Sitting of 6 June 1944

Preamble
The House met, after the Adjournment, on 26th May, 1944, for the Whitsuntide Recess.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Edmund Ashworth Radford, Esq., Member for the Borough of Manchester (Rusholme Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

CHILE (MESSAGE OF FRIENDSHIP)
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received a cablegram from the President and Secretary of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, which reads as follows:
Santiago, Chile.
May 25, 1944.
"The Chilean Chamber of Deputies have resolved to send message of friendship to British House of Commons on occasion of celebration of illustrious British Empire Day. I take advantage of this opportunity to convey to you good wishes which they have expressed for happiness of British nation, their most worthy representatives and Your Excellency's welfare.
PEDRO CAST ELBRANO, President,
GUSTAVO MONTT, Secretary."
The House will desire me to send a suitable reply.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

  STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN-QUIRED 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
  1180
  inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
  Gillingham Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Bill to be read a Second time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Ex-Prisoners of War (Overseas Posting)
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for War what length of time is spent in this country before fresh overseas posting by British soldiers who have returned here after being prisoners of war; and if the policy of the British Army is the same as that of the Dominions in this matter.
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Sir R. Young), on 25th May, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Neal) on 24th May. I regret that I have no information about the practice of the Dominions in the matter of overseas postings in such cases.

    Chaplains' Sermons (Censorship)
    Commander King-Hallasked the Secretary of State for War why Army chaplains are required to submit sermons for censorship if any civilians are to be present when the sermon is delivered.
    Sir J. Grigg: If the sermon is to be broadcast or published in full in the Press, it is censored for reasons which I think are obvious. But for these exceptional cases, I am not aware that the sermons of Army chaplains are ever censored.
    Mr. Shinwell: What are the obvious reasons?
    Sir J. Grigg: I should have thought recent events made that pretty obvious.

    Bandsmen (Private Engagements)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for War if he will issue the necessary instructions so that Army bandsmen can take private engagements in their spare time.
    Sir J. Grigg: Bandsmen are allowed to accept engagements when they are on privilege leave, and I do not consider it desirable to go beyond this.

    Auxiliary Territorial Service
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War whether any alteration in the ration and domestic allowances to officers in the A.T.S. has yet been decided upon.
    Sir J. Grigg: As regards ration allowance, the answer is "Yes, Sir," and as regards servant allowance "No, Sir." Instructions were issued on 17th May, that women should, in future, receive the same ration allowances as men.
    Miss Ward: As men very often have wives and others to do their domestic work, while women who work just as -long hours have to do their own housework in addition, why should they be deprived of that privilege?
    Sir J. Grigg: That is rather a large question to go into now, but whether the discrimination is justifiable is a matter which I have promised to take into consideration.
    Lady Apsleyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will authorise officers and other ranks of the A.T.S. to wear Army pattern berets of a distinctive colour.
    Sir J. Grigg: I am not at all sure that this is a suitable time to consider such a proposal.
    Lady Apsley: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, might I ask him to bear in mind that the issue of a new cap at the present time would give great satisfaction to members of the A.T.S.?
    Sir J. Grigg: It would also, I think, still further cut into the limited supplies of cloth available to civilians.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the Spring-time, ladies are rather inclined to think about hats?

    Pay and Allowances
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War whether any increase in pay and allowances arising out of the
    1182
    White Paper have been made to Maltese, Cypriots and Palestinians serving in the Forces.
    Sir J. Grigg: Maltese, Cypriot and Palestinian soldiers paid at British rates of pay have, of course, received the increases of pay detailed in the White Paper. Those paid at a proportion of British rates have received roughly the same proportion of the increases. The question of family allowance is at present being considered.
    Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Secretary of State for War whether the deductions made from dependants' allowances, on account of payments credited weekly to a soldier by his former civilian employers, are in all cases no more than the amount so credited.
    Sir J. Grigg: Dependants' allowance is paid at five fixed rates. The actual rate in issue in a particular case depends on the available income, including payments from former civilian employers, and the rate is re-assessed when the income changes. In certain cases an increase in income may result in a slightly larger drop in the allowance. This is, I regret, unavoidable: there are, of course, other cases where a drop in income leads to a larger increase in the allowance payable.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, might I ask whether, on occasions, the grant of, say, half-a-crown a week to the soldier in the Forces does not lead to a deduction of double that amount from the dependants' allowance?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have heard of one case of that sort, which was dealt with specially; but I do not think that cases as extreme as that are frequent.
    Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it does quite often happen in connection with war service grants?
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been taken with regard to increasing the allowances of dependants of officers and other ranks.
    Sir J. Grigg: An announcement on this matter will be made shortly.
    Miss Ward: Will it be to-day or next week?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for War whether his reports show that the recent increases in allowances have met with general approval from the Army.
    Sir J. Grigg: Broadly speaking, the answer is "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Gallacher: But, narrowly speaking, what is it?
    Sir T. Moore: Are the anomalies known to exist being studied by my right hon. Friend, and will they be removed fairly soon?
    Sir J. Grigg: The Prime Minister gave an answer on that a short time ago.
    Mr. McGovern: May I ask the Minister if, in view of the many anomalies that were not intended by the Advisory Committee, where persons are getting almost the same as they were previously getting with dual payments, he will consider calling the Advisory Committee again for the purpose of stopping these anomalies?
    Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the hon. Member will put a Question down.

    Infantry Units (Transferred Officers)
    Mr. Francis Wattasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is satisfied that adequate infantry training is being given to the officers who are presently being transferred from the R.A.S.C. to infantry units.
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for War (1) If he is aware that there is great dissatisfaction at a unit, of which he has been informed, among officers who are being transferred against their will to the infantry and what steps he proposes to take to remove this dissatisfaction;
    (2) why officers of a corps of which he has been informed, are being transferred to the infantry against their will; and if any new commissions are being granted in this corps.
    Sir J. Grigg: Certain corps and arms of the Service have a surplus of officers at the present time. The infantry is short of officers. The surplus in the former is therefore being transferred to make good the deficiency in the latter. I regret the necessity for doing this, but I can assure my hon. Friends that the necessity is a
    1184
    real one. Instructions were issued that the position should be carefully explained to the officers concerned. I fear that in some cases this instruction was not fully carried out. A senior military officer has, however, visited the unit where most of these officers are now being trained and has interviewed those officers who wished to discuss their cases. Each officer transferred is sent to a course for training as an infantry officer. The length of the course varies according to circumstances. As time goes on, it will, of course, be necessary to grant a limited number of new commissions in the arms and corps which now have a surplus, in order to make good future wastage. The men who will be given those commissions are not available now, and cannot, therefore, be used to make good the present shortage in the infantry.
    Mr. Watt: While appreciating the necessity for the transfer may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that some of these officers are being posted to infantry units after only two months' training; and will he bear in mind that there is considerable apprehension that these men will not be properly trained for the job?
    Sir J. Grigg: If the hon. Member will give instances of people who are being posted after only two months' training I will have inquiries made, but I cannot believe that they are people who have not had previous infantry training. The length of the course varies in accordance with their fitness for the new arms.
    Mr. H. Lawson: Are new commissions being granted from the O.C.T.U.s into the corps mentioned?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have answered that by saying that as time goes on it will be necessary to grant a limited number of new commissions in order to replace future wastage. But the men to be given these commissions are not available now and cannot therefore be used to make good the present shortage in the infantry.
    Mr. Lawson: Do I take it that no new commissions are being granted froth O.C.T.U.s at the present time?
    Sir J. Grigg: I would not like to give a categorical answer, but I would say very few, if any. My answer is concerned with the future, rather than with the present.

    Veterinary Surgeons
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War how many veterinary surgeons are now serving in the Army in branches other than the R.A.V.C.; and whether, in view of the serious shortage of veterinary surgeons, he will cause any such veterinarians to be either transferred to the R.A.V.C. or placed at the disposal of the Minister of Agriculture for service under his Ministry.
    Sir J. Grigg: The answer to the first part of the Question is 57. Many of them have been trained for combatant duties and my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it will be impossible to withdraw them from their units at the present time. I am, however, considering the transfer of other veterinary surgeons to meet some at least of the requirements of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Will my right hon. Friend consider withdrawing in due course those officers who are employed on combatant duties, in view of the great shortage of veterinary surgeons and the great necessity for all qualified men to be practising?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will consider it, but I do not by any means hold out any hopes that people will be withdrawn from their very important combatant duties.

    Italian Prisoners of War (Strike)
    Mr. Edgar Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for War, if he has inquired into the incident in an East Anglian prisoner of war camp when non-co-operative Italian prisoners of war went on strike in sympathy with two of their number who were given disciplinary treatment because they refused to work with co-operative prisoners; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir J. Grigg: I understand that Italian prisoners of war, none of whom were cooperators, struck in sympathy with some of their number who refused to do certain work. The strike, which is now over, had nothing to do with a refusal to work with co-operators.
    Mr. Granville: Can the right hon. Gentlemen say whether these Fascist non-co-operators have direct contact with the co-operating prisoners of war; if so, will he see that the latter are not bullied by
    1186
    these Fascists, and will he see to it that proper discipline is applied in prisoner of war camps of this kind?
    Sir J. Grigg: There are two quite separate questions there. The answer to the second one is that discipline was administered in these particular cases. To the best of my knowledge there was no question of any contact with co-operators in this particular place. If the hon. Member wants a more general answer perhaps he will put down another Question.

    Parliamentary Franchise (Register)
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance that all ranks have been informed that unless A.F.B. 2626 is completed, they will not have a vote at the next General Election, whether or not they were on the old register; and on what scale A.F.B. 2626 has been issued to units.
    Mr. Loverseedasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the registration of electors serving in His Majesty's Forces; and what further steps are contemplated in order to ensure the registration of all such electors.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to ensure that facilities for electoral registration are afforded to soldiers Y-listed on account of prolonged stay in hospital.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War, if he has taken steps, or will take steps, to ascertain approximately what number and percentage of troops both here and overseas have filled in forms respecting the registration of electors.
    Sir J. Grigg: In a long reply, which I gave to several hon. Members, on 2nd May, I explained the measures which had been taken, up to that date, to give soldiers effective opportunity to exercise their rights. It was made clear to all ranks that, in order to secure registration, completion of A.F.B. 2626 was necessary, whether or not they were on the old Register. Subsequently, in case full effect had not been given to the original insfruction, a further instruction was issued, on 17th May, calling the attention of commanding officers to the fact that it is their duty to ensure that all ranks are given an opportunity of completing A.F.B. 2626, if they so desire, and receive full assistance to enable them to do so properly.

    1187
    The Army Council Instruction draws attention to the opportunities offered by pay parades to carry out these duties, and to the need, in some circumstances, to hold special parades for the purpose. A.F.B. 2626 has been provided, at home and overseas, on the scale of one per man or woman. Units demand the number they actually require. Personnel in hospital are treated in the same way as personnel in other units. Investigations will be made into any cases where it is alleged that the instructions have not been carried out. Units do not keep a running record of the number of officers and men who have filled up the form. I am trying to get a general impression of the way in which the scheme is going, by inquiries among units. It must, however, be remembered that, between the filling up of the forms and their arrival at the Central National Registration Office, there is a considerable process which is not under the control of the military authorities.
    Mr. Hogg: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his very careful reply, might I ask whether he would try to find out, by some means, how many people are in fact registered?
    Sir J. Grigg: That is precisely what I undertook to do, in my answer.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer was so careful that he did not attempt to answer my Question. Could he not give some idea of the percentage of troops who have filled in forms?
    Sir J. Grigg: As I have said, there is no running record kept, and the percentage is continually changing.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large percentage has not filled up the forms, and that, therefore, only a small percentage is likely to be on the Register? Will he not take some positive action?
    Sir J. Grigg: Every conceivable action is taken to make this scheme a success. When I have made inquiries into the position in the different units, I will give the House the results of my inquiries.
    Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that special facilities are given to men who have been in hospital, perhaps for some months, and thus away from their units, and will he look into the particular cases of which I notified him?
    Sir J. Grigg: The hospitals are the units for this purpose. Inquiries are being made into the specific cases which the hon. Member brought to my attention.
    Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the time limit for completion of these forms, in view of the fact that in some regiments only 10 per cent. of the men have completed them?
    Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down. I would like to look into that specifically.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of all the trouble experienced in getting the forms to the men, and in getting the men to sign them, would it not be better to remove the distinction between the Forces and civilians, and put the troops automatically on the Register?
    Sir J. Grigg: This House took a decision in the contrary sense.
    Mr. Shinwell: When did the House take such a decision?
    Mr. McGovern: Will the right hon. Gentleman not see that every man of the proper age is placed on the Register?
    Sir J. Grigg: The House legislated in a contrary sense.
    Mr. Shinwell: When did the House legislate to deprive men in the Forces of the right to get on the Register?
    Sir J. Grigg: It laid down the procedure by which the men could get on the Register. As the men in the Forces have to appoint proxies, there cannot be automatic registration.
    Mr. Molson: Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing new legislation if the present legislation is unsatisfactory?
    Sir J. Grigg: That question had better be addressed to the Home Secretary.

    Petrol Consumption.
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War if he can now make a statement about the consumption of petrol in the case where 49 military vehicles called three times at a petrol station in order to refuel.
    Sir J. Grigg: On 20th May, four Bren carriers and three lorries called at this petrol pump during the half-hour when the military pump attendant was at lunch

    1189
    They had to return at 2.30 p.m. to be refuelled. The attendant is normally relieved for lunch, but on this day there was, unfortunately, no relief available. The investigations have not confirmed that any larger number of vehicles attempted to refuel at this pump.
    Sir H. Williams: As the manager of the petrol station told me that he had counted 49 vehicles, and as there is no reason why he should exaggerate, will my right hon. Friend make further inquiries, and find someone who can count?
    Sir J. Grigg: My inquiries included the manager of the garage where the pump is situated, and, unfortunately, there is some conflict between the evidence.

    India and Middle East (Wives' Travelling Facilities)
    Lady Apsley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give priority to wives of serving officers and men to rejoin their husbands in India and the Middle East as soon as shipping facilities are available.
    Sir J. Grigg: It is, I fear, unlikely that it will be possibla to modify the present rules until the war is over. When the time comes to do so, the noble Lady can rest assured that the claims of wives of serving officers and men will not be overlooked.

    Disbanded Units (Regimental Institute Funds)
    Captain Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for War what are the arrangements for the disposal of regimental institute funds when a unit is disbanded.
    Sir James Grigg: When a unit is disbanded, a final audit board is held on its regimental institute fund, and the commanding officer of the unit is required to furnish a recommendation for the disposal of the balance His recommendation is based on the principle that the funds should benefit the personnel from whom they were derived. The proceedings of the Board and the recommendation of the commanding officer are then submitted to the War Office for approval. Where it is practicable, the funds are alloted to those units which receive the majority of the personnel from the disbanded unit. In most cases, this is not practicable, and the funds are then allocated to the benevolent fund or regimental association of the
    1190
    regiment or Corps concerned, or to one or more of the Service charities. Here, too, the principle followed is that benefits should be available for the disbanded personnel or for their dependants. In no case are these funds transferred to public funds.

    Burma (Postal Facilities)
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for War whether free postage facilities can be given to troops serving in Burma owing to the difficulties many are experiencing in obtaining the necessary stamps to enable them to write home.
    Sir J. Grigg: Ordinary mail from troops at stations abroad, including Burma, is sent post free. I am aware of the difficulties experienced by certain troops in Burma in stamping air letters and air-graphs, and special arrangements have been made whereby this is done at the base.

    Civil Affairs Staffs (Appointments)
    Sir Richard Aclandasked the Secretary of State for War (1) which of the principal members of A.M.G.O.T. were selected partly, or wholly, by reason of the fact that some public act of theirs demonstrated their opposition to Fascism before September, 1939;
    (2) which of the principal members of the new department, G.I., were selected partly or wholly by reason of the fact that some public act of their demonstrated their opposition to Fascism before September, 1939.
    Sir J. Grigg: I assume that the hon. Baronet is referring to the British officers employed on the joint Anglo-American Civil Affairs staffs. No political tests enter into these or any other Army appointments.
    Sir R. Acland: Can I assume from that that it would be impossible to know of high-ranking personnel who have shown opposition to Nazism before the outbreak of war?
    Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member can assume exactly what is said by my Answer.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a well-known lady, who has two sons in A.M.G.O.T. has a villa outside the Vatican City, and that we are told in the Press that she expects to return

    1191
    there shortly? Are we to take it that that is what A.M.G.O.T. is for, and that that is what the lads are fighting for.? [Interruption.] But it is true. Lady Rennell of Rodd has two sons in A.M.G.O.T., and it is said that she expects soon to return to the Vatican City.
    Captain Alan Graham: Has not political activity in any direction been a positive disqualification?
    Mr. Silverman: Are we to take it from the answer that the question of pro-Fascist or pro-Nazi sympathies is a matter in which the War Office would not be interested?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical case.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman did say in his original answer that political tests were not matters with which the War Office should deal.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asked a particular question.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. It will not have escaped your attention, Sir, that the particular political test referred to in my supplementary question is contained in the original Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Speaker: That does not affectthe matter very much.
    Mr. Silverman: It does not make my question hypothetical.

    Red Cross Ambulance Drivers
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War if the regulation regarding ambulance drivers employed by the British Red Cross Society, but operating for his Department, that no women shall be employed unless they have been British for two generations was made by his direction; and if the same regulation applies to A.T.S. drivers.
    Sir J. Grigg: I understand that the British Red Cross Society have a rule that their detachment members must have had natural-born British parents, but I understand that they make frequent exceptions to this rule. I should make it clear that the rule was not introduced at the request of the War Office and that no such rule applies in the A.T.S.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the statement in this Question is perfectly correct, and that it has been laid down that nobody should be employed unless they are British subjects; and, seeing that the British Red Cross are sometimes acting under the orders of the War Office, could not this very stupid rule be abrogated?
    Sir J. Grigg: As I made clear, I have made inquiries from the Red Cross, and they do make frequent exceptions to their rules. I will convey the hon. Member's observations to the Society, but let me make it clear that I have no control over the Society.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister appreciate that the same principle, if applied to the A.T.S., would rule out a very large number?
    Sir J. Grigg: But I do not apply the same principle to the A.T.S., and I made that quite clear.

