambassadors of good will to these two great countries which they have visited. I am quite certain that they will feel that that long and arduous journey has not been in vain. We have learnt much to-day on many detailed matters. We have even had a slight rebuke from Lord Ailwyn on a matter of such detail as Government hospitality. I hope we shall all take to heart what he said to us. There is one other thing I would say before I sit down. Lord Sempill asked me a number of questions in his closing words with which he said he hoped I would deal. Most of his questions were of a very technical nature, and he had given me no notice that he was going to raise them. I should like to thank him for the tribute he has paid to my omniscience. I appreciate it very greatly. But I hope he will forgive me if I do not enter into such subjects as the opium traffic and the future of Chinese Parties. At the present moment I should guess that it would be as impossible for anyone to prophesy the future of Parties in China as it would be to prophesy accurately the future of Parties in this country.
It only remains for me on behalf of your Lordships once more to thank most sincerely noble Lords who have spoken for their efforts on behalf of our country; we are grateful for the account of their stewardship which they have given in the House this afternoon. They have done a good work and however long they live—

695
and I hope it may be a very long time—they will always be able to remember that at one of the great crises of our history they did something which was of value not only to their own people but to the world.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, in just a very few words I must thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for his very sympathetic speech in regard to China and I hope his not too flattering remarks in regard to what we have done. The whole Mission, I am sure, will welcome very much what the noble Viscount has said and we thank him very much indeed. I know I am voicing the opinion of my colleagues when I say that and again thank the House for listening so readily to our speeches this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MAILS TO NORTH AFRICA.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the excessive delay in the delivery of mail to the Forces in North Africa, they are taking any steps to expedite the carriage and delivery of letters to the troops and in particular whether arrangements have been made for an early introduction of an airgraph service to these parts.]
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Templemore, I have been asked to answer the noble Lord's question. The difficulty hitherto has been that owing to operational requirements, aircraft capacity could not be made available for the transport of mails to His Majesty's Forces in North Africa, and consequently the whole of the mails had to be forwarded by sea. Arrangements have now been made, however, to provide sufficient aircraft capacity to permit the extension of the sixpenny air letter service experimentally to His Majesty's Forces in North Africa, and both this service and the airgraph service are now in operation. Airgraph letters and air letters are carried all the way by air to North Africa.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, arising out of that reply, I rather gather that the reply is from the Postmaster-General, but I fancy the distribution of letters in Africa lies with the military authorities, and I had hoped that we might perhaps have some encouraging word said about the actual delivery of letters to the troops, which has I know in very many cases been lamentably lacking. I do not know if anything further could be said on this matter. Incidentally, perhaps it would be possible to say whether this delivery of letters is in fact in the hands of the British military authorities or the American.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: The noble Lord is right in thinking that the distribution is the responsibility of our Army Post Office authorities. There is no doubt the Postmaster-General would make inquiries if the noble Lord would give him particulars of any individual complaints.

ENEMY NAVAL LOSSES.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government if they will state the known losses since the beginning of the present war of enemy warships in their various categories other than submarines, and differentiating between German, Italian and Japanese.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD BRUNTISFIELD): My Lords, the total of Axis warships, excluding submarines, whose loss has been published, is as follows: 3 battleships, 1 pocket battleship, 6 aircraft carriers, 31 cruisers, 157 destroyers and torpedo boats, 4 raiders, 104 other miscellaneous warships, minesweepers and small craft. The enemy rarely admits losses, and no doubt he has suffered others. For instance, no account has been taken in these figures of ships known to have been severely damaged, many of which have probably been actual losses. I propose, with the noble Lord's permission, to publish a further table in the Official Report differentiating between German, Italian and Japanese losses.
[The table is as follows:
The ships lost by Germany, Italy and Japan respectively are:
GERMANY.

1 battleship,

1 pocket battleship,

4 cruisers,

39 destroyers and torpedo boats,

4 raiders,

69 other miscellaneous warships, minesweepers and small craft.

ITALY.

10 cruisers,

48 destroyers and torpedo boats,

35 other miscellaneous warships, minesweepers and small craft.

JAPAN.

2 battleships,

6 aircraft carriers,

17 cruisers,

70 destroyers.