    Cigarettes (Middle East and India)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War if he is satisfied that troops serving in the Middle East and India are now supplied with a reasonable quantity and quality of cigarettes; and how the unwanted cigarettes were disposed of.
    Sir J. Grigg: The ration of free cigarettes is the same in these Commands as in other Commands where cigarettes are a free issue, namely, two ounces of cigarettes a week which is the equivalent of about 50. The issue in the Middle East consists of cigarettes of standard brands from this country. The Government of India is responsible for British troops in India. The stocks of Indian cigarettes no longer issued to British troops are being issued to Indian troops and to Italian prisoners of war.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the poor Indians and Italians have to put up with these unsmokeable cigarettes?
    Sir J. Grigg: The unsmokeable cigarettes, as the hon. Member calls them, are produced in India, and there is, I believe, a regulation in India that Indian cigarettes must contain at least 70 per cent. of Indian tobacco. I imagine that Indians can do what they like in India.
    Mr. Bellenger: Do I understand that British troops in India are the responsibility of the Indian Government?
    Sir J. Grigg: In this matter of rations.
    Mr. Bellenger: Am I to understand that the Minister has no interest in such welfare matters as affect a large number of British troops serving in India?
    Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member put a Question to the Deputy Prime Minister on that subject, and I am quite sure that he knows perfectly well what the division of responsibility is.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, I do not know what it is.
    Sir J. Grigg: I refer the hon. Member to the answer he received, which will give him the information.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: The Minister has referred to standards of cigarettes. Can he give us an assurance that our men now receive cigarettes like Players, Gold Flake, Churchman, and others, such as civilians smoke in this country?
    Sir J. Grigg: I was under the impression that I gave a list of the brands.

    Personnel, Burma (Buttons and Equipment)
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for War what orders are issued to units serving on the Burmese front to polish their buttons and blanco their equipment during rest periods; and if instructions will be given, owing to the nature of the campaign and the weather out there, for this practice to cease.
    Sir J. Grigg: Each Army Commander is responsible for ensuring that the uniform and equipment of the soldiers under his command is maintained at the highest standard of cleanliness and smartness compatible with the conditions in which the troops are engaged. I have no knowledge of the orders issued on this matter by the local Army Commander in Burma, but he is clearly fully aware of the local conditions.
    Mr. Goldie: Can the Minister say whether web equipment is being issued to these troops in order to do away with polishing?

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST (CREDIT BALANCES)
  Viscount Suirdaleasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that prisoners of war in Germany are in a position to arrange for their accumulated pay to be invested on their behalf by their next-of-kin, or others, and in view of the fact that this facility is, in practice, not available to prisoners of war in Japan, he will arrange for interest at a suitable rate to be paid on such accumulated accounts of prisoners of war in Japanese hands.
  Sir J. Grigg: The desirability and possibility of this proposal is being examined.

  SCOTLAND

    Raw Materials (Research)
    Mr. Leslieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the urgent need for Scottish light industries and new housing materials, whether he will set up an experimental research station in Scotland for studying processing and utilisation of Scottish raw materials, such as seaweed, peat, clays, shales, dolomite, felspar and diatomite, and the use of hydro-electricity in connection with raw material development.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): As was explained by the Lord President of the Council in a recent Debate, the Government are fully aware of the importance of industrial research and so far as the development of Scottish natural resources is concerned, the Scottish Council on Industry are in close touch with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and other research and commercial establishments. The Council are also in consultation with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and have appointed a special Committee to investigate to what extent capacity exists or can be developed in Scotland to produce the materials and fittings required for the post-war building programme in Scotland. In addition, the Council have recently appointed a panel of experts to advise them on scientific and technical questions generally.
    Mr. Leslie: Is the Minister aware that great developments concerning the things

    1195
    mentioned in this Question are taking place in Russia, Sweden and Eire, and will the Committee consider reports from these countries?
    Mr. Westwood: I have not the slightest doubt that the Committee will take into consideration all relevant factors, including any information they can get from any authority whatever.

    Wool (Marketing Organisation)
    Major Kimballasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state what action he is taking to carry out recommendation No. XV of the Hill Sheep Farming Committee's report, that the department of agriculture should prepare a marketing organisation for all Scottish wool.
    Mr. Westwood: My right hon. Friend is at present discussing this particular recommendation with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture and will make an announcement as soon as he is in a position to do so.

  COAL BY-PRODUCTS (RESEARCH)
  Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken by his Department to secure the post-war development of by-product industries, based on coal, in particular the production of oil; and what special research work on these lines is being undertaken by his Department.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The possibility of the development of coal by-products, including oil, is being actively studied by my Ministry in co-operation with other Departments. I attach the greatest importance to the subjects to which my hon. Friend refers. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is the department responsible for research in this field and it is continuing such investigation as war-time conditions permit in association with the research organisations of the industries concerned.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Minister whether he proposes to publish any reports from this Committee?
  Major Lloyd George: I could not say without notice.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that this matter has been receiving consideration for many years now; that we have made practically no progress in it; and that the Germans are saying that they receive one half of their present supplies from these by-products; and will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see to it that the Government give, at last, serious attention to this matter?
  Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member will appreciate that, during the war, it is not easy to enter into new developments of that character, but the war itself has led to developments and we have made remarkable progress.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Motor-car Industry
    Mr. Leachasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the condition of the British motor-car industry now almost entirely turned over to war production and which, on the termination of hostilities will find itself minus standardisation and capacity for mass production at the mercy of American competition; and will he devise measures in consultation with the industry to deal with the situation.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I am already in touch with representatives of the motor-car industry and am well aware of the problems which will confront manufacturers at the end of the war. I shall do all I can, in consultation with the industry, to enable them to change over as quickly as possible to their peace-time production.

    Impregnators, Limited
    Mr. Dobbieasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the annual general meeting of Impregnators, Limited, and the concern expressed by the shareholders at the disclosures made; whether he is aware that the shareholders appointed an informal committee to investigate the affairs of the company and that the directors have refused to grant facilities to this committee; if he has yet received an application for his Department to appoint an inspector to inspect the affairs of the company; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. An application has been made to my Department for the appointment of an inspector and I have referred this application to the directors of the company for their observations. When these are received, I will consider what further action is necessary.

    Herring (Exports to Russia)
    Mr. Jewsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his experts have included the herring in the list of goods for post-war sale to Russia.
    Mr. Dalton: I hope that it will be possible to develop a substantial export trade in herrings to Soviet Russia after the war. The Russians are now making a preliminary list of the goods they wish to buy from us; and we are making a similar list of what we wish to buy from them.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that, in addition to Russia, the whole of the Scandinavian countries and the Balkan countries were great customers for herring, and that a large part of Scotland depends upon the prosperity of this industry?
    Mr. Dalton: Nothing would delight me more than to see many more new markets developing.

    Leather Supplies, Allocation (Scotland)
    Mr. Francis Wattasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that his Department, when allocating supplies of leather among boot repairers in Scotland, do not divide the quotas of businesses which close down among other repairers in the same district; that this practice is causing a shortage of leather in certain areas; and what steps does he intend to take to rectify the matter.
    Mr. Dalton: The quotas of repair businesses which have been closed down are normally redistributed among other repairers in the same area. But in certain cases they are transferred, in the interests of fair distribution over the country as a whole, to other areas which are in greater need of extra supplies.
    Mr. Watt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the distribution of leather, particularly in Fife; and if I give him specific instances, will he promise to look into the matter?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I shall be very glad to go into it.

    Funeral Expenses (Price Regulation)
    Mr. Kirbyasked the President of the Board of Trade the extent to which costs have risen during the war in respect of coffins, cremations, burials and funeral expenses; what is the nature of the present price control of these items; and what is the policy of the Government for the immediate future on these matters.
    Mr. Dalton: The Central Price Regulation Committee, at my request, are now inquiring into these matters and I am awaiting their recommendations.

    Laundry Losses (Compensation)
    Mr. Dribergasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that compensation for articles lost by laundries is still being limited to 20 times the charge for laundering; that this limitation has been unheld in the courts; and if he will take steps to make such limitation illegal.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. But I am glad to say that the Institution of British Launderers, at the request of my Department, has advised its members to waive this limitation when they are satisfied that a larger claim would be justified. I am advised that an Order making the limitation illegal would not be within the scope of the Defence Regulations.
    Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how recently that advice was circulated, and whether it is in fact being put into practice?
    Mr. Dalton: I could not give the dates without notice. It was circulated, as I have said, at the suggestion of my Department, in order to meet hard cases.

    Second-hand Furniture (Trading Licence)
    Mr Loverseedasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant a licence to trade in second-hand furniture to Mr. C. E. Green, a disabled ex-Service man, in a district of which he has been informed, and in which he was making a reasonable living before being refused a licence.
    Mr. Dalton: As I have previously stated, licences under the Location of Retail Businesses Order are granted as a matter of course to invalided ex-Service-

    1199
    men who wish to re-establish themselves in their former businesses. In accordance with this undertaking, Mr. Green was granted a licence to trade in second-hand furniture in New Malden where he stated he had been engaged in business before joining H.M. Forces. I am informed that the number of shops dealing in secondhand furniture at Wimbledon, where Mr. Green wishes to open, is already more than adequate to meet the demand, and it is on these grounds that I have accepted the recommendation of the local retail licensing committee on the subject.
    Mr. Loverseed: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the question of public need arises in this way, that as Mr. Green was unable to get a living in New Malden where there was not an opening for a second-hand shop—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is asking for an opinion, and not for a statement of fact.

    Export Permits (Spain)
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent reputable British firms are precluded from the issue of permits for export to Spain; and if, in the case submitted to him, in which a British firm has received an order for industrial trucks through a Spanish agency which may lead to considerable export of this article, permits will be issued.
    Mr. Dalton: Exports to neutrals must depend upon what can be spared after our own requirements and those of the Empire and of our Allies have been met. Industrial trucks are in short supply and the whole output is urgently required for war purposes. I regret, therefore, that I cannot at present license their export to Spain.
    Sir P. Hannon: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade if this particular case, and several other cases I have discussed with him, are governed by Lend-Lease obligations, or by shortage here?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. My primary consideration in dealing with these matters is shortage of supplies; if that is established, no question of Lend-Lease need arise.

  MONTE CASSINO ABBEY (RESTORATION)
  Captain Alan Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the complete restoration of the Abbey of Monte Cassino as a memorial to the heroes who fell in storming it, and at the expense of Germany, as a necessary part of her reparations after this war.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): In my view it is premature to consider such proposals.

  ENEMY COUNTRIES (PEACE TERMS)
  Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken, and are going to be taken, to bring home to Germans the meaning and consequences of the term unconditional surrender.
  Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no statement to make on this subject at the present time.
  Wing-Commander James: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be a good thing to undercut the propaganda of Goebbels in this matter?
  Mr. Attlee: A statement was made recently by the Prime Minister on the subject.
  Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken, and are going to be taken, to bring home to the Government and peoples of the satellite countries how they stand in relation to the defeat of Germany and the term unconditional surrender.
  Mr. Attlee: The position in this respect has, I hope, been fully made clear in the Three Power Declaration of 12th May to the Axis satellites. I am satisfied that adequate arrangement have been made to bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the peoples concerned.

  EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Prime Minister the names of the persons who will comprise the Royal Commission on the subject of equal pay between men and women.
  Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. The composition and terms of reference of the proposed Royal Commission are still under consideration. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (EMPLOYMENT)
  Sir T. Mooreasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied that conscientious objectors are suitably employed in work of national importance; and whether his reports show that they are performing the duties assigned to them satisfactorily.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): I have been asked to reply. It is for tribunals to decide what work conscientious objectors should do as a condition of their exemption from military service. My information is that, on the whole, they work satisfactorily in the duties assigned to them, though naturally there are exceptions.
  Sir T. Moore: Has the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary been called to recent complaints made by farmers and other employers, that many of these conscientious objectors are both lazy and incompetent, and what power is there to make them work satisfactorily?
  Mr. Tomlinson: Complaints from all sources are inquired into, whether concerning conscientious objectors or others.
  Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Gentleman also see that useful service is given by Nazi sympathisers like the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore)?

  STATE SOVEREIGNTY (POST-WAR POLICY)
  Sir T. Mooreasked the Prime Minister whether his policy for a world order to be established after the war envisages any participating country surrendering its sovereignty to a super-sovereignty by virtue of the transfer of its armed forces, or a portion of them, to an international authority.
  Mr. Attlee: This no doubt will form a subject for discussion in due course.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

    Department of Overseas Trade
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the functions at present attaching to the Department of Overseas Trade; in what respect the duties of the Department are detached from the day to day activities of the Board of Trade; and if he regards the retention of the Department as essential to the promotion of the interests of British export trade.
    Mr. Attlee: The functions now attaching to the Department of Overseas Trade were stated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Gledhill) on 23rd February, 1943. The Department, of course, works in close daily touch with the Board of Trade, and will have an important part to play in the development of our export trade after the war.
    Sir P. Hannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of putting a little vitality into the Department of Overseas Trade?

    Board of Trade
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the declared policy of His Majesty's Government to make the Board of Trade the channel for the expression of Government policy on the distribution of industry, as indicated in the White Paper, Cmd. 6527, he contemplates reconstruction of the Board in the extension of its powers and the enlargement of its personnel to discharge these new duties.
    Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. As stated in the White Paper referred to, the Board of Trade will be suitably strengthened as occasion requires to undertake the heavier responsibilities referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Sir P. Hannon: When will the Deputy-Prime Minister be able to make a statement on the expansion of the work of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Attlee: Not just yet.

    Sick Leave (Weekly Rest Day)
    Mr. Wakefieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that when a civil servant goes sick on a week-day he is entitled to have his Sunday rest day

    1203
    off in addition, but if he is required for duty on a Sunday but is unable to attend owing to sickness he loses his weekly rest day; and if he will put right this anomaly.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I am not clear whether my hon. Friend is referring to an officer who is required to attend on Sunday regularly, or only occasionally. In the latter case the Sunday attendance is additional to the ordinary weekly attendance and time off may be granted in lieu of it; but if the officer is prevented by sickness or any other reason from attending on the Sunday he is not entitled to the time off. On the other hand, if Sunday attendance is a regular part of the officer's weekly duty and his weekly rest day regularly falls on some other day, sickness on the Sunday should not interfere with the weekly rest day.

  HOUSE-BUILDING (INTEREST-FREE LOANS)
  Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if, in connection with post-war housing plans, he will consider the creation of a special fund from which the capital cost of house-building could be advanced to local authorities free of interest for a term of 60 years and housing subsidies thus abolished;
  (2) if, in view of the necessity of the State 'borrowing money cheaply so as to be able to lend it interest free to local authorities for the purpose of building houses, he is providing in his post-war plans for the establishment of an investment board to control the flow of savings to finance these activities which will be most beneficial to the people of the country;
  (3) if the National Savings Committee is preparing plans or the encouragement of saving after the war; and if in this connection priority will be given to a House the People campaign, with a view to the capital cost of building houses being loaned to local authorities interest free.
  Sir J. Anderson: Methods are being considered for securing such priority as the public interest may require in the financing of post-war capital expenditure for various purposes and also for the encouragement of National Savings after the
  1204
  war. It is also the intention of the Government to maintain a cheap money policy by which local and other public authorities will benefit. Apart from that, however, I think that such assistance as it may be agreed that the State should afford to local authorities for housing should be brought openly to the notice of Parliament in subsidies met out of Votes and should not be in the concealed form of concessions on rates of interest.
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any fundamental objection to the issue of interest-free loans for the purpose suggested in the first Question?
  Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member has asked that question again and again, and I really do not think it arises here.
  Mr. Mathers: Do the Government recognise that, by adopting means of this kind to stimulate housebuilding in this country, they will be giving the best evidence of their earnestness in the matter?
  Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, I do not think so. An open subsidy is more impressive than a concealed one.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Chancellor aware that subsidies generally come in small pieces at a time; and is it not desirable, in view of the crisis which affects housing, that a fund should be allocated by the Government for the purpose of providing interest-free loans to local authorities, so that there shall be no doubt whatever as to the resources for building houses?
  Sir J. Anderson: I do not think that there is any doubt whatever in the mind of anyone who is concerned in this matter as to the availability of funds, but it is a fallacy to suppose that a subsidy is avoided by providing loans free of interest, or at reduced rates of interest; and as to subsidies, they are given on terms that are well understood by local authorities, and not a little at a time.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of the fact that 6o per cent. of the cost of houses to-day goes to the money-lender who lends the money with which to build the houses; and what action is he prepared to take to abolish the idea of interest?
  Sir J. Anderson: I do not think that the idea of abolishing interest can be brought about merely by talking about it. What

  1205
  the Government are doing, as I said in my original answer, is to endeavour to maintain the cheap money policy, and that is the best method of keeping the cost of capital works down.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of the fact that our soldiers give their all for their country—that is free of interest—and is it too much to ask that those who own and control the means whereby we live should lend their money free of interest, in order to get over this particular problem?
  Sir J. Anderson: That is surely fallacious; lending is as widespread as national service.
  Mr. Stokes: Not without interest though.

  ACTOR (RELEASE FROM R.A.F. DUTIES)
  Mr. Evelyn Walkdenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that indefinite leave of absence was granted to the actor, Mr. Barry Sinclair, from R.A.F. duties in part consultation with the Treasury; and whether the decision to release Mr. Sinclair was governed by any consideration of reverie accruing through the Entertainments Duty or if he can give the reasons for influencing one entertainer's release from Service duties for the unspecified duration of the run of one particular entertainment.
  Sir J. Anderson: I am informed that the decision was given under the normal procedure for dealing with cases of release from the Services and was not influenced by revenue considerations. The Treasury was not consulted.
  Mr. Walkden: Is the Minister not aware that there is abundant evidence that the Treasury itself initiated this particular application for release, on the ground that it meant risking £1,200 per week in Entertainments Duty, and nobody else is possessed of any information but the Treasury?
  Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member is directly challenging the accuracy of what I have said. I hope he will have the kindness to let me have his information.
  Mr. Walkden: It was the man's own statement.

  RATION BOOKS (THEFTS)
  Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Food how many ration books have been stolen during the present distribution; how many of the 14,000 ration books stolen from the Food Office at Ware, Herts., on 30th May have been recovered; and what steps he is taking for the better protection of ration books, including more drastic punishment of those found guilty of this form of sabotage of the war effort.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): The total number of ration books so far stolen during the present distribution is 15,230. Two hundred extracted clothing books have also been taken. None of the books stolen from the Ware office have yet been recovered. All possible steps are taken by my Department for the safeguarding of these documents. When the culprits are apprehended, they are prosecuted by the police and the sentences imposed are determined by the courts and not by my Department.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that food offices in country towns have no facilities for protection against this form of crime? Could not the ration books be stored at local police stations and drawn as required? Further, would my right hon. Friend not consider a more adequate punishment for this type of crime?
  Mr. Mabane: We do take the greatest care in safeguarding these documents, but, as I have said, the question of punishment is for the courts, and not for the Ministry of Food.
  Mr. Thorne: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can say how many points were involved?
  Mr. Mabane: The appropriate number of points according to the number of books involved.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  At the end of Questions—
  Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the House, there will be a short interval to allow of a statement by the Prime Minister.
  Sir H. Williams: May I have an answer to Question 54?
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot go back to a Question which has been passed.

WAR SITUATION

  LIBERATION OF ROME: LANDINGS IN FRANCE
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I must apologise to the House for having delayed them, but Questions were gone through rather more rapidly than usual. The House should, I think, take formal cognisance of the liberation of Rome by the Allied Armies under the Command of General Alexander, with General Clark of the United States Service and General Oliver Leese in command of the Fifth and Eighth Armies respectively. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is a memorable and glorious event, which rewards the intense fighting of the last five months in Italy. The original landing, made on 22nd January at Anzio, has, in the end, borne good fruit. In the first place, Hitler was induced to send to the south of Rome eight or nine divisions which he may well have need of elsewhere. Secondly, these divisions were repulsed, and their teeth broken, by the successful resistance of the Anzio bridgehead forces in the important battle which took place in the middle of February. The losses on both sides were heavy—the Allies losing about 20,000 men, and the Germans about 25,000 men. Thereafter, the Anzio bridgehead was considered by the enemy to be impregnable.
  Meanwhile, the great regrouping of the main Army had to take place before the attacks could be renewed. These attacks were at first unsuccessful, and Cassino still blocked the advance. On 11th May, General Alexander began his present operation and after unceasing and intense fighting by the whole of the Armies, broke into the enemy's lines and entered the Liri Valley. It is noteworthy that, counting from right to left, the whole of the Polish, British Empire, French and United States Forces broke the German lines in front of them by frontal attack. That has an important bearing on other matters, which I shall come to before I sit down.
  At what was judged the right moment the bridgehead force, which by this time had reached a total of nearly 150,000 men, fell upon the retreating
  1208
  enemy's flank and threatened his retreat. The junction of the main Armies with the bridgehead forces drove the enemy off his principal lines of retreat to the North, forcing a great part of his army to retire in considerable disorder with heavy losses, especially in material, through mountainous country. The Allied Forces, with great rapidity, were re-grouped, with special emphasis on their left flank, which soon deployed against Rome after cutting the important highway. The American and other Forces of the Fifth Army broke through the enemy's last line and entered Rome, where the Allied troops have been received with joy by the population. This entry and liberation of Rome mean that we shall have the power to defend it from hostile air attack, and to deliver it from the famine with which it was threatened. However, General Alexander's prime object has never been the liberation of Rome, great as are the moral, political and psychological advantages of that episode. The Allied Forces, with the Americans in the van, are driving ahead, Northwards, in relentless pursuit of the enemy. The destruction of the enemy army has been, throughout, the single aim and they are now being engaged at the same time along the whole length of the line as they attempt to escape to the North. It is hoped that the 20,000 prisoners already taken will be followed by further captures in future, and that the condition of the enemy's army, which he has crowded into Southern Italy, will be decisively affected.
  It would be futile to attempt to estimate our final gains at the present time. It is our duty, however, to pay the warmest tribute of gratitude and admiration to General Alexander for the skill with which he has handled this Army of so many different States and nations, and for the tenacity and fortitude with which he has sustained the long periods when success was denied. In General Clark the United States Army has found a fighting leader of the highest order and the qualities of all Allied troops have shone in noble and unjealous rivalry. The great strength of the air forces at our disposal, as well as the preponderance in armour, has undoubtedly contributed in a notable and distinctive manner to the successes which have been achieved. We must await further developments in the Italian theatre before it is possible

  1209
  to estimate the magnitude or quality of our gains, great and timely though they certainly are.
  I have also to announce to the House that during the night and the early hours of this morning the first of the series of landings in force upon the European Continent has taken place. In this case the liberating assault fell upon the coast of France. An immense armada of upwards of 4,000 ships, together with several thousand smaller craft, crossed the Channel. Massed airborne landings have been successfully effected behind the enemy lines and landings on the beaches are proceeding at various points at the present time. The fire of the shore batteries has been largely quelled. The obstacles that were constructed in the sea have not proved so difficult as was apprehended. The Anglo-American Allies are sustained by about 11,000 first line aircraft, which can be drawn upon as may be needed for the purposes of the battle. I cannot, of course, commit myself to any particular details. Reports are coming in in rapid succession. So far the Commanders who are engaged report that everything is proceeding according to plan. And what a plan! This vast operation is undoubtedly the most complicated and difficult that has ever occurred. It involves tides, wind, waves, visibility, both from the air and the sea standpoint, and the combined employment of land, air and sea forces in the highest degree of intimacy and in contact with conditions which could not and cannot be fully foreseen.
  There are already hopes that actual tactical surprise has been attained, and we hope to furnish the enemy with a succession of surprises during the course of the fighting. The battle that has now begun will grow constantly in scale and in intensity for many weeks to come and I shall not attempt to speculate upon its course. This I may say, however. Complete unity prevails throughout the Allied Armies. There is a brotherhood in arms between us and our friends of the United States. There is complete confidence in the supreme commander, General Eisenhower, and his lieutenants, and also in the commander of the Expeditionary Force, General Montgomery. The ardour and spirit of the troops, as I saw myself, embarking in these last few days was splendid to witness. Nothing that equipment,
  1210
  science or forethought could do has been neglected, and the whole process of opening this great new front will be pursued with the utmost resolution both by the commanders and by the United States and British Governments whom they serve.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend a question, but before doing so, I should like to say three or four sentences if I may. First, the House by its applause has shown its gratitude to all those who have bled and fought in the battles in Italy and I am sure that we all feel that, now that our Armies there are on the march, it will not be long before the German invader is turned out of that peninsula. We are living through momentous hours. I think my right hon. Friend's statement ranks second to the declaration of war on 3rd September, 1939. There is nothing much that we can do, except to pledge ourselves, and to pledge our physical and spiritual resources, to the unstinted aid of the men and women who are serving overseas; to let them know the pride that we shall feel in their victories and the sadness that we shall feel about their losses. The question I want to put is whether my right hon. Friend will arrange, as frequently as may be, to report to Parliament, and to the people, the course of events, so that we may, on the one hand share such tribulations as may come to them, and on the other hand, take joy in their achievements.
  The Prime Minister: In reply to the question that my right hon. Friend has put, I will certainly endeavour, at any rate in the early part of the battle, to keep the House freely informed, and it may be that I shall ask their indulgence to trespass upon them before the end of the present Sitting.
  Mr. Gallacher: This is one of the most solemn moments in the life of this Parliament, and it is certainly not a time for making, or trying to make, speeches, but I should like to express my own feeling, and I am sure the feeling of every Member of the House, that our hearts and our thoughts are with these lads who have gone across to the Continent and with their mothers here at home.
  Mr. A. Bevan: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take an early opportunity of framing and placing before Parliament a suitable mes-

  1211
  sage, that Parliament itself might transmit to the people of France at this moment as going directly from the representatives of the British people to the people of France.
  The Prime Minister: Several messages are being sent to France in the course of the day, but the question whether one should be transmitted from the House of Commons, or I presume from the Houses of Parliament, is one that I should like to discuss with my colleagues.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the supply of water from the Shropshire Union Canal; and for other purposes." [London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled "An Act to authorise the closing for navigation of canals; to provide for the transfer of part of the Huddersfield Canals to the Company of Proprietors of the Calder and Hebble Navigation; and for other purposes." [London Midland and Scottish Railway (Canals) Bill [Lords.]

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL [Lords]
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1944

  COLONIAL AFFAIRS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Colonial Administration, for the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1945, namely:

  Class II, Vote 7, Colonial Office

  £10

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

  £10

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

  £10

  £30".

  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): It is difficult for all of us to bring our minds back from the dramatic statements which have just been made, and from the thoughts which must be occupying all our minds, concerning the struggle going on so close to us. But we are dealing to-day with a problem of the greatest importance and one to which, I know, even under these difficult circumstances, hon. Members will be prepared to give their attention. It is now nearly a year since I last had the opportunity of speaking upon the Colonial, Office Estimates, It is true that since that time we have had one or two short Debates, but this is the first occasion for a general review. Once again I am in the difficulty which always faces a Colonial Secretary of being able to deal only with a few of the immense number of interesting points and questions which hon. Members would want to discuss. One is under the necessity of omitting many points just us important as those with which one is able to deal; and All one can do is to leave it to hon. Members themselves to raise the other matters in which they are interested.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is it the intention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to reply to the Debate to-day?
  Colonel Stanley: Yes, most certainly if the Committee will bear with me twice. There is one point that we Might note since the Debate last year, and that is that in the 12 months, quite a number of hon. Members of all parties have had an opportunity of visiting the Colonies. I refer particularly to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), who spent no less than three months in what, I know, was an arduous, what I believe was an interesting, and what I hope will prove to have been a successful visit to West Africa. Four hon. Members have also been to the West Indies. It is satisfactory that even that small number should be able to go in war time. I hope that when easier' days return with peace, this precedent will be followed by many and that ample opportunities will be given to Members to visit the Colonial Empire. As a matter of fact, since the Debate last year, I, myself, have had the opportunity of making quite an extended tour. I know how much value that visit was to me, and I can appreciate, therefore, how much value similar visits would be to other Members. Of course, I recognise, with an unselfishness which I hope does me credit, that these visits do mean more participation by hon. Members in Debates, more questions from them and very likely more criticism. But I welcome criticism of that kind. It is not only instructive, but it is constructive. It is exactly the kind of criticism which any Minister ought to be glad to receive, because it does not hamper but really helps him in his work.
  I should like to start by saying something about the Colonial war effort, first because I think it only right when we are thinking to-day of the part that we life playing, that we should also acknowledge the great part being played by the Colonial peoples. There is a second reason and that is that, unless we realise the great extent of the Colonial war effort, the great impact which the war is having on Colonial territories just as on us here, we lose our sense of proportion with regard to what it is possible to do in planning for the future. We here, on all sides of the Committee, are anxious to do what we can in preparing for the future after the war, but all of us realise that there are limitations in this country

  1225
  during the war which prevent rapid progress being made, and I would impress upon hon. Members that similar conditions prevail, sometimes with almost equal intensity, in the Colonial territories, and have the same effect upon planning.
  It is not, of course, very easy to give to the Committee a full account of the military participation of the Colonies. That same security veil which prevents us knowing the reason why a match at Lord's comes to an end early in the afternoon, or why there are no cherries in Kent in May, prevents my giving to the Committee details of the numbers of men from the Colonial territories now serving in the Armed Forces. But hon. Members do know that their participation in the war is widespread. There are troops from East Africa in Ceylon, troops from West Africa in Burma and—to take the smaller places—troops from the Seychelles and Mauritius in the Middle East, and troops from Cyprus taking part in that Italian campaign to which the Prime Minister has just referred. There are large numbers of Colonial people serving as air crews or ground staffs in the Royal Air Force, of whom a big contingent come from the West Indies, and in a number of Colonies there are naval units, some of which have already been taken over as Royal Naval Volunteer Reserves.
  There are, however, one or two interesting stories which I can the give to the Committee about the war services the Colonial peoples. As hon. Members already know, the West Africans have been engaged in the last few months in the Burma 'operations on the Arakan front, where, according to all reports, they have conducted themselves with a high degree of courage and discipline, not only in an advance but what, as every hon. Member who has been at war will agree is much more difficult, in a retreat. But what hon. Members do not yet know is that there are West Africans as part of the Chindit forces who were landed by air behind the Japanese lines. It is rather striking to think that a Nigerian from some of these very primitive territories in Nigeria which the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove has so recently seen, was one of the first troops in the British Empire to take part in an airborne landing. Something, too, has been said, I think, about the records of the Fijians in the Solomon Islands. In the old days, the inhabitants of Fiji held the reputation
  1226
  of being the best fighters in the Pacific. They have certainly proved themselves to be among the finest jungle fighters in the world. A Fijian commando has been fighting in the Northern Solomons, and in one series of patrol clashes against the Japanese, the score was 300 Japanese killed for four Fijians killed and four wounded, which is a striking testimony to their degree of skill.
  I have an even more interesting story to tell about the Solomons. Recently, I had the opportunity of talking to several members of the Colonial administrative service who stayed behind in the Solomons when those islands were occupied by the Japanese: All through the Japanese occupation, they had a complete organisation for watching and for passing news out to the High Command. They had to take to the hills. Their presence was known to the Japanese, because the wireless transmission could not be concealed, Their stores had to be brought to them by submarine or dropped in remote places from aeroplanes. Their headquarters were always liable to search by the Japanese and to sudden moves. They are able to tell a series of marvellous stories which testify to their courage, their tenacity and their adaptability. They had to be able to turn their hands to anything; they were guerilla leaders, naval officers and, in two cases, which must be quite exceptional, were temporarily commissioned in the American Marines. The theme of all their stories is the profound loyalty of the native population in the Solomon Islands—not just a mere passive loyalty, not merely a failure to betray, but active help in extremely dangerous operations. One of those officers told me a story of a. Solomon islander whom he had sent out to see what the Japanese were doing in a particular village. When the man came back he reported that there was a Japanese there operating a wireless. The officer was not quite certain from what the man said whether he had been close enough to see whether it was a wireless or a telephone, so he sent him back. He returned confirming the fact that it was a wireless, and as proof that he had been sufficiently close to judge he brought back the trousers of the Japanese wireless operator, which had been hanging on the tent pole.
  This story of the really courageous loyalty of the inhabitants of the Solomon

  1227
  Islands takes one's thoughts to another part of Colonial territory which is in the occupation of the enemy, and that is Malaya. All of us remember the bitter comments which were made with regard to Malaya at the time of the disaster, comments which led to widespread criticisms of the whole Colonial system. Much that I have heard since led me to doubt whether those comments were fair or were true. Personally, I believe that when Malaya is recaptured, when we are able to get the evidence in full, they will be disproved; but Malaya now is in the occupation of the enemy, the evidence is not procurable, and final judgment can only be possible after the recapture. Here in the Solomons, however, we, have the first evidence from a place where British territory has been completely recaptured—all the evidence is available—and there we find that the full story is not a story of treachery or indifference, but a story of loyalty and courage, and I believe the same will be found to be true of Malaya.
  While dealing with this area I hope the Committee will allow me to refer to a story which appears to have had widespread circulation in the Pacific area. It certainly had widespread circulation among American troops, it was reproduced in a Hawaiian newspaper which, I believe, has a big circulation, and has been reproduced, too, I think, in the United States of America. It is a story in lineal descent from the story of the last war which all hon. Members will recollect, of Russian troops going through England. We remember how people used to see their beards, used to hear them talking Russian and see the snow which they had left in railway carriages. That story was only silly. The trouble about the story I am referring to now is that it is not only silly but also harmful. The story is that the United States of America are being charged for every palm tree which is destroyed by their troops in the battle to recover our possessions in the Pacific. All the stories agree on the price—7o dollars a palm tree—but there is some dispute as to who is making the claim. Some say that it is a great soap malting firm. Others say it is His Majesty's Government. I hope the Committee will allow me to waste their time just long enough to say that, Of course, there is not one word of truth in such a fantastic story. No claim has
  1228
  been made, or ever will be made, on this account to the United Stites— by His Majesty's Government and still less by any individual or individuals. I hope this will have some effect in putting a stop to this ridiculous story, a story so silly that it could only have been repeated by knaves and believed by fools. Unfortunately, there are enough of both in the world to do quite a lot of harm.
  Finally, with regard to military service, I would like to say one word about the Caribbean soldiers. Owing to the geographical position of the West Indies, it is difficult for them to participate in active service to the same extent that, say, East or West Africa have done. Of course, many individuals have left the West Indies and volunteered to come over here either to join the Army or the R.A.F., or to work in industry, but a great desire has been expressed in the West Indies that its whole youth should have an opportunity or active service. Thanks largely to the help and co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that has now been arranged. A battalion of the Caribbean regiment has left its own home area en route for a military theatre, and I am sure the whole Committee will wish them success in their enterprise.
  Remarkable as has been the contribution of the Colonies, in man-power, to actual military service, the demands which have been made on them for production have been equally big. The advent and progress of the war have had two effects upon Colonial life. The first was that the Colonies were obliged, owing to the difficulty of obtaining many supplies on which they had previously relied for a great part of the feeding of their own population, to institute, to a very greatly increased extent, the growing of their own 'food. At the same time the loss of the Far East has forced the United Nations to find substitutes elsewhere for the essential materials we lost in those areas. Rubber, for instance, was one of the key commodities, and we have had to try, as far as we can, to make up the loss, not only by speeding up the production in a natural rubber-producing country like Ceylon, but by bringing back to life old plantations in other Colonies—in East and West Africa —which had been allowed to go out of production years ago when competition from the Far East first became acute and even, as I-am sure that the hon. Member

  1229
  for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) probably saw in his tour of Nigeria, to spend a great deal of time, trouble and effort in getting supplies of wild rubber from the various Colonies.
  With regard to tin, we have, of course, had to put increased pressure upon Nigeria. Pyrethrum, that' most valuable base of all insecticides, of which 85 per cent. came from the areas now occupied by Japan, has had to be developed in Kenya. In regard to sisal, the only substitute for Manila hemp used for naval cording, we have, again, had to put immense pressure upon East Africa to make up the lass. In addition, there has been the necessity to grow more of our own food and to make up some of the losses we suffered in the Far East and, With certain exceptions, the demand for the Colonies' own normal production has not been relaxed. Sugar is just as vital to us—even more vital since the loss of Java —as it was before the war. The oil products—palm kernels and ground nuts —from West Africa now form over 40 per cent. of the fat ration of people in this country. The result is that there has been the impact on Colonial economies of this greatly increased and varied demand. It has meant a tremendous call for labour and, above all, it has meant a tremendous call for organisation. The hon., Member for Shipley will know the number of cases in which men who would normally be doing administrative work, who would have been district commissioners, have had to be taken off that work to become labour controllers and leaders of a drive for ground nuts or palm oil and all this, of course, has increased the pressure upon already depleted staffs. It is against that background of the great efforts that the Colonial territories are making in the war and the great strain that has been put upon their administration and manpower that I want the Committee now to turn to the other side of the picture—to review the planned possibilities for development when the war comes to an end.
  In my Estimates speech last year, I dealt very fuly with the political side. I tried in that speech to explain our objectives and I gave numerous and, I think, impressive instances of the advance which had been made during the last year. That advance still continues, but political advance spread over this enormous range of territories is not always spectacular. It
  1230
  will not, and should not, always progress by dramatic bounds from one Constitution to another. The fact that a municipal council is now elected instead of nominated, that the powers of native authorities in certain areas have been extended, and that in some Colonies the franchise has been lowered, is just as much an important part in the advance towards self-government as the more spectacular events such as the Jamaica Constitution to which I referred last year. If I do not spend so much time this year on the political stage, it is not that I minimise its importance. However interested we may be in social and economic development, all of us must and will recognise the natural urge of humans to share in their own government, an urge which is always present, but which has been greatly stimulated by the war and the activity of thought and enterprise which war creates.
  If I deal, as I say, less fully with the subject this year than I did last year, it is not because I minimise its importance, but because I want to give more of my limited time to the plans on the social and economic side. You cannot really dissociate the social and economic side from the political side. An improved health service, a scientific agriculture and the creation of new industries are just as essential to real self-government as any new Constitution or extended franchise. I was given the opportunity by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) in a Debate on the Adjournment last month, to deal with some of the difficulties which stand in the way of the immediate development of the scheme. I tried to point "out that the impact of the war on the Colonies is, in its effect, not noticeably less than it is on this country, and that it is impossible to progress more quickly in the Colonies than we find it possible to progress here. I referred to the three shortages which the war had caused—the shortage of material, of labour and of technical staffs. I pointed out that we did not necessarily get all three shortages in every Colony. In the West Indies, for instance, there was, a great shortage of imported materials and technical staffs, but not, at least in some of the Colonies, any shortage of labour.
  Unfortunately the hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), whose words are hung upon by Members here