No figures available for miscellaneous small craft.]

ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE IN THE ATLANTIC.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the machinery in existence for co-ordinating or combining the operations of the British and American Commands engaged in anti-submarine warfare in the Atlantic.]
LORD BRUNTISFIELD: My Lords, the British and United States Commands are responsible by agreement for operations in certain defined areas, irrespective of the nationality of the ships and aircraft actually operating in those areas from time to time. The closest contact is maintained between tile British and United States authorities in allotting forces to the different areas and in all matters concerning operations against U-boats in the Atlantic.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. May I ask what happens in between those two areas—who is in command there?
LORD BRUNTISFIELD: The areas are contiguous. There is no water in between.
LORD STRABOLGI: Surely there is some better arrangement than mere geographical division between these two Commands?
LORD BRUNTISFIELD: There is to be an opportunity at an early date to discuss this question. I think that would be a better method than by question and answer across the floor of the House.
LORD STRABOLGI: I agree; I will refer to this matter at a future sitting.

BOMBERS IN THE PACIFIC
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether information is available to say what percentage of dive bombers to other bombers were used in the recent annihilation of the Japanese warships and convoy in the Pacific.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD SHERWOOD): My Lords, from the reports received it appears that no dive bombers were used in this action.

GERMAN-JEWISH PIONEERS
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I desire to ask the question appearing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether those Pioneers who are German Jews are being sent abroad unnaturalized, and, if so, what will be their position should they be surrendered.]
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the position of members of His Majesty's Forces who are taken prisoner by the enemy is determined by the Prisoners of War Convention, under which it is not necessary that members of the Forces should be nationals of the Power in whose Forces they serve, order to benefit by its provisions. Nearly all German Jews in this country lost German nationality before German law under the Eleventh

699
Ordinance of the Reich Citizenship Law of November 25, 1941, which provides that a Jew who has his ordinary abode abroad may not be a German national. The vast majority of German Jews in this country are therefore Stateless. Any Jews of the Pioneer Corps who still possess German nationality might legally be prosecuted by the Germans for treason if they were captured as the Prisoners of War Convention does not prevent this. However, as British nationality would not have caused them to lose their German nationality under the Decree I have already mentioned their position would not be improved, in the event of their being taken prisoners, by British naturalization.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question arising out of that answer? I am not happy and I do not think the noble Lord is, as to how the Germans would actually treat these people who have been deprived of citizenship if they are not nationals of any country. Who would protect them? So far as individual surrenders are concerned it would be their own funeral, but if they should happen to be surrendered by a British officer as part of a larger surrender we could never hold up our heads again if they were shot. I would like to ask the noble Viscount to consider the American system whereby, after ninety days in the Forces, aliens are allowed to opt for American citizenship. Would he consider that precedent and bring the matter up again with the Government to see whether something can be done?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: If we did adopt the American system to which the noble Lord refers and Germans did opt for British nationality, they would not be any better off if captured, because the Germans would not recognize it. They would be treated in exactly the same way as German citizens. If they are Stateless, they already come under the Prisoners of War Convention and would be treated in the same way as British soldiers.
LORD WEDGWOOD: If they are Stateless, there is no one to speak for them. If they are British subjects they have the whole power of the British Empire behind them.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I would like to have notice of this matter. But, as I understand the position, if they are British soldiers serving in the Forces of the Crown they obviously would receive the same protection as other British soldiers under the Convention, and any action taken by the German authorities would be a contravention of the Prisoners of War Convention just as much as if taken against British soldiers.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time.
PRINTING OF AMENDMENTS.
Ordered, That for the remainder of the present Session (1) Notice of Amendments to be moved to a Bill in Committee may be handed in, printed and circulated before the Bill has been read a second time; (2) Amendments handed in to Bills brought from the Commons, and not reprinted for this House, to be printed.

LEICESTER GAS ORDER, 1943.
Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the application of the Corporation of the City of Leicester:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCE DURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lords following be proposed to the House as members of the Panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act; namely:
The Viscount Elibank,
The Lord Saltoun.
Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

  CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE DOMINIONS.
  CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE DOMINIONS.
  CARRIAGE OF FLOWERS.
  CARRIAGE OF FLOWERS.