  1231
  and reverberate outside able not only to propagate great and beneficial new ideas, but also to spread a fallacy. The little bit he threw into his great Empire speech, in which he said he could not really believe the story of shortages holding back development when he read of labour in the West Indies going to the United States, ignored the fact that the real shortage in the West Indies is not labour, but imported material. That fallacy has been very difficult to kill. I tried to kill it in the Debate last month, but I was very disappointed when. I went to a meeting last week and heard it repeated once again. I ask hon. Members to believe—and I am sure they will—that this is not just a smoke screen we are, trying to put up to prevent these things being done. Frankly, we think it is the opportunity of our lives and we, will welcome any suggestion from hon. Members about how, in view of these difficulties, we can speed up development. But hon. Members, in their turn, I hope, will admit that difficulties do really exist.
  In spite of those difficulties, however, there has been quite a substantial advance. The actual expenditure under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act last year was four times that of the year before. Since the Debate in May, a White, Paper has been published showing the schemes approved under the Act for last year, which now total over £4,000,000, or not so very far below the £5,000,000 a year allowed under the present scheme. That White Paper, I may interject, does give a very interesting list of various projects which is quite well worth studying by hon. Members.
  I would like to make just one other point. We are beginning to fall into the idea that the Colonial Development and Welfare Act is the only source from which expenditure on social services in the Colonies can and does come, and to measure the expenditure of the Colonial Empire on the social services by the amount which is spent under that Act. I need not point out to hon. Members that the whole idea of that Act is that the money under it shall not be in substitution of normal expenditure by the Colonies, but in addition to it. As a matter of fact, as a result of the war, many of the Colonies have had improved revenues. They have had better markets
  1232
  and higher prices for their main exports, and the necessity for higher taxation in order to deal with the danger of inflation has given many of them greatly increased revenue. Therefore, in many Colonies, quite apart from the work of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, there has been, and is, a continued increased expenditure upon social services. I will not weary the Committee by quoting a large number of examples, but one is that in Northern Rhodesia, since 1939, the expenditure on African education has gone up froth £42,000 to £128,000, or trebled itself in that time. Of course the creased expenditure of Colonial Governments meets the same difficulty as expenditure from the Colonial Development and Welfare Act to which I have referred. They have not always been able to spend their increased revenues on improved social services. That means that they are amassing surpluses and that in several Colonies there will be substantial balances available after the war for expenditure on development. Therefore, they have the three channels for expenditure on social services—the normal revenues of the Colonies which are expanding, the balances which the Colonies themselves are building up, and the assistance which comes from the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.
  I feel that the really important thing, apart from pressing on as hard as we can with the execution of what schemes are practicable, is that we should be ready for the post-war period. We should be ready for the time when these limitations will disappear, not suddenly, of course, but gradually as things improve. What we shall want by that time will be not just general ideas, but actual plans capable of being put into effect immediately. This is necessary not only from the point of view of the development of the Colonies. It is essential for the demobilisation period, as a means of reabsorbing into civilian life the many hundreds of thousands of Colonial people who are now in the Forces. I have during the last year tried to set up and get working the necessary machinery to insure that that planning is going on in all the Colonial territorie6. There are certain principles which we have to have in mind with regard to this planning. The first, I should say, is that there need not be uniformity between Colonies, and it is not for us to insist that every Colony

  1233
  should try to do exactly the same thing. There must be co-operation between them and an avoidance of overlapping. The second principle is that detailed planning must be done on the spot. On practical grounds it cannot be done from London. We have to remember that these people are growing into nationhood, and they are entitled to plan for themselves. We cannot impose on them in that way, although we may advise and assist with plans drawn up in London. The principle is, therefore, that the planning should be done on the spot and that here in the centre we are entitled to supervise the plans to make certain that there is no one-sided development and that in a particular Colony not too much attention is being paid to one branch at the expense of another, or, as between one Colony and another, one which has a more active driving force at the head is not going further ahead than one which is more supine.
  The third principle is that there is need for new organs. We are asking Colonial Governments to take an interest in things which before the war were considered largely outside their concern. There was very little machinery before the war for economic planning or the encouragement of industry, and that is a deficiency we have had to fill. In discussing this machinery, I would like hon. Members to realise that it is of recent growth. For a long time in the Colonies, "as here, the instructions were that all official work was to be centred on the war effort. Only comparatively recently—for El Alamein, the turning point of the war, is still only 18 months ago—has it been possible to relax that and to give encouragement to provide time to planning of peace time development. Even though that encouragement is now given, it is still against the background of the additional war-work and the depleted staffs to which I have already called attention.
  The basis of the planning machinery which I have tried to set up is, first of all, a Colony Development Committee. That is now in force in nearly all the big Colonies, and it is by far the most important organ of planning. Its make-up must vary in each Colony, but there are certain desiderata which I have laid down. The committee must include the heads of the various Departments, because they are the people who will put up the detailed
  1234
  planning, it may be of health-services or of agriculture. It must also include a number of unofficial people because not only will they have much to contribute, but we have to carry them with us in schemes for the development of their own country. Finally, and to this I attach the greatest importance, there must be one senior man, whether he is an 'official or a man brought in from outside, with nothing else to do. It is no good having on a committee extremely busy men who have a great deal to do in their day to day work. We must have some man whose only job is development and whose only interest is to follow it through.
  Captain Peter MacDonald: Is there to be a permanent official in each Colony or an expert brought in from outside?
  Colonel Stanley: I said either a permanent official or, as in some cases, experts from outside. The second point is that we want these plans to be comprehensive and long-term—real five or ten-year plans covering the whale development of the Colonies, and not just a new hospital here and a new road there. If there is something immediately practicable, they are at liberty to put it up for immediate approval, but I do want to have as a result of these committees general comprehensive schemes, however long they will take to put into effect, so that each bit of work that is done fits into the general picture.
  Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. and gallant Friend has just mentioned hospitals. I wonder whether he is speaking now of social plans rather than specific economic plans, that is to say, plans for the extension and development of industry.
  Colonel Stanley: In most Colonies it is a social and economic committee and it deals with general expansion on both sides. I do not think that in a Colony, we can really separate the two. In nearly every Colony the biggest economic plan you can make is the improvement of agriculture, and in any plan for agriculture an improvement in education and health must be one of the most vital factors. Therefore, we have adopted the plan that it is the same committee that surveys the whole field. In many Colonies, in order to meet the difficulties of economic planning, we have tried to provide experts from outside to assist and advise.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Would the right hon. And gallant Gentleman give a little more explanation of the words "industrial planning."? Has any general line been laid down for starting industries in, for instance, Nigeria or the Gold Coast or Kenya? What are the lines on which that will be done? Will it be part of general planning?
  Colonel Stanley: I did not use the word "industrial," but I will now, because it really leads me on to the next point, that is the necessity, when we have the Colonial planning unit, to have some form of regional co-operation. That is necessary for those problems which really transcend the boundaries of one particular Colony. It is particularly necessary in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, that of the setting up of secondary industries, in order to prevent over-dapping. There may be room in one region for a particular industry and there might be a market in the country capable of sustaining a plant of economic size. If, however we found each of three or four Colonies in the region saying, "We are going to set up that industry to serve the market of the whole region," we would get hopeless overlapping. There must, therefore, be some form of regional co-operation to prevent overlapping of that kind.
  Mr. de Rothschild: By regional does my right hon. and gallant Friend mean our own Colonies or the Colonies of other nations?
  Colonel Stanley: Perhaps if I were allowed to develop the point, a great deal, I hope, will come out in the wash. The great example we have had up to now of this machinery for regional co-operation is the Stockdale Commission. We have discussed that in the House, and the Committee is familiar with it. What I want to emphasise is that what is suitable for the West Indies, a number of small Colonies, with small technical staffs, is not necessarily suitable for regions containing bigger Colonies with bigger and more highly trained staffs and perhaps, therefore, more technically skilled advice already available to them. In West Africa we have already available as the machinery for regional co-operation the Civil Members Committee, that is, the Governors under the Chairmanship of Lord Swinton, with, of course, a permanent secretariat. We have adopted
  1236
  the plan of attaching to Lord Swinton's staff experts who will be available to the Colonial Governors to supplement their own resources.
  For instance, we have appointed Professor Noel Hall as development adviser. In Professor Hall, with whose record as an economist and with whose war work in connection with the Ministry of Economic Warfare members of the Committee are acquainted, the governors will have at their disposal an expert on the wider questions of economic development, the trend of world' markets and the chances of new production. We have also attached another specialist, a town planning adviser, Major Maxwell Fry, who will be able to advise Colonial Governments, not only on town planning, but on what everybody who has been to the Colonies will, agree is most important, namely design. I wish we could get some better designs for houses of all descriptions in the Colonies than some of the examples we now see. In Central Africa, that is, in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, we are trying to get this close co-operation 'by appointing the same development adviser to both Colonies. Mr. J. C. Clay will be joint adviser for Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. In East Africa we have a Governors' Conference with its secretariat which calls the conferences on technical matters. In addition, they have set up an East African Industrial Council, whose business it is to prevent overlapping in the plans for the development of secondary industries.
  Mr. Alexander Walkden: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether, in connection with industrial development, the Government are considering the advisability of assisting the Colonies by granting them a proportion of the large number of vehicles that will be available after the war? It would be an inestimable advantage to the Colonies, and we shall not want all those vehicles.
  Colonel Stanley: That is a most valuable suggestion and I think it worth considering. It is a little remote at the moment from the question of planning machinery, but I will certainly bear it in mind. I would add one word about the Pacific, where, alas, the most important of the British territories are still in enemy occupation. There, I am afraid, there can be

  1237
  no question at the present moment of planning development, but, at least, the Committee will want to know that we are planning for reconstruction. The, difficulties are naturally much greater than in other Colonies, and we can have no idea what the conditions will be when finally we re-occupy; but there are already, under the War Office, and largely recruited from the Colonial Service, staffs who are preparing plans on such information as they have got, for the reconstruction of those areas upon their recapture.
  I have dealt with planning in the Colonies and with co-operation in the regions. The third point is the part of the Colonial Office. I do not think that any Secretary of State can delegate his central responsibility to any board or council. He is responsible for the Colonies to the House of Commons, and fie alone can discharge that responsibility. Obviously, in doing so, he must have, and he does have, the advice of the proper expert opinion. We have now at the Colonial Office a very full system of advisory committees with a membership —as I think the hon. Member for Shipley will agree, since he is a member of one ofthem—of the highest calibre. One of the most remarkable things is the response which I have had to invitations to serve on committees or commissions relating to the Colonies. I have asked people of the highest eminence in their professions and with many other calls on their time, and in almost every case I have had an enthusiastic response. It shows the immense interest there is in Colonial development and the realisation of its tremendous importance in the future.
  As I see it, I have, as Secretary of State, two real functions with regard to this Colonial development, The first is, that I should stimulate and assist the formulation of plans, and in that task I can be helped, and am helped, by reports and investigations on general lines by those various committees. One of the best examples is the report of the education committee on mass education. It makes no pretence to lay down detailed plans for a particular Colony. That must be done in the Colony itself. It tries to set out the broad principles and to urge the broad necessities, as both a stimulation and an assistance to the individual Colony to make its own individual plan. Secondly, apart from stimulation and
  1238
  apart from the routine function imposed by the White Paper of checking details and satisfying myself of the financial aspect of particular plans under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act,. my duty seems to be to make certain that there is no one-sided development, and that the idiosyncrasies of people in a particular Colony who are more interested in health, perhaps, than they are in industrial organisation, shall be corrected, and a proper level maintained; and, above all, that energy in one Colony or lethargy in another; shall not produce disparity between the development plans of the two.
  As a result of this machinery, I hope in time to get full planning, covering all aspects of these Colonies for a considerable period ahead. When I get it, I shall have some measure of the expenditure involved. My own belief, which I have never concealed, is that the £5,000,000 a year under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act will be quite inadequate for the needs which these plans will disclose, but when I have got those plans I, or my successor, will be in a position to put before the Government of the day and the House of Commons of the day what the real needs of the Colonies are, and it will be for the House of the day to decide. Needless to say, I believe it is essential that they should meet the needs of the Colonies fully and generously.
  Sir Ernest Graham-Little: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give us some details about the methods of higher education which are proposed?
  Colonel Stanley: No, I really cannot do so to-day. I dealt with higher education at great length in my speech last year, and if the hon. Gentleman has any questions to put to me in the course of the Debate I shall be glad to answer them. It may be that the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Shipley will have something to say in the course of the Debate.
  I do not want to exaggerate the progress that has been made. There is a real shortage of staff—I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley will bear me out in that statement—and pf technical assistance. I know how often I am not able to fulfil the requests of the Colonies for particular individuals with particular knowledge to do a certain aspect of planning work; but still, progress is being

  1239
  made. Certain plans have already been published. I believe that the one relating to Kenya is in the Library. That for Gambia, an extremely interesting document, was published locally, but I am not sure whether it has been published here. We will press on with this. I am doing so and I have the fullest support of all the Colonial Governors. I can assure the House that every Governor I have talked to—I have had an opportunity of personal discussion with 18 Governors in the last year, either in their own Colonies or over here—regards this time as a golden opportunity. Not always being certain of what future Parliaments may bring, they are only too anxious to push on with their planning policies, and to "cash in" on the present good will. I tell them that they need have no fear, that the interest of Parliament is now fully aroused, that the normal changes of election adventure or misadventure will make no difference, and that Parliament is determined to implement the policy which is now started.
  There are two most important subjects which I must leave for another day. We are discussing Colonial affairs under great difficulties to-day and I hope that hon. Members will remember that. If hon. Members feel, as I do, that this subject of the Colonies is worth at least two days' Debate later in the Session, one of the questions which obviously needs full treatment when that time comes is the question of research. The Colonial Development and Welfare Act not only provided for development, but for research. There have been a number of interesting developments, as will be seen in the second Report of the Halley Committee, which will be issued as a White Paper. I am also issuing as a White Paper the *port of the Colonial Products Research Council. It contains some very interesting material. I think we might also discuss before very long what is quite a novel departure. Before the war there was no central office or body for research in the Colonies at all. A great deal was done in, the Colonies themselves, but it was alone with very little co-operation, and the result was overlapping and gaps, and we were not always in a position to make the fullest use of our material I would certainly welcome the opinion of hon. Members on the very elaborate plans which, thanks to Lord Hailey and his colleagues, are now being laid down.
  1240
  The second point which might be discussed when there is time is the whole question of medical policy. Last year we discussed education at considerable length; medical policy is its twin pillar in the new Colonial foundation. There is just one question on the medical side to which I must refer to-day, but I am in this difficulty: I want to refer to a speech which was made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), who is not in his place. I confess I thought he was so interested in Colonial development that it never struck me that he would not be in his place. Therefore, I never gave him any notice; but I think a wise compromise is that I should relate the facts and postpone the comments which otherwise I should have felt myself entitled to make. The hon. Member, speaking in quite another Debate—a Debate, as a matter of fact, on the National Health Service—without any warning to me and for no reason at all that I can see and certainly for no reason that he gave, suddenly told the House:
  "I can tell hon. Members that the Colonial Medical Service is a disgrace."
  Well, of course, we all know the hon. Member for Rochdale. He, I always think, is rather like his famous medical predecessor, Dr. Jekyll. At times he offers quite cogent and constructive suggestions, but there are intervals when his interjections are, to say the least of it, irrelevant and irresponsible. This occasion was a case with the hon. Member, I would say, of the Hyde side out. Words spoken in this Chamber go out to an immensely wide circle. His remarks went out with no explanation or justification, and they caused, as I know, great bitterness of feeling among many people who are themselves affected in this matter. I want to say categorically, and I hope subsequent speakers will feel prepared to support me, that there is no justification whatsoever for a statement of this kind. The Colonial Medical Service has had many difficulties to grapple with and it has often' been short-handed and short of funds, but that is not its fault. It is the fault of the Administration, of the Colonial Office, of the Government possibly and even of Parliament itself, but for the members of the Colonial Medical Service I have nothing but admiration and gratitude for their self-sacrificing efforts on behalf of the Colonial territories.
  Dr. Haden Guests: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman permit me to intervene? I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) is not here. He is a Parliamentary and medical colleague of mine and I think it would have been better if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had quoted the exact words which were used. If the hon. Member had said that the medical services in many of the Colonies were—putting in a different adjective—very inadequate, I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have thoroughly agreed with him. It is perfectly well known that they are Made-. quate. I discussed this matter with the hon. Member, and I think that is really what he meant.
  Colonel Stanley: That may be so, but the hon. Member did not say it. Here are the actual words:
  "The Colonial Medical Service is one of the worst in the world. I represent the Colonial doctors on the British Medical Association in certain parts of the world, and I can tell hon. Members that the Colonial Medical Service is a disgrace."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 16th March, 1944; Vol. 398, c. 5o1.)
  In conclusion, I do emphasise the need, if we are to achieve the objects which the whole of this Committee have in view, of real partnership between ourselves and the Colonies. We shall succeed only if we work together. On the one side, it is true that, however enterprising and enthusiastic may be the people of the Colonies, they cannot succeed without our help, whether that help is financial or technical. Equally, however elaborate the machinery, however comprehensive the plans, or however generous the finance, these plans can only be made to live by the enthusiasm and sense of service among the people of the Colonies themselves. I am firmly convinced that there is, on both sides, enough good will and common purpose, to build a partnership which will endure and prosper.
  Captain Peter Macdonald: I would like to express to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman congratulations on his very comprehensive survey of the problems confronting his Department over a period of time. No one who heard that statement could fail to be impressed by the magnitude of these problems, and I hope therefore that the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, which had already been made by certain of my hon. Friends and myself,
  1242
  that a further day should be devoted to the Colonial Estimates or to a Debate on the Colonies generally, during this Session, will be accepted. It is quite hopeless to attempt to cover so great a field and so wide a range 6f subjects in one day. Therefore, I hope that the Government will allow at least 'one more day for a further discussion.
  I myself was very anxious to hear What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would say about higher education in the Colonies. That has been ruled out. Also I wanted to talk about research. That has been ruled out. In fact I have had to rearrange my speech in order to follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who dealt chiefly with two subjects very closely related—social and economic development. Before going on to that, however, I would like to thank him for the kind reference he made to the Parliamentary Delegation to the West Indies, of which I had the honour of being Chairman. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) will bear me out that the members of that delegation were very much impressed indeed by the warmth of the welcome we received, and are very grateful to every—body for the assistance given to us, particularly by the Colonial Office itself. It was a very strenuous but enjoyable trip, and as I say we were given a tremendous welcome everywhere.
  I would like to support the wish of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that Members should visit the Colonies more often. If they did they would come back with different impressions from those held by a great many in this Committee today. Irresponsible and mischievous statements, such as those made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan)—I have heard him make them time and time again in this House—would not be made if Members visited the Colonies a little, more, and found out what their opinions as expressed in this House are thought of there. Statements of the kind I have referred to will, I hope, cease as soon as Members shave an opportunity of travelling a little more. I would like also to see greater opportunities given to the Colonies themselves to send representatives td visit this country, because this interchange of Parliamentary opinion is invaluable in the development of better 'relations between the Colonies and this country.

  1243
  I was very much touched and impressed, by the confidence and faith that the people in those six Colonies we visited have in this House, and in our ability or willingness to assist them, and look after their interests at all times. I often wonder if that faith is justified when I see the sparseness of attendance in Debates and the little interest that has been taken in Colonial affairs in the past. I was able to assure them, as were my colleagues as well, that neglect of and lack of interest in Colonial matters are things of the past. Certainly there is a greater quickening of interest in the Colonies both in this House and the country than have ever seen in all the time I ohave been here.
  I was very glad to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman deal with a subject which I have been trying to deal with for many years, that is the question of Colonial development, and the machinery required for that purpose. I have, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, both before he came to the Colonial Office and since, advocated the setting up of Colonial development councils or board for the purpose of co-ordinating development in those Colonies and supervising administration of the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in his statement, which I welcome, has gone some way to meet my request and the request of colleagues of mine made over a number of years. We asked for a Colonial council. He has rejected that, but he has gone some way in that direction because what we asked for—what I asked for at any rate—was that I body should be set up in this country under the Colonial Office. We do not want to supersede the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or his sucessors, because the Colonial Secretary is responsible to this House for anything that happens in the Colonies. Neyerthe less, with all this wide field and the innumerable problems of administration with which he has to deal, I do not think the Secretary of State himself can possibly supervise the administration of that Fund or carry out adequately the development required in the Colonial Empire to-day or to-morrow. I think he has gone some way to meet us by setting up the Colonial Civil Advisory Committee. He said that one member of it would be permanent, and not necessarily a civil servant. I
  1244
  suggest there should be tow at any rate, a chairman, who should be permanent, and a secretary, who could be a civil servant, and who would be available at any time. I think myself that the chairman should be permanent.
  Then the question of regionalisation is one for which I have pressed. That is also very important in the African Colonies, The same applies to the West Indies and other parts of the Colonial Empire. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made reference to the Stockdale Commission. I think that that body has done a great job of work and deserves more credit than it has received in many quarters. I found a feeling of suspicion in some of the Colonies we visited that this body was endeavouring to assume the functions of government in some Colonies, and that the Commission were trying to interfere with the governors in some places, and that it was altogether making itself a nuisance. I am quite convinced that that was not the intention of this House or of the Colonial Office in setting up that Commission. I am equally convinced that it is not the intention of the chairman or members of the Commission—Sir Frank Stockdale and his advisers, with whom I had the pleasure of spending a day or more—to exceed in any way their mission and terms of reference, or to interfere with the Governments concerned. They are an advisory body; their duties are to assist the Governments of the Colonies to make plans and do everything possible to see that they are carried out. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement the other day that this Commission is there to assist Governments, and not to supersede them. If we could get rid of that suspicion which has been created in one or two Colonies, I feel sure that the Stockdale Commission would be received with great acclaim. I think they are a magnificent body, but their plans have been frustrated by the war.
  If, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that sort of body is not required in the African Colonies, something of a similar nature must take its place. On that, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he is setting up a Regional Committee. At the present time there is one under Lord Swinton. What is to happen when Lord Swinton is no longer there? I do not think it is the intention that there should always be a resident Cabinet Minister in Africa. If

  1245
  so, I wonder what machinery is to take the place of the resident Minister in coordinating the social and economic development of these African Colonies. Personally, I should like to see them regionalised, and a permanent Under-Secretary, under the Colonial Secretary, appointed to represent him in those territories'. He need not be a permanent resident there, but on the other hand he should have authority to make decisions on the spot. Far too much time has been lost in the past in sending schemes home for approval and having them held up and pigeonholed for months, until there is a change of. Government or policy, when they are pigeonholed for all time.
  That is a complaint one gets everywhere one goes in the Colonial Empire. That is what I want to see abolished. The greatest step in that direction has been taken in war-time—when it is vital that we should have a Minister in West Africa, where all this development is taking place in connection with the war. It would be quite impossible to carry on the war by referring everything to the Colonial Office. I think Lord Swinton has carried out that work magnificently. I do not think it will be the policy of the Government always to have a Minister of Cabinet rank in that territory, and I do not think that Parliament desires it. But I should like to see an additional Under-Secretary of State to represent each of these regions, to be responsible for them, and to be enabled to represent the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and take decisions, and major decisions to, thereby avoiding the delay of referring everything back to the Colonial Office.
  As far as the Colonial Office itself is concerned, I am not satisfied. I still think that the big decisions on policy, the administrative responsibilities and the wide range of subjects with which the Colonial Secretary has to deal, his duties in this House, his duty to visit the Colonies and be away for a period of time, do not allow him sufficient time to devote to this question of Colonial development. If it is to be done at all after this war, it must be done on a very large scale, and it must not be allowed to get into watertight compartments, as in the past, with each territory fighting for its own small amount of what is going in the way of assistance from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, or from the Colonial Office
  1246
  Vote. There must be somebody to coordinate the whole effort.
  I am overwhelmed when I think of the problems that face the Colonial Office today, and the cost of those problems. Take housing alone. After a visit to the West Indies 20 years ago, I told this House that I thought the housing conditions were a disgrace. On my recent visit, I was sorry to find that the conditions had not improved,' and that in some cases they had deteriorated. I was also shocked to find that in the West Indies not an ounce of cement is made, although it is vital that cheap cement should be produced on the spot in as many Colonies as possible. How are you to build houses in the Colonies without cement? Before the war cement was being shipped out from this country to the Colonies, and it cost four times what it would have cost to produce it there. There is room in Jamaica for a cement factory, at quite a reasonable cost, and it could have been functioning during this war. There is the same problem in Malta and elsewhere. There may be some local vested interest holding up such schemes. It is often the case in the Colonies that local vested interests find it more profitable to import cement or some other commodity than to produce it on the spot, and any schemes are sabotaged in consequence.
  Another reason why I object to the Colonial Secretary being wholly responsible for this development policy is that I want to see continuity of policy. I do not want to see what has happened in the last 15 years recurring—a change of Minister every year. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, now that he o has taken a firm grasp of his task, will, see it through. I am sure that, as far as he is concerned, he will do that; but there are bound to be changes of Governments, and changes of Ministers. I want some body —you may call it a committee, but I prefer to call it a council—to demote its whole time to the development of the Colonies, making use of the local Colonial Committees. I am sure that that is the best machinery you could have. It is very important that Colonies should produce their own cement, because, as was pointed out to me by Colonial Governors time after time, if the Colonies are to have proper housing, cement should be produced on the spot.
  I am told, on pretty good authority, that there is no possibility of any cement

  1247
  or any cement-making machinery being exported from this country for many years. In the last war, the Germans, naturally, destroyed every bit of cement making machinery in the territories which they had occupied, and I am sure they will do it this time; so I would urge that schemes for making cheap cement should be put forward in as many Colonies as possible. As I have said, I found that in some of the towns in the West Indies housing conditions had not improved. In the villages they were not much better. On some of the sugar estates I found an awful hangover from the days of indentured labour. The Colonial Office must face the question of who is to be responsible for housing conditions on these estates. Since they had this indentured labour the estates have tried to house their own people. They cannot do it much longer. They are living from hand to mouth, largely on the assistance they get from this House. The whole method is undesirable, because half the people living in these old houses no longer have any connection with the estates on which they are living. I would rather see villages formed outside the estates. The people resent being tied to one estate all their lives. If the estates were taxed, as in this country and in other countries, and the Colonies were made responsible for the housing conditions of the people, the people would have more freedom. This system could be linked up with grants of land, and With the whole question of land tenure. The matter will have to be dealt with as sift as the war is over.
  Another matter that I want to mention is communications, chiefly air communications. I hope that these air bases, on which large sums 1aye been spent during the war, in Afrieg4nd in other parts of the Colonial Empire, are not going to be allowed to run to seed, and that plans are being made to use, after the war, those which are essential for civil aviation. A proper survey of, these bases should be made. Whit is happening in connection with British West Indies Airways? When I was in the West Indies, a couple of months ago, that gallant little, company was struggling hard, with two machines, to carry on an inter-island service. What steps have been taken to provide more machines for that company, and to protect its future? It is
  1248
  essential that that company shall be kept alive, and its activities extended to other islands, but unless steps are taken by the Colonial Office and by the Colonies concerned, I fear that that company will die. There are many other things with which I should have liked to deal, but I hope that there will be another day, soon, when education and research will be dealt with. I am very pleased that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has gone so far in development machinery, although not far enough, but I am still very alarmed about the cost of all these schemes which will have to be met after the war. I still maintain that the question of financing development in the Colonies will have to be considered. I do not think that the Colonial Development and Welfare Act is sufficient, or that even £20,000,000 a year is sufficient, to deal with the problems, social, political, and economic, that will arise after the war. The social problems, education, research, and housing, will have to be financed by the Government. That alone will cost a colossal sum. I was going to give some figures which really staggered me, about the cost on the educational side alone. I do not think that the Act is big enough for any great development scheme. Therefore, I urge that it should be used as a means of paying interest on long term development loans over period of years, which Colonial Governments should be encouraged to take up, to promote greater economic activity than in the past. At the same time, I think the Colonial Office should adopt a different attitude towards private enterprise. I have had complaints all round that anybody representing private enterprise who goes to the Colonial Office, or to any Colonial Government, and tries to put forward a development scheme, is always treated as a bagman.
  Colonel Stanley: I would be glad if the hon. and gallant Member could give me an instance where that has happened recently.
  Captain Macdonald: I am not talking about recently, but about the past. There certainly was that feeling for a great many years that people were not encouraged to develop private enterprise, but were more often discouraged. There may have been some reason for that. Some private enterprises have not had too proud a record in the Colonies in the past. I agree it is the

  1249
  duty of Colonial Governments to protect the interests of their people and see that they are not exploited, and that can be done to-day by different machinery. You have trade unions in the Colonies, and I hope they will be extended; the labour advisers, from what I saw of them, are doing a magnificent job. There are now properly organised bodies to look after the interests of labour and see that they are not exploited. I hope that every encouragement will be given to private enterprise and to people with capital who are anxious to spend it in development after the war, and, who know their job far better than any Colonial Office or Colonial Governments.
  Then there is the question of the state of radio development in our Colonies today, which is deplorable. I have no hesitation in saying that, because I have experienced it. I know it is impossible to do anything now, but I could give figures to prove that the radio is not getting in touch with the people at all. Those who have the money are able to get programmes from South American, German and Spanish sources, but not from home. Then, there is cable and wireless development. What is being done for the development of the Colonies?
  There is also a widespread need for the development of the telephone. All these things must be got on with soon, and I think it is important that we should have a Colonial Development Council or board sitting permanently, which will survey these schemes, co-ordinate them, sift them out, make sure that the schemes will be, carried out and that there is continuity of policy, whether there is change of Government or not. I urge the Minister to give consideration to these points, as well as to the financing of the great market developments that must take place after the war by some other method than that which is at present employed and which I consider to be wholly inadequate.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I think the Committee must thank the Secretary of State for his very interesting survey., Perhaps he struck a somewhat minor key, but the story, on the whole, is a good one. It is my responsibility, of course, to strike a note of criticism, but, before I do so, I think the Committee must be conscious that, as the Secretary of State reminded us, to-day is a day of enormous moment in the history of Europe, if not
  1250
  of the world. I think it is a fitting thing that, however remote some of our Colonies may seem, this Committee, even in the midst of great events, should be giving some consideration to the great responsibilities which we, as a nation, carry overseas. I would also like to pay tribute, as the Secretary of State has already done, to the contribution to the war effort which is being made by the Colonial peoples almost everywhere, and to the magnificent loyalty which has been so consistently shown throughout the strain of the past four or five years.
  I was glad that the Secretary of State directed our attention this year to the fundamental economic and social problems in the Colonial territories. I myself have been particularly intrigued about some of these economic and social problems during the past few months, largely as a result of the experience which I was privileged to have in connection with the Higher Education Commission to West Africa. I would like to thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for the very great privilege he gave me in permitting me to serve on that Commission. The things which seem to be most emphasised in my mind are, first, the abysmal levels of existence on which large numbers of peoples are condemned to live in great areas of the Empire, and, secondly, the vastness, complexity and inter-dependence of the great problems in economic and human development. Also brought home to me was the basic fact that these great difficulties of human and economic development arise very largely from the harsh conditions of nature, the relentless struggle of man to live, against the forces IA nature, and, further, the degree of exploitability that can exist when people are weak and ignorant.
  Britain to-day is in the Colonies and she cannot withdraw; nor do I think it desirable that she should. We are pledged, in these Colonial territories, to the pursuit of a policy of constructive trusteeship, a policy which is to lead, we hope, to partnership inside the British Commonwealth. I think, too, that if we start to desert our task we should be guilty of great breaches of trust with the Colonial peoples, with whom we have entered into a very close relationship. It would be undesirable, I think, that we should give up the job of developing these underdeveloped areas, not merely on grounds

  1251
  of humanism, but also on grounds of enlightened self-interest, and, when I say enlightened self-interest, I mean that, after all, civilisation owes a great deal to the African and to the products which come from that Continent. If we are building up in the future a system of security, a defensive world order, then it is imperative that these areas should no longer be the occasion for rivalry and jealousy between contending Powers. It is im— portant, too, that, if our standards of living and our health are to be secured, then the standards of living of the peoples in these areas should also be built up and that these people should also be made healthy. It is, therefore, important for the peoples of the world that these underdeveloped areas should be integrated into the larger life of the world.
  I think, perhaps, we are apt to be a little too complacent about the kind of job we have done so far. Perhaps we can feel gratified that, in the course of our administration, some excellent jobs of work in development have been done, in the restoration of order, in establishing stability of government and in securing fair administration of justice for the people. At the same time, we can feel proud of the many important and distinguished Colonial administrators which the Colonial Service has produced, and feel proud of the excellent work which some of them have done. Again, in certain areas, we have been in control only a short time. When one remembers, for instance, the condition of tie Protectorate of Sierra Leone or of the Northern Provinces of Nigeria, even within the memory of living men, and the change which has come about as the result of British control, it is a remarkable change indeed. One notices also, amongst the native peoples, that there is a new approach to government and a new conception as to the purpose of government. It is no longer a tyrannical authority for imposing its will on the masses, but is becoming an organisation for building up economic and social life and securing for them reasonable standards and peaceful relations in their everyday life.
  But I must confess that I do feel, at times, some anxiety as to whether we are doing enough with regard to the development of these Colonial areas. I appreciate the points which have been made by the Secretary of State that in the conditions
  1252
  of war, there awe very considerable hampering factors which make progress very slow. But what I really want to know is—What are we really doing in the building of the standards of life, in developing the resources of areas, in retaining, for the use and the development of the peoples, those resources which are available; whether we are inspiring in the African peoples, or the Colonial peoples elsewhere, that desire to co-operate with us for the achievement of certain social, economic and political targets which really mean something to them in terms of health, education, housing, political freedom and the rest. As the Secretary of State has reminded us, it is true enough that the British Government to-day approach Colonial problems in a constructive mood. The Secretary of State has also reminded us of the whole array of advisory committees working on basic problems of policy, submitting reports and advising him as to the broad lines on which Colonial policy in the respective countries should be worked out.
  At the same time, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman again reminded us, a new stage his now been reached in the organisation and regularisation of research, on which a great deal of the prosperity of the Colonies in days to come will depend. He also told us that there are development boards now being set up on the local level, regional level and national level for the purpose of bringing together administrative people, technicians, lay persons and unofficial representatives to discuss the problems of social and economic development in their respective Colonies. All that is to the good and there is a further development likely, not so very far ahead, in which machinery will be established for the closest co-operation of Colonial areas for the working out of economic and social development. Separate Colonies are finding themselves unable to do things for themselves because they have not the resources, but they are finding that by co-operation and by coming together financial and other difficulties can be solved and advice obtained for the schemes which they could not carry through of themselves.
  The report of the Colonial Development Funds which was issued last week also showed that a great deal of money has been wisely and usefully spent. I would like to put this point to the Secretary of State. When we passed that Act in

  1253
  1940, it was understood that there must be long-term planning in social and economic development. The Bill limited the period of improvement to 10 years. Owing to the interruption of the war, many of the schemes and plans which were contemplated have not been worked out and submitted to the Colonial Office even yet, and the number of years for the operation of that Measure are coming to an end. That means that, if there are very large-scale services which need to be worked out for a long period of years, building schemes for schools, for instance, there are only four, five or six years at the most to go, in which any planning can be done. I understand, in the case of some Colonial Governments, that fact is somewhat of a hindrance. They cannot look beyond 195o in regard to their planning. I hope, therefore, that at an early date the Secretary of State will give some attention to that point.
  In many of our Colonial areas, remarkable work is being done. Some of it has been initiated and carried through with very little official encouragement. I know of cases in which development work has been financed and started entirely by the local officials on the spot without any encouragement at all from the central Government of the territory concerned. That ought not to be. It ought to be possible for technical people sometimes to take risks; not to have to put their money into the funding of small schemes of development but to have the official endorsement of the Government in schemes which are of a worth-while character.
  I saw, during my visit to West Africa, a number of very extraordinary and excellent experiments. I saw at Pong Tanale remarkable work being done regarding the immunisation of cattle, the clearance of the tsetse fly; at Tafo research in cocoa diseases, and at Vom the founding of new industries, piggeries, dairies, cheese making, butter making and so on. Much of this has been done since the war and largely on the initiative of the local officers. In Nigeria at Anchou there is also a remarkable experiment in regard to re-settlement, rehousing, new food crops, the treatment of cattle, the planning of better sanitation and health arrangements, that is extremely gratifying.
  I am aware that there are colossal difficulties in the way of any comprehensive
  1254
  achievement at the present moment, and I do not wish to minimise the difficulties. Colonial physical conditions are difficult enough. The weakness, the ignorance and the health of-the masses of the people are a great besetting difficulty in trying to solve many of the problems in economic development. At the moment there are great limitations of personnel. We are paying for our neglect in the past in not having trained Africans as technicians. I saw in one province a director of a public works who said, "If you gave me £5,000,000 to morrow, I know the work which needs to be done, but I have not the men, the technical staff or the technical assistants nor am I likely to get the people necessary for the carrying through of public works which are so urgently required." That situation can be repeated in almost every Colonial area. There must be a period in which we must go all out for the training of technicians, technical assistance, and professional people who are urgently required for urgent development work, whether economic or in the social services.
  I have another doubt, and that concerns the machinery and structure of the Colonial Service and the Government itself in overseas territories. I am puzzled to know whether we can get away from the migrant kind of official, who is continuously on the move from one Colony to another. Can we do something, in the case of Governors, to meet the legitimate claim that our best Governors should go to those territories where the greatest difficulties exist and that those who are tackling important and difficult problems should not be moved on in order to gain promotion and a larger salary in some other area? There is the weakness of the secretariat in certain Colonies. It struck me that while the Colonial Secretary and his assistants are engaged in heavy and very hard work, it often happens there are merely administrative and political officers in his office instead of having, in addition, people with technical knowledge, with experience of life in the field, people who have had experience of the bush and who could bring a practical mind, in terms of technical knowledge and experience, to bear On the various problems that are dealt with in the secretariat. If we place so much emphasis in out administration on the academic type of mind, on the person who is confined for the greater part of his life to

  1255
  the office, we are losing something in administration which is of great importance. We want officials who can get into touch with the people; officials who do not lose touch but who move about among the people and appreciate and know their problems.
  I rather fear that the present structure of the Service does not lend itself sufficiently to that interchange of experience and of staff, as between the technical and administrative sides. Are we satisfied, as the Colonies emerge from their rather backward condition, now that the people are demanding social services, economic development and participation in the political institutions of their own country, that the existing bottle—neck for dealing with all the problems, whether of reconstruction, health, education or whatever it may be, ought not to be widened? Why must everything on which a decision has to be taken in the life and development of a Colony pass through two persons, the Colonial Secretary and the Governor? These men are hopelessly overworked. They work from early morning till late at night handling innumerable problems. Everything is made to pass through that bottle-neck. I ask that some attention should be given to the problem of how to widen it, in order that there should be wider participation in the Colony in the making of policy.
  The problems we are up against are enormous. There is the problem of Nature herself. The harsh conditions imposed by Nature are almost incredibly difficult, if men are trying to build up anything like decent or reasonable conditions of living. The climate is immensely trying. There is the deterioration of health that goes on, and the way climate tends to harbour diseases. Likewise there is the absence of water. One comes across areas where villages are totally without water; it is a whole day's march for a woman to get a pitcher of water and a whole day's march back. Likewise there is the structure of roads. Nature again is always trying to undo the work of man. The rain washes away roads. There are erosion difficulties. These problems are immense. It seems that to live at all in these Colonial areas, there is a conspiracy on the part of Nature to defeat man altogether. In addition, there is the presence of insects and pests of every kind which makes the living of both man and beast difficult.
  1256
  Our great problem in our Colonies then is how to control environment for the decent living of man; how to bring these natural forces under control in order to make life proper. That will involve, as we have been reminded already, if we are to create the framework of economic activity and useful living, the expenditure of an enormous amount of capital, and that capital will probably have to come from this country. The Secretary of State, has reminded us how interlocked all these problems are. If you want to create health, that depends upon education, the supply of water and sanitation. Nutrition again, depends upon food; food depends upon good agriculture and good water. These, again, depend upon education. All these problems, whether material reconstruction or the building up of social standards, are interlocked and you cannot go far with your material reconstruction without more health and education, technical instruction and agricultural education.
  We have, therefore, to create the physical basis of work and living and make substantial grants to the social services in order that the pump shall be primed. It may be that we must ask the peoples to contribute as much as they can. It may be that out of their economic resources they will contribute to health, to preventive medicine, to education, more than they are contributing at present, but the extent to which social services can be built up depends very largely on the ability of the British Government to contribute to Colonial Government funds. I think, however, that the general situation is depressed by a number of important factors. The first is, in regard to economic improvement, that the price levels of primary products Are far too low. We are not giving the primary producers a square deal. It is quite true that in recent years there have been some improvements in regard to certain crops, but it is obvious that so long as we are able to get our products cheap, so long as we, are able to supply ourselves with the things necessary for our own economic living and wellbeing, and do not pay a sufficient price to the people engaged in the production of those products, then we are confirming the really low standard of living and the miserable conditions in our Colonial areas.
  The second is that in regard to taxation we still use it as a lever for industry at the expense, very often, of sound agricul-

  1257
  tural development. Peoples of many areas are taxed well beyond their capacity to pay. It is a factor, which is compelling many of them to leave their villages, where new social problems are created of a difficult kind—the effects are altogether bad. But over and above direct taxation there is also indirect taxation as a result of the fiscal dues—the import and export duties imposed on the goods which these people must consume if they are to live at all. Thirdly, there are the scandalously low wages paid over practically all colonial areas. The low wage standards have become a positive scandal. It is a point which is made by our Labour Officers and by all those who have to attempt to regulate labour conditions. We excuse it by arguing that if wages go up there is a danger of inflation, that the people do not want to buy, and all that sort of thing. We are told that if we put the wages up on public works, it will have an unhappy effect on the wages in agriculture. But all the time, while we tolerate these scandalously low wages, we also tolerate a degree of inefficiency and waste fulness in production and industry which to my mind is perfectly indefensible. Again, where wage labour is employed, there is far too little attention given to welfare arrangements, in regard to the proper feeding of the people who are brought into industry from the villages, in regard to their housing and in regard to their health.
  I, too, would like to pay a tribute to the work which is being done by the Labour Departments which have been set up in the Colonies, and to the experienced trade union officials who have gone out and are giving their aid; also to the work being done by some of the officials of the Ministry of Labour who have helped to build up these Departments. I think it very important that the Colonial Office should give attention to the creation of wage boards for the various industries and services that are emerging' in the Colonies. I think it is insufficient for Labour Advisory Boards to function. They are important and necessary but, in addition, there must be the separate consideration of the wage standards and conditions of employment in the separate industries themselves.
  If I may refer to a few other factors which generally depress the economic scene in the Colonial areas, I would include, first, the fact that many of our
  1258
  Colonies are happy hunting-grounds for certain big interests. I cannot tell the Committee the effect which that factor is having on large numbers of Africans on on the West coast—the fact that they feel that, whatever they attempt to do, the strength and influence of big business are such that they can never carry through any enterprises which they themselves might start. They say that those factors are there in their villages, in their stores, in their small industries, and a kind of fatalism is creeping over the Africans who would otherwise engage in economic enterprise. Again, what depresses the scene is the way in which we permit such a considerable amount of the profit of Colonial enterprise to pass out of the respective countries instead of being used in the countries for the building up of the social, political, and economic life. That factor is present in the minds of all intelligent Africans one meets. Why is it, the African asks, that we are paying £300,000 to £400,000 a year in royalties in Nigeria to a company which is not directly or indirectly interested in the operation of the mines? Why is it that wealth is permitted to pass out of the country and not flow back?
  Likewise, in regard to the profits which are made on many of the operations of the big commercial concerns—why is it that, with the price of primary products so low and wage `standards so poor, we permit so much of the wealth of these economic enterprises to pass away from the Colony altogether? It should be understood that a certain percentage of the taxation on companies registered in this country is returned to the Colony, but why should it happen that, on an average, 50 per cent. of the taxation on the profits of Colonial enterprise registered in London at the present time are retained in the British Exchequer, and are not returned to the Colonies to help in their social and economic development? I want to emphasise that point very much.
  One also wonders whether a more searching examination cannot be made of the financial set-up of the respective Colonies. Why is it that in various areas the Colonial Governments rely so much on their import and export duties, imposing indirect taxes of a very heavy kind on the cost of living and on the household requirements of the Colonial people?

  1259
  Again, a very big Percentage of the revenue of those Colonies comes overseas, charges which I feel sure should be borne by the British Government in respect of loans, in respect of some of the principal salaried staff, in respect of allowances paid to Colonial officials. Many of these heavy charges which now hamper the work and development of Colonies ought to fall on the British Government rather than on the Colonial Government.
  Finally, on another economic point, the Colonial Secretary some 18 months ago appointed a committee concerned with Colonial economic problems. I would like to know what reports that committee has prepared. Has it as yet tackled the basic problem of improving the standard of living of the people? I know that in the' Colonial Office there is a very amiable desire that things should be done, but what are we actually trying to do? What definite steps are we taking to build up the standard of living in the Colonial areas?
  In regard to economic policy, I want to ask the Colonial Office to give attention to one or two points. The first is that it is imperative to my mind that there should be at the earliest moment a geological survey of the whole of the Colonial territories. It is an extraordinary thing that that work has not been completely done. If there is to be industrial development, if there is to be the utilisation of what resources exist in the Colonies, then that survey ought to be hurried on. We cannot go forward with some of the big agricultural schemes without a knowledge of the soils, of minerals and other things. My friend Sir Geoffrey Evans made a survey in Sierra Leone in regard to certain lands which need to be drained in order that the pressure of population in the more unfertile lands should be met. Yet there were no technicians who could be called on immediately to offer advice in regard to the soil qualities in these and other places where that drainage was contemplated. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) who spoke before me referred to the fact that many Colonies could, if they had the machinery, manufacture cement. If these problems had been dealt with more thoroughly in days gone by, that kind of difficulty in the Colonies during the war would never have
  1260
  arisen that held up much development. Likewise, geological information is required in regard to the very considerable amount of soil erosion going on now. I saw in places in the Eastern provinces of Nigeria, near Onitsha and elsewhere, chasms 300 feet deep due entirely to soil erosion, and the people being driven off the land because these problems were not being dealt with.
  Then, again, the Colonial Office has not yet dealt with the problem of mining concessions. Every Colony has its own way of granting concessions, and there are some disgraceful episodes in regard to the making of contracts and the levy made on the Colony for the profit of the outside world. At the present moment in Ilorin in Nigeria, gold has been discovered, and the old scramble has begun with scarcely any attention given to the important needs of the agricultural people who are concerned with the land on which this gold has been found. I believe that latterly the problem has been receiving some small attention, but the time has come when there ought to be some policy in regard to the granting of concessions for mining, and as to the manner in which mining operations should be carried on. Had there been time I would have liked to tell the story of the way in which tin is exploited at Jos on the Bauchi plateau. The most disgraceful labour conditions exist where women and children are employed, where women almost stark naked carry heavy loads uphill on their heads for hundreds of feet all day long. These things are a positive scandal inside our Colonial Empire.
  I would have liked to have said something about agricultural improvement, which is fundamental. The great bulk of the Colonial people are engaged in agriculture, which must be organised. The old individualism, on which we accepted the practice of agriculture in the past and by which we have tolerated certain methods of production, must give way to greater proficiency and productivity from the land. This is of obvious importance, particularly now when the people are ready for practical co-operation. As a result of past propaganda the people are ripe for co-operative enterprise in regard to production, credit and even small industries. If, in Nigeria, we are to face up to the problem in the palm industry and maintain our markets we shall

  1261
  have to adopt methods other than those which we have pursued in bygone days. I would also, have liked to have said something about the Cameroons, where there has been great neglect in the past and where the officials hardly know what to do next because we have not made up our minds about the future of that territory. That territory is very rich; the plantations which were formerly in German ownership offer a great opportunity for collectivist experiments and co-operative activity. Instead of passing these plantations over to big interests the technicians and those associated with them should be given the opportunity of showing what could be done in the way of co-operative practice. In areas about Voma in Nigeria and in the Gold Coast many officials are anxious to bring about big scale collectivist operations in agriculture.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the importance of small industries. As one moves about the territories of West Africa one is aware of this neglect and the high prices which are imposed on people there because small industries do not operate. It may be said that the Colonies are poor: they are poor because we have not organised the natural resources for the building up of their economic activities. Huge resources are there and with a more forward agricultural policy, and with the utilisation of materials that are available, and the development of some of the products to, be found there—tin, leather and the like—a great many goods required could be made and necessary personal and household needs met on the spot.
  I want also to add that we must not, in the economic advancement of the Colonies, develop exclusively economic interests in these areas. We are trustees of these areas. They are not our possessions. We must preserve, in relation to them, the principles of the Mandates and the Congo Declarations. These people have their own rights of trade and they must be safeguarded, and not treated exclusively for our benefit in an Empire bloc. Their economic life needs to be integrated into the larger economic arrangements of the world.
  There is a tremendous task awaiting this country after the war to bring contentment and reasonable conditions of living to the 60,000,000 people who are our
  1262
  responsibility. The Secretary of State reminded us' that many of these people have had tremendous experiences, arising out of the war. Tens of thousands of men have known what good food, housing and health are for the first time; they have been taught English and many thousands have been taught a trade and how to be of practical service in their community. So, here is a great opportunity.
  I hope the Development Boards will push forward with their schemes. I hope we shall be able to utilise much of the material which is available in this war in the Colonies—material which will be surplus when the war is over. I hope we shall be able to marry to Colonial resources and to these economic resources the new trained labour which is becoming available. One found, as one moved among Africans, a desire for active participation in the plans and progress of their own country and I do not think we, as a House of Commons, dare ignore that desire. The march of events is with us in the sense that these people are clamouring, with a vigour that cannot be denied for a very genuine participation not only in the life of their own country but in the life of the world. They want to be partners, not merely trustees. They want a share in the making of their countries and it is our privilege to hold out our hands to them and to give them all the help we can in order that their aspirations and hopes shall be achieved.
  Squadron-Leader Donner: Few will have listened to the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State, who unfolded the story of the massive contribution of the Colonial Empire in this war, without emotion. We must,' indeed, be thankful to Almighty God that in the days when this country stood in mortal peril the whole of the Colonial Empire never hesitated or wavered but has continued its immense, and impressive exertions throughout. What my right hon. and gallant Friend had to say with regard to the war effort of the Colonies assumes a special significance to-day of all days, and I would like to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) said in that connection.
  There is one assurance which I should like my right hon. and gallant Friend to give to the Committee to-day in order to allay some grave misgivings which are

  1263
  finding continual and growing expression among some of those who care deeply, and certainly know a great deal about, the Colonial Empire. Concern is felt about nothing less than this, namely, lest our whole magnificent experiment in indirect rule should be jeopardised by any failure to go forward with it. This affects a large part of the British Empire, not only many islands in the Pacific, the Shan States, Transjordan, the Protectorates in the Hinterland behind Aden and that much-forgotten island, Sokotra. But it, affects, too, for example, the Emirs of Northern Nigeria, who should be able to look forward to something larger than what we, in this country, call local government. Some of us who have entertained high hopes that these rulers—these Emirs and Kabakas and paramount chiefs—might go forward to some federal participation in the central government; and fear is felt lest the laudable satisfaction of the legitimate ambitions of the Europeanised, but deracinated, African should be allowed to dominate the central stage in each Colony.
  I cannot understand how anyone can seriously contend that an ultimately self-governing Nigeria might be allowed to exercise that control over the Northern Emirs which we now exercise through indirect rule. That way, if it means the subjection of Emirates, steeped in all the beliefs, traditions and ways of Islam, to the control of a Europeanised intelligentsia, that way, I believe, lie grave trouble, retardation and reaction. It means the cutting off of the Emirs from their present happy sense of direct relationship with the Crown of England and their subjection to people towards whom, rightly or wrongly, they entertain nothing but measureless contempt. I believe that in the long run that way means grave discontent and unrest in Nigeria, and possibly even revolt and civil war in Nigeria. What is true, or probably true there, is probably true also of many other places. I earnestly beg the Government, therefore, to give the Committee the assurance that the principle of indirect rule shall not be betrayed by any shortsighted restiction of it to local government, but may be allowed to go forward to its proper consummation, when these rulers and their peoples, retaining all the indigenous rights and customs which are precious to
  1264
  them, may go forward as free, independent units in federal groups m our free commonwealth.
  Mr. Riley: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make a little clearer what he is trying to convey to the Committee? Is he pronouncing the view that it ought not to be the policy of this Imperial Parliament to encourage its African subjects to look forward to ultimate, responsibility for self-government?
  Squadron-Leader Dormer: On the contrary: The hon. Member has quite misunderstood what I said; if he reads HANSARD to-morrow he will see clearly what I have said. That great authority on Colonial affairs, Lord Hailey, recently wrote:
  "We, on our part, have become increasingly conscious that we cannot hope to build up political institutions on a foundation of poor resources, of insufficient health or of undeveloped minds."
  Many will agree with Lord Hailey that economic development is an essential preliminary to an increasing association with the responsibilities of government. The war fortunately has stimulated the processing of export produce in many Colonies. If, in addition, the manufacture of articles for local consumption, composed entirely or chiefly of local materials, can be fostered, than all this productive capacity should enable local banks in many Colonies to extend credits based on the savings of the people. In that way a long step forward will have been taken towards raising the standard of living of the Colonial inhabitants. It is true that the Colonial Development and Welfare Act of 1940 modified the old principle that a Colony should enjoy only those services which it could afford to maintain out of its own resources, a principle which, more than any other single factor, has hampered development in the Colonies.
  The Government have now accepted the new principle that it is the duty of the British taxpayer to provide money, over a substantial period of years, for Colonial development beyond that which a Colony can initiate out of its own resources. While the new principle is clearly an improvement on the old one and constitutes an important advance on earlier conceptions, nevertheless the restrictive effects of mere Government action have not been in my submission sufficiently realised. This new principle, like the now discarded

  1265
  doctrine that every Colony must pay its way, it itself limited to sum x, in other words to the total amount which the British Government and taxpayer are able and willing to pay for welfare, health, communications and other services overseas.
  Thus a limit is fixed to the pace and extent of Colonial development in so far as that development depends on this country, whereas surely Colonial development should proceed along the lines and at the pace which best fit the circumstances, needs and aspirations of the Colonial inhabitants. This is not possible of realisation so long as Government and Parliament are content only to think in terms of State assistance and State enterprise because the urgent needs of the Colonies are greater than the British Government and taxpayer are, or can be, expected to meet. It seems certain therefore that the main problem lies in the creation by Government of such conditions in the Colonies as will attract long-term capital. I need not labour this, but in connection with mandated territories and other areas affected by open door treaties, I would especially remind the Committee of the need of most of our dependencies the world over of long-term capital for the purpose of building up primary and secondary industries; and the real need that Colonies shall not be neglected or allowed to, become the prey of short-term, exploiting capital, interested only in particular crops or ephemeral market opportunities and not anxious to assume more permanent obligations whether of a legal or of a moral kind towards the Colonial inhabitants.
  It would be most helpful if the Government could make certain unequivocal declarations as to their future intentions—if, for instance, the Government would declare that any new private enterprise or-initiative in the Colonies shall not be impeded by the imposition of Excise Duties during the initial period, say, for five years. Secondly, that State interference with new industries will be limited to the control of hours, wages, and conditions of work, that the Government will not prejudice their industrial impartiality by becoming sleeping partners in industry; thirdly, that wherever secondary industries are necessary to meet local needs credit facilities will be sympathetically and carefully considered; and, lastly, that the Government will give
  1266
  protection against dumping from abroad and unfair competition from articles produced by sweated labour, notably Japanese. I plead for conditions of assured stability and for considerable freedom from unpredictable taxation. The Committee will agree that it is important to get away from the one-crop idea and to stimulate secondary industries and processing. In that connection surely Dominion advice should be sought, for it is the Dominions which by the ingenious use of tariffs have most successfully diversified industry.
  To abbreviate extremely an economic argument which should perhaps be stated fully in all its stages, it may be said that any tariff or Imperial preference has certain effects: it restricts by keeping out dumped goods and removing many uncertainties. Secondly, it attracts capital by offering long-term inducements to it to enter the territory; and, thirdly, it trans forms the new and existing capital from a short-term basis to a long-term basis, which by its nature is kinder to labour, giving labour a more permanent deal. If I might give an illustration which brings out the outstandingly different effects created by the operations of short-term capital on the one hand, and long-term capital on the other, it would be this: I was once given a vivid description of a Scottish manager on an estate in Ceylon who was entirely concerned with what would influence his board of directors in declaring their next dividend because the capital of that company was short-term capital, and short-sighted because it was unprotected by a tariff., That manager honestly dispensed to his Tamil labourers such medical and other benefits as were enjoined by law, but he provided nothing to build up on a long-term basis the health, housing and happiness of his labourers because the company had no idea what price their product would obtain five years or even two years hence.
  I carry in my mind another picture, which I saw with my own eyes, of settlers in another Colony carrying on in difficult times steadily building up the health of their labourers even though any benefit which might accrue to themselves might be years off because those settlers had sunk their little all in that country, had identified themselves with the country and had in effect become long-term capitalists with long-term views, an attitude in which they were actively helped

  1267
  and supported by an Imperial preference. I do not, therefore, hesitate to ask Government to use tariffs prudently and to grant wherever necessary Imperial preference, bearing in mind not only the good effects which such a policy would have on the Colonies and on this country but bearing in mind also the radiating stimulus on international trade of areas of stability created by the long-term capital encouraged by preference systems. The first stage then to which we can look forward in the Colonial Empire is economic development, and the second, and later, stage is political advancement. Modern conditions may well require the closer integration of territories adjacent to one another. Modern conditions indeed may well require the merging in many ways of smaller units into greater units, both politically and economically, including the needs of research and in order also to avoid over-lapping.
  It is not my purpose to-day to discuss the great formative principle of regionalisation but I would welcome my right hon. Friend's constructive suggestions in this connection which he made last July. We mnst be very clear in our policy as to the limits of the competence of any regional councils or commissions or conferences which may be set up in any regions which include British Colonies. There are really two kinds of conferences involved—conferences of British Colonies, in any given area, such as the West Indies or West Africa or South East Asia, and conferences in the same areas including the dependencies and such other countries as may exist in the area such as, for instance, the French dependencies in the Caribbean and in West Africa. I believe it is essential that there should always be primary consultation between British Colonies in the area before any subject is discussed at the larger regional conference. I do not think it would be right, or even possible, to attempt an allocation of subjects between them, allotting, for instance, tariffs, seaborne trade, refugees and questions of nationality to the regional Imperial conference and leaving such questions as commercial flying routes, cables and wireless to the larger regional conference. That would involve an utterly impossible division of, for example, transport. The problems Of commercial flying cannot any longer be
  1268
  divorced from the problem of seaborne traffic.
  There is, I believe, a very real danger lest subjects in which particular Colonies are vitally interested, and on which there may be a division of opinion not only within each Colony, but between Colonies, or between a Colony and a Dominion, or the Home Country, and a Colony, should be brought prematurely before a regional conference in a way which may very well happen unfortunately in time of war, and there be decided out of hand without sufficient prior inter-Imperial consultation. I suggest, therefore, that the Empire should not be represented on any permanent regional conference in any part of the world without first setting up a regional Imperial conference and arranging for automatic meetings of this before the sessions of the larger body. I attach much more than merely commercial importance to this. I believe this to be essential to the sound development of any true self-government in British dependencies anywhere. I believe this to be essential to Empire unity; more, I believe this essential to the self-respect and dignity of every Colony which falls within the sphere of such regional conferences.
  The point at issue may be easily overlooked owing to the non-executive and advisory character of these conferences. It is perfectly true that, technically, they will be non-executive and advisory in character, and it is true also that the representatives of individual Colonies, and particularly the technical representatives, can only act in an advisory way. But in one form or another, the sovereign powers of the metropolitan countries will be present at all such conferences, and those sovereign metropolitan powers are subject to, or approached by, influences of all kinds on behalf of particular interests which do not always by any means see eye to eye with local interests or with the wishes of the Colonies concerned. If the suggestion is adopted that regional Imperial conferences must at all times sit before the sessions of the larger body, this danger is met, in so far as it can be met, by giving the Colonial peoples an opportunity of consultation and of stating their case.
  May I say one word about self-respect? Reference has not infrequently been made in this House to the touchiness of Indian politicians. That is a quality which is by no means confined to them. It has

  1269
  been noted in, for instance, British Guiana, Fiji, and Sierra Leone. I suggest that one of the supreme needs of almost all the peoples of our dependent Empire is the need of self-respect—the need of pride in the position of their Colony and of themselves in the Empire and in. the world; and, above all, the need of a feeling of real fellowship among the Colonies, and between the Colonies, and between the Colonies, India, the Home Country and the Dominions, which will, I hope, in the future participate in the development of the Colonial Empire to an, extent hitherto unknown.
  In conclusion, I should like to put forward two further constructive suggestions. Self-government is not enough. Self-government must be based upon self-respect, and self-respect must be founded on fellowship. I believe that Imperial fellowship, the foundation of it all, should be incorporated in any general statement devised to tell the world of our aims for the Colonial Empire. I-believe that we should foster pride in Empire citizenship, and that the Colonies should be encouraged for this, as for other ends, to take more responsibility for and share in their defence. I should like to see Home Guards in every Colony, with annual ceremonies here in the heart of the Empire where representatives of these forces might take part.
  There has been too much thinking of self-government in purely economic and material terms. After all, men do not live by bread alone, nor do groups or corporations of men collected into colonies or empires. The, moral welfare and progress of the backward lands is of no less consequence than their material welfare, and in that moral progress there is no need requiring more insistently to be met than the need of self-respect which can come, as I see it, best, if not alone, by an enhanced realisation of common membership, and above all of common fellowship in what is, after all, the most enlightened, and the greatest, Empire the world has ever known.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman began his speech to-day by lamenting the fact that it is almost a year since the last Debate on Colonial affairs and that, even despite that long period of silence, only one day was now allotted for the purpose. In that complaint I feel sure he has the
  1270
  warm sympathy of all parts of the Committee—certainly of all those Members who have at any time visited the Colonies or had any connection with them. Those of us who have had the privilege recently to visit parts of the Empire know very well with what immense respect, one would almost say reverence, those members of our Colonial Empire look towards us. They regard the actions of Members of this House of Commons as of the very highest importance to them, and they are very often surprised by the fact that we so seldom, apparently, pause to consider the fortunes of those enormous territories for which this House is directly responsible. I think we might take a tip from the Scottish Members of this House. Throughout the years we have agitated for more time for the consideration of our business. We have not always got what we, wanted, but we have a little more than we had when I first came to this House. I think one day is ridiculously short for the Colonies. A week would not be too long. Die more we, as a Committee, represent to the Government that these vast territories and these millions of people for whom we are responsible demand the more frequent attention of this House, the more truly shall we be performing our duty.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman then proceeded to comment on the value of visits to the Colonies. As a very humble member of the delegation which went to the West Indies, may I say that my experience there was that we were welcomed in a most amazing fashion, not because of ourselves, but because we were representatives of this ancient, honourable, and historic Assembly. What I gained from that visit I can scarcely say; what Parliament gained by the fact that four of its Members went there is something very considerable. What the Colonies gained was also, I hope, worth while. After the war it ought to become an annual event for many Members of Parliament to exchange visits—both from this country to the Colonies and from the Colonies to this country. There ought to be proper machinery created by which these visits are made: if that were so, we should have less of those reckless, and often mischievous Questions asked here which wound the Colonies and disgrace the good name and good sense of this House.

  1271
  My right hon. and gallant-Friend spent the greater part of his-time describing some very interesting proposals which he has for the administration of the future development of the Colonies. I am bound to say at once that I warmly support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) in expressing regret that the Secretary of State is not able to accept the proposal to form a Colonial Development Council. I am sure that the Committees which my right hon. and gallant Friend described are all adequate, and one knows he has upon them some of the most distinguished citizens of this country, and, indeed, of the Empire; but surety these Committees are, by their very formation, individual committees, separate committees. What I and others in this Committee feel is that a larger body, containing all those various specialist committees, should be created to form a solid, lasting body of opinion which would continue throughout the years, no matter whether my fight hon. and gallant Friend is Secretary of State or somebody else is. It is that larger, more lasting organisation, for which we ask. We do not expect that it shall be executive. We ask only that it shall be advisory as are the present committees, but I should like to see these advisory committees brought into a more solid organisation which would be permanent and would follow a sustained policy.
  Mr. Riley: May I ask my hon. Friend if he is now referring to what is known as a "Standing Parliamentary Committee"?
  Mr. Stewart: No. I was referring to the Advisory Council: I was not expressing my view on the proposed Parliamentary Committee. Upon that I see great constitutional difficulties. I have not persuaded myself that this is possible in the way the House works here.
  My right hon. and gallant Friend then told us of the very big plans he was preparing for the post-war period, and I gained the impression that he has very considerable and most laudable ambitions. No doubt he has before him the information which we could have offered with regard to the West Indies and which others could have offered with regard to other parts of the Empire on the growing need for social and economic reforms—health, housing, education, agriculture and so on. He has very great ambitions
  1272
  to cope with those matters, but I rather gathered fro in his remarks that his method of achieving those desirable objects was, largely, the pouring of British money into the coffers of those Colonial Administrations. He said that £5,000,000 was no use. Even £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 might not be enough. I quite agree with that. What we saw in the West Indies makes £5,000,000 per annum seem paltry for that territory alone. I agree that vastly increased sums are wanted, and I was immensely glad to see the spirit which animates my right hon. and gallant Friend. Clearly he is a man of great energy and determination who means to make a great success of this Empire of ours. But he slightly disappointed me, if I may say so, in that he did not say upon what principles that constant and increasing flow of grants is to be made. It is most important that this House should know what those principles are. It is also vitally important for the Colonies to know.
  Let me explain what is in my mind. Every Colony we visited in the West Indies is naturally striving for self-government. Jamaica is now to have universal franchise, which is a considerable step forward, and no doubt there will sooner or later be a demand in that island for a greater measure of self-government—a perfectly laudible demand in due time. My right hon. and gallant Friend has rightly said that the aim of British policy is gradually, and as quickly as possible, to let the native peoples run themselves. But they cannot become self-governing Colonies, or Dominions, or whatever we like to call them, if they are constantly to be dependent upon funds flowing from this country for the maintenance of their essential services. The two things are utterly inconsistent. That is why I would like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain the principles on which these grants are intended to be made. If they are intended for large capital works designed to make the Colonies ultimately self-supporting economically—or very nearly so—I would say, "Well done," for that is what they, need. If, however, any large proportion of these grants is merely intended to meet recurrent annual expenses of the Colonies, then, indeed, we are tying a stone round the necks of the Colonies which they can never cast off; and unless they cast it off they can never be independent.

  1273
  What, therefore, is the principle on which my right hon. and gallant Friend is proceeding? What are the categories of capital works needed in the Colonies? Take British Guiana as an example. That country has a coastal strip of ten miles where the majority of the people live, and the land is mostly lower than sea level. Life can only be maintained, therefore, by the erection and maintenance of a great sea defence wall. At the same time, the country is periodically flooded by its great rivers so that a drainage problem also arises. These are fundamental and lasting commitments. They are undertakings for which the Mother Country could properly pay, because they are things that lie at the basis of the country's life. Similarly, there is a crying need for the opening up of the interior. There are no roads or railways in the interior. There are not even effective tracks and the rivers go only in a certain direction. The result is that when pioneers have attempted to build up a cattle industry in the savanna country hundreds of miles inland, the cattle die in their hundreds when proceeding to the coastal markets. Roads and communications are essential capital developments which the Mother Country could properly undertake. If that is the principle on which my right hon. and gallant Friend is working then I agree with him.
  It is not, however, all so easy as that. Take, for example, the problem of education. Everybody will agree that a greatly increased system of education is desirable in all the Colonies. One must ask my right hon. and gallant Friend, as he must ask himself, what kind of education is it proposed to support and encourage and, therefore, to pay for? Is it to be an education exactly like we have in this country, with the same kind of teachers, the same qualifications, the same sort of buildings, or is it to be an education suited to the needs of each Colony? If it is the first my right hon. and gallant Friend will plumb the very depths of the funds of this country and he will never gain success. He may pour millions into the Colonies, but he will never get contentment. If he decides, that the system of education needed is quite different from the education we have in this country, that it must be related 'to the economic, social and geographical conditions in which the people live, my right hon. and gallant Friend will find that his expenditure is
  1274
  considerably less, with quicker and more effective results.
  Coloned Stanley: My hon. Friend will no doubt have in mind the full statement I made a year ago when we were discussing this point on the Stockdale Report?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not forget that, but my right hon. and gallant Friend has given us to-day the privilege of peeping behind the curtains at his plans for the future, and I am merely asking him to tell us on what principle he is working. I say in regard to education, which. I give merely as an example, that it is important, if we are to finance it, that we should be clear that it is the kind of education suited to the Colony concerned and not education carted out holus bolus from here. The problem is not even solved by saying that. If you insist upon much bigger and more fully equipped schools, the capital expenditure of which might conceivably be borne by the British Exchequer, the recurrent cost to the local Government concerned will be proportionally larger. The local Government may not be able to carry the annual cost involved in these massive schemes. Are we, then, to bear the burden of the annual cost? If we do we shall delay indefinitely the granting of self-government to the various Colonies. Therefore, I think I am entitled to invite my right hon. and gallant Friend to make as full a statement as possible on the principles on which he intends the grants shall be made.
  Finally, may I say a word in confirmation of the introductory passage of my right hon. and gallant Friend's speech, in which he told us of the staggering demonstrations of loyalty of members of the Colonial Empire in different theatres of war. We found in the West Indies one major regret everyhere. It was that more of the men had not been able to give their services in the actual field of battle. Nothing depressed them more than the fact that their regiment had not been sent to the- fighting front. In every Colony we visited we came across young men whose hearts were nearly broken because they were confined to some duty in the island. It was some consolation to hear to-day that a Caribbean battalion is proceeding to a theatre of war. As I said a few weeks ago in the Debate on the Empire, we saw everwhere, even among the ranks of the critics—and some of the critics were very

  1275
  critical—what I called then and call again, blazing loyalty for this Empire, this country and this country's King. It was a most stirring experience for us, and it made me convinced that, if I did nothing else for the rest of my days than succeed on my return here in winning for the Colonies the place they deserve in this great Commonwealth and Empire, I Should indeed have done well.
  Mr. Wootton-Davies: There is at least one thing in which I can agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken and that is that the time allotted to this Debate is all too short, but with him I would like to see a greater economic development of the Colonial Empire. With this in view I will confine my remarks to simple and practical things and to one corner of the Colonial Empire, West Africa, which is perhaps the nearest to us. I do not think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will disagree with me when I say that agricultural exports and produce are more important to our Colonies than their mineral wealth. For a moment I am going to talk about palm oil. I should tell the Committee that, normally, I use palm oil and I buy palm oil, and that I have made an honest penny or two in speculating in palm oil like other people. I now want to put one or two simple figures before the Committee. In 1911, not a long way back, West Africa, British territory, exported 90,000 tons. of palm oil a year. At that time palm oil was not exported, for all practical purposes, from any other part of the globe. The oil palm is indigenous to West Africa. Just about that year, as a young man, I was sent to Belgium. At Antwerp I had to make sure that a cask of palm oil came off the boat. It was the first cask of Congo palm oil shipped to Europe. I had to make this palm oil into soap at Brussels to be exhibited at the Brussels Exhibition and to be presented to the King of the Belgians. With our primitive knowledge of bleaching palm oil at that time, we thought that about 8 per cent. of the fat was the most we could use, or about 5 per cent. of the soap. Of course, it is a very different story today.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that West Africa is supplying 40 per cent. of our total fat requirements. I think he
  1276
  will agree that probably oni4hird of it is in palm oil and that the other two-thirds are probably kernel oil. Palm kernels went largely to Germany before the war. Here is my tale: In 1911, West Africa exported 90,000 tons of palm oil. What is happening to-day? In the year 1943—and I give these figures from commercial records, although the Minister of Food tells me that it is against public security to give them to the Committee, but I will take that risk—
  Colonel Stanley: I do not know whether I might intervene for a moment, Mr. Williams, to ask the hon. Member a question. Do I understand that he is now proceeding to give to the Committee figures which the Minister of Food, on grounds of national security, has asked him not to give?
  Mr. Wootton-Davies: They are published in Hancock's book on the economic position of the Empire, and have been published for two years.
  Colonel Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has given figures for 1943. I fail to see how they could have been published for two years, unless Professor Hancock is also a prophet.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): This is where I come in. Perhaps, on the whole, the hon. Gentleman, who is giving those figures, would not wish to give away anything, so perhaps he might cut them out as I am certain he would not wish to give any information away.
  Mr. Wootton-Davies: Thank you, Mr. Williams, L can get over the difficulty by going back-to the year 1939, which will do for my purpose. In that year we exported from our West African possessions between 140,000 and 150,000 tons of palm oil. Our trade had increased 50 to 60 per cent. In the intervening period of 30 years, however, the Dutch had reached an annual export of 226,000 tons from their Eastern possessions. The French West African possessions exported 24,000 tons, and the Belgian Congo, 90,000 to 100,000 tons a year. By sticking to the 1939 figures, I cannot offend anybody. This is a most important matter. We have lost a trade to our Allies. I am one of those who have pleaded for scientific research, but I have pleaded for it plus ordinary commonsense. I want to point out to my right hon. and gallant Friend that here is

  1277
  a trade of vast importance which will surely be lost if something is not done in several directions. West Africa has exported largely three classes of oil. They are known as softs, mediums, and hard palm oils. Those classifications are based on the purity or on the decomposition which has taken place. The soft oil is sold on a basis of 18 per cent. free fatty acids. The medium 35 per cent., while the hard oil contains a very high percentage, up to 90 per cent. The latter oil, coming from West Africa to-day, ought never to occupy space in British ships. If it is imported for war purposes it ought to be left where it is, because it does not contain any of the vital matter which my right hon. and gallant Friend and I know something about.
  What has happened? The Dutchmen have planted this oil palm in Sumatra. It could be bought on the open market with a guarantee that it contained less than five per cent, of fatty acids. Nigeria, in its wisdom, rejected plantations. British firms wanted to plant the palm in Nigeria but went to the Congo. The Congo and Sumatra are doing something to-day which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to do, which is to produce a thing in steady supply and of steady quality. I think I have said enough to indicate that this is a matter which really needs looking into. I would like to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend if the decision to allow no commercial planting in Nigeria is a law of the Medes and Persians and cannot be changed. I am not one of those who want to hand over that territory to the people who plant in Sumatra and would like to plant in British West Africa as well as planting in the Congo. They are people of several nationalities. Could not we put some money into this industry, could we not go into plant breeding in order to improve the oil palm? My right hon. and gallant Friend is aware that we can get better yields. In Sumatra, they get 90 per cent. on expressing, while the native in West Africa gets about 50 per cent. yield. I understand that my right hon. and gallant Friend or somebody is purchasing hand presses to deal with this thing, hand presses which so far as I know are not going from this country, which is the greatest engineering country in the world. I believe they originated in Luxemburg.
  Several things must be done: improvement in breeding plants as our friends in
  1278
  Palestine have improved the citrus; fencing might be given to these people: above all manures must be given to them. They cannot go on scratching God's earth, taking all the good out of it and going to another spot. We must have some control of this agriculture. I beg pardon for detaining the. Committee over this, but it is most vital to the future of West Africa.
  I wish to refer to one other point, the report of the Colonial Research Committee and the Colonial Products Research Council also. Everybody will admit that the talent is enormous, it is the best that can be got, but I for one am very dissatisfied. This Colonial Products Research Council met six times last year; that is not enough. Eminent as this committee is I suggest that most of the research is not such as you can run a Colonial Empire on. They are to start timber research. I would like to know from my right hon. and gallant Friend whether he will receive advice from other Ministries, because it is exactly four years since I went to the Ministry of Food and tried to persuade them that wood and straw, wood particularly at that time, could be used in the manner which this Report suggests. The experts turned it down completely flat. In this House when someone suggested burning wood for London I suggested "Why not convert it into food; why not convert it into alcohol?" This I suggest has already largely been done. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will apply to the Minister of Agriculture he will find that cattle in Cambridge and the Midland Agricultural College have already been successfully fed on cellulose which has been totally substituted for the starch content of their food. From effluent liquors from straw we have fed chickens—not ordinary chickens, but pedigree ones—and I am glad to note the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is encouraging this research, and perhaps in the sunny Colonial Empire not so much cold, icy water will be poured on new ideas. I will forward the results of this investigation. I beg the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us if the technical information of the Government generally is used and passed round to everyone. There are many things I would like to say, and I hope we shall have other Colonial Debates, but for the moment I will be content with what I think are a few practical remarks.
  Dr. Haden Guest: I will not follow the hon. Member into his disquisition on, the fatty acid content of the oils of West Africa in comparison with Sumatra, except to the extent of saying that there is no solution to the question of the future oil supply of the world by very largely increasing the supply from West Africa. The only solution is in a world control to secure an adequate price level all over the world, which is a rational and commonsense thing, and which would do a very great deal to level out a lot of the troubles in West Africa itself. I hope the Colonial Secretary will, when he replies, deal with the point raised by the hon. Member who was advocating a plantation system for the oil palm in West Africa. An extension of plantations is, I understand, definitely looked at very coldly by the Colonial Office. It would involve an attack on the communal land rights of the African population, and would certainly create a very great deal of undesirable controversy without being particularly beneficial to the oil industry. May I recommend the hon. Member who is interested in scientific research to take a look at recently published technical reports of the Western African Commission, of which I was a member, in which he will see a report by scientific experts on a very large plantation in the Cameroons. In that they say coldly and scientifically that it is very doubtful indeed whether such a plantation is economically useful, because of the large overheads, in competition with the native African production, which seems to be, under the conditions existing in West Africa, the better method of producing palm oil, even from the purely commercial point of view.
  Mr. Wootton-Davies: I have read the report to which the hon. Member refers with great interest, but we must try to get this thing right. Would he agree that the price of palm oil has fallen from £90 a ton in 1920 to £12 in 1939, and that that has been entirely due to the competition of good oil from Sumatra and the Belgian Congo?
  Dr. Guest: I do not think that it is entirely a question of good oil, but that there is a large amount of oil in the world, and in such circumstances which apply to other commodities—take wheat as a similar example—unless the world price is
  1280
  regulated there are slumps and products are sold at uneconomic prices. But I do not want to follow that too far, as it is only a detail and a side issue in this Debate.
  I want to say to the Colonial Secretary that I was quite frankly rather disappointed with his statement. He spoke of great plans for development in the future, but he did not outline the great plans. It is no good leaving Colonial development to individual Colonies without some general directions very much more definite and very much more specific than he laid down. Also, may I say that it is really time we gave up the habit of trying to discuss the whole Colonial Empire together as though it was all the same thing. Take one group of the Colonies—Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Singapore and Hong Kong. What relation have the problems of these Colonies to tropical West Africa? The answer is, for practical purposes, none at all.
  Then you have another group of Colonies, the Caribbean area, including the West Indies and other adjacent islands and portions of the American Continent. The problems of this area, which consists largely of islands originally populated by slaves, uprooted from their native land, subjected to altogether artificial conditions by a white planter population, are quite different from those of West Africa and East Africa, where the predominant form of life and social organisation is that of the Negro and Bantu people. There you have an organised form of life, which gives moral, political, and social sanctions on the lines of Negro and Bantu life, but in the Caribbean Colonies the social and moral sanctions are very often nonexistent, because the origin of these peoples is slavery, and slavery has meant the demoralisation of the people to a large extent. Whatever the reasons, the Carib-bean and tropical African, areas are two very different kettles of fish. Then there is another area, the Malayan and Pacific area, which we have to leave out altogether at the present time, because it is in the Japanese sphere of influence, and we do not know how long it will last, nor-do we know in what state those Colonies will be when we resume our trusteeship for them. We cannot at present plan for them. In the Caribbean area, as one hon. Member said, the problems are really problems of rehabilitation.

  1281
  A lot of the information for which the hon. Member was asking the Colonial Secretary is to be found in the White Paper on the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, which came out just before the Recess. That White Paper indicates that the money from the Fund is being directed very largely to the improvement of agriculture, the improvement of nutrition, and the improvement of medical services, all those three things being very closely linked together. That indicates a definite and clear plan. I wish that my right hon. and gallant Friend had followed that plan more closely, and had dealt more specifically with, for instance, the agricultural recommendations, which are embodied in the statement of the moneys to be spent on various aspects of work. If he had done that, we should have got a clearer picture of what is in his mind. I do not quite know what we can do at present, beyond laying down certain general lines for the improvement of nutrition in all the Colonial areas, particularly in Africa, the improvement of health, the improvement of understanding of life, by mass education and a campaign against mass illiteracy, and by a definite study of the conditions of the country, to determine what kinds of industry it would be to the advantage of the inhabitants to set up. In Nigeria at present, for instance, there is very little industry. A soap works, some making of clothing, the engineering works of the Nigerian railway, which employ a considerable number of men, embrace the industries of Nigeria. All the capital goods are imported from overseas. How far is it going to be to the advantage of the Nigerian people to introduce secondary industries? I think that the matter of industrialisation ought to be studied entirely from that point of view.
  I am rather alarmed at suggestions, which have been made in the Debate, that there should he a very considerable commercial development of the Colonies, primarily for the benefit of the investors in this country and other countries. If that is done, you win have chaos in the Colonial Empire, because you have snot any definite policy laid down at present by the Colonial Office as to the method of transition of the African people—they are the people mostly in my mind, and I will speak of them only from now on—from their present condition to a condition in which they have secondary industries and, the larger capital industries, in which, in
  1282
  fact, they take a place in life exactly comparable to the place taken by ourselves. How are they to change from one condition to the other? It would be the easiest thing in the world to introduce large-scale capital exploitation into, tropical Africa, to take the people away from their farms and send them into the mines and other industries—which would get large profits for those industries, and would turn the whole of tropical Africa into an appalling slum. That has been done to a considerable extent in a comparable area in South Africa. The native locations attached to the large towns in South Africa are appalling slums, where the death rate is terribly high. To introduce that sort of thing in West Africa would be extremely undesirable. I hope that we shall get an unqualified assurance from my right hon. and gallant Friend that the present Government policy of maintaining the communal land tenure of the African in Nigeria, and in West Africa generally, will be maintained until, by agreement with them, that present land ownership is broadened into what we in this country would call nationalisation of the land, and until there is an economic policy designed to benefit those people in tropical Africa, and not merely to benefit investors in this country.
  I believe that we can lay down a general line of policy for tropical Africa. I would ask hon. Members, if they carry the map of Africa in their minds, to direct their attention to that map, and to think of the four West African Colonies and the East African Colonies, stretching from the West coast to the East coast, and add up the populations in those Colonies. They will find that there is a total population in East and West Africa of considerably over 40,000,000 human beings, many of them, particularly the people in Northern Nigeria, at a relatively high standard of civilisation. They are not primitive bar-barians, dancing round cannibal fires. They are, especially in Northern Nigeria, cultivated people. They are well-developed people, carrying on their own forms of government, under the system of indirect rule, in a very interesting and extremely progressive way. I believe that, in the populations of West and East Africa combined, in that enormous area stretching across Africa, which has, by the way, not been wholly surveyed, there are the human population and the natural resources available to create a great black civilisation, and we could do it if we had,

  1283
  in this British Empire, the same vision as they had in the Soviet Union. We could, in 20 years' time, produce the same effects in that area as the Soviet Union has produced in the European parts of the Union in the 25 years or so since the Soviet Revolution took place.
  Sir Alfred Beit: How would that be possible, when the West African, Colonies are not contiguous and are not bordering upon the other African Colonies?
  Dr. Guest: I must remind the hon. Member, with his great interest in civil aviation, that the development of the airways of the world will render all questions of immediate contiguity not of the same importance as before. I agree that the Soviet Union had the immense advantage of being within one land frontier, but the fact that the British Empire is not within one land frontier has not prevented us from developing a form of organisation—the British Commonwealth and Colonies—for which I believe the hon. Member has as much admiration as I have myself. I think we could extend it. I think there is no geographical reason why we should not have federation of the East and West African Colonies economically and politically to the advantage of the populations.
  The Colonial Secretary said we wanted a five years' plan. Why not make it a one-generation plan of 20 years—a five-year plan, then another, and another, and another, until there is a 20 years' plan for the development of tropical Africa? We have splendid human material. I do not wish to go through the list of the different tribes, but they are, on the whole, extremely good human material. They are, in fact, exactly comparable with the human material which the Soviet authorities found in Central Asia and in the Soviet Union when they came to power. Some of those people were at that time nomads and some were entirely illiterate, while others had even no methods of writing. Some had no education at all. By help and proper planning and the organisation of economic resources for their benefit, the Soviet Union, out of people as primitive as those in tropical Africa, made that mighty Power of which we are now seeing the strength on the front against the Germans. The people who are now fighting the Germans
  1284
  were, 20 years ago, as primitive as some 6f these people now are in West Africa. I think that any authority on the Soviet Union would agree that that is a statement of fact.
  I think, therefore, that when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman congratulated the Colonial troops on their great work —and I am very glad to associate myself with it—I could only feel that it is a pity we had not more of their co-operation, for we might have had even mightier armies and greater help from them in this present war. We have not been using them, we have been neglecting the Colonial people for a long time, and at the present time that neglect is still going on. When I was in West Africa some time ago I visited some gold mines on the Gold Coast. On most occasions when I was in West Africa I was staying with chief officials, which, I felt, took me a little away from mixing as freely as I wanted with the ordinary people. I happened to know a medical officer of one of the mines, and on this occasion I stayed with him in a very dirty bungalow which was not at all well protected against mosquitoes and other insects, but I saw, from the medical officer's level, what the condition of the mine was. I have never seen- worse housing, worse moral and economic conditions anywhere than amongst these employees of the gold mines—a perfectly abominable thing. That kind of thing is not being attended to. The Government say they are not able to do anything, and the mine-owners themselves were not doing anything,' and both said that it was the other person's business. The same kind of thing exists in other industries.
  We should put before ourselves a very simple objective in our Colonial policy, for I cannot see that we have any right to say to the people of West Africa that we will offer them any other status than exactly the same as we hope to give to our own people. I would like us to say to West Africa: "We are going to look after you and deal with your diseases and your lack of education and all your other social and economic problems just in the same way as we deal with the problems of Lancashire; or Scotland, or Wales or any other part of this country, on, a footing of absolute equality." I put economic and social things first. I do not say that our political system, which I sometimes think is very odd, even in this country, is going

  1285
  to apply to West Africa, The West Africans have their own tribes and societies and their own attitude to life, but I think that if we build up the economic foundation on which they are living, improve their nutrition and health —and may I say in passim that there is nothing in the health conditions in West Africa that cannot be completely eliminated in a 20-year period—then we could develop political institutions out of their economic response to their environment which would enable them to express themselves in, the way they want to.
  I would refer, in conclusion, to the remarks, with which I agree, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made about the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. You do not want to take all the expenses out of the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. It is not necessary. There is an immense amount of wealth in West Africa—diamonds, gold, other metals, oil and so forth—but most of it goes out to shareholders in this or other countries. It does not remain in the country. It should remain in the country. There should be a tax on any invested money there and that tax should be left in the colony for the benefit of that colony. I believe that future industrial developments should not be in private hands, excepting perhaps cases of temporary concessions, but should be conducted by the Government in order that the whole value of the gold mines should accrue to the country. What of the new gold mines at Ilorin? Are they going to be given away, to some concessionaires, who will, in return for some minor payment, get the possibility of very great wealth for those who invest money in them? It is ridiculous to throw away the natural resources of Nigeria in that Way and it should not be done.
  I notice with interest that one of the items in this list of expenditure under the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund relates to what is to be spent under the heading of scientific research and includes a geological survey. Of course, it can technically come under scientific research, but surely it would be better placed in the category of development. The first thing you want to know, when you are going to develop a country on a big scale, is about its resources, and this is not a question of research. I believe that if
  1286
  the Colonial Secretary will bring in a 20-year Or one-generation plan very, shortly, and will try to emulate the successes of the Soviet Union by making out of East and West Africa a tremendous tropical African Union, in which the standards of life would be raised high, and all industrial production and social and political solidarity raised as high as it has been in the Soviet Union, he would do something that would appeal to the whole of the British Empire. It would appeal to the whole of our people and to the whole of the world, and would be a worthy step forward in our organisation of Empire.
  Mr. Astor: The Debate so far has been mainly concerned with the West Indies and Africa. I propose to devote a few minutes to that part of our Colonial Empire which lies in Asia. Although the African part of our Empire occupies the greater portion on the map, our Far Eastern possessions are of immense importance, politically, economically and strategically. They are politically, because it is there that we impinge on three of the great forces of the world —China, India and the whole Moslem world. The Straits Settlements are important economically because the Straits alone offer trade equal to that of all the British Colonies in Africa put together. They produce 40 per cent. of the world's rubber and 30 per cent. of the world's tin. A great deal of this went to America. It is going to be of vital importance in the trade relations of the sterling Empire vis-à-vis America to get this great economic asset into action again if we are to raise the standard of life of the whole Empire.
  Mr. Sorensen: Did the hon. Member say. 40 per cent. of the world's rubber?
  Mr. Astor: Forty per cent. of the world's rubber comes from the Straits Settlements.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is it not more?
  Mr. Astor: At least 40 per cent. If it is more, it strengthens my argument and I thank the hon. Member. It is also a great political testing place. The difficulties of "plural communities" are, indeed, most acute in the Straits Settlements, where the Malay population only forms 42 per cent. of the inhabitants, the Chinese also 42 per cent, and where the Indian immigrants are 14 per cent. There are these

  1287
  three nationalities, not only of different nations but different in culture and religion—the Malays Moslem, the Chinese Buddhist, the Indians Hindu—and it would appear to be almost impossible that they will ever mix. Not only that, a large proportion of the Chinese and Indians come in to make a living and then return to their own countries. They bring their own nationalisms With them. The Chinese have branches of Kuomintang in Singapore and the Indians come with the protection of the Government of India.
  These are Colonial possessions not only of importance but in which we can take great pride: We are there by invitation, as the Malay Sultans invited the Colonial Office to send British officials to help them in the task of government. And indirect rule, government by advice, was worked out long before it started in Africa. We are going to be faced, on going back to these Colonies, with the same type of problem as the refugee European Governments may be facing very shortly in Europe. All the gratuitous advice which we are pouring out on the French, the Belgians, the Dutch, the Norwegians and the Italians, telling them what to do when they go back to their own countries, will apply to us and they may well turn round and give us a dose of our own medicine. I do not think that we need worry that these people are likely to be won over by the Japanese. They will probably be hungry under Jap rule. The Straits Settlements are not self-supporting from the point of view of food and used to get rice from Siam, Indo-China and Burma, and this may well be cut off. Secondly, the Japanese have turned a portion of the Malay States over to Siam, which will be most unpopular. Thirdly, the Japanese are harsh rulers. I have seen a certain amount of Japanese Colonial rule and seldom a happy face in a Japanese Colony.
  When we recapture this Colony we shall have, first, the problem of bringing in food which suits the native stomach, and secondly the political problem of how to deal with those who have submitted to Japanese rule. The Colonial Secretary might get some advice from a letter which the Duke of Wellington sent to the Foreign Secretary of Spain on nth June, 1813, when we were re-occupying Spain. The Foreign Secretary of Spain had the good old Spanish name of Don Juan
  1288
  O Donoju. The Duke pleaded that the returning Spanish Government should pursue a magnanimous policy and forgive those
  "who had been induced by terror, distress or despair"
  to submit themselves to the French and
  "to reflect upon the numerous and almost invariable disasters of the Armies and upon the ruin and disorganisation which followed, and then decide whether those who were witnesses of these events were guilty because they did not foresee what has since occurred."
  The Duke went on to say that there should be two exceptions to any general amnesty: first, those who had perpetrated cruelties on their fellow countrymen and, secondly, those who had gone out of their way to take part in the puppet Government, set up in that case by the occupying Power. We have a chance to give an example of magnanimity and political wisdom in dealing with these people who were overwhelmed in that vast disaster. It is very important, if we go back, that we should begin training our personnel now. Most of our civil servants were captured by the Japanese and not only will they want to get home to England but it is very unlikely that their health will be such that they will be able to stay there and take over the work of government at once. We want to start training suitable persons, those invalided out of the Services, in the languages of the country. They should be taught the language in London. They could then be attached to other Colonial Governments and Government Departments so that we may have the necessary personnel training for these Colonies when we recapture them.
  On the question of economics, it is vitally important that we should have some understanding on a world basis of the great basic crops of these Colonies. Take rubber, which between the two wars varied between 12s. per lb. and 1¿d. per lb. These fluctuations were a tremendous disadvantage, not only to the rubber companies but also to the Malay peasant who produces about half the rubber. When the price was up he concentrated on his rubber tree and neglected his subsistence crop. When the prices came tumbling down he did not have a food crop in the ground nor the cash with which to buy the rice from Outside. The Malay peasant was in a similar position to the American farmer who suffered from fluctuating and

  1289
  depressed prices. It is not to the advantage of the consumer to bankrupt the producer. He also has to be a purchaser of goods.
  America during this war has done a wonderful job creating a synthetic rubber industry, and Dr. Melvin Brenner, of, the National Resources Planning Board, has produced an important study of the future of synthetic and natural rubber. There should be as soon as possible some long term agreement between England, Holland and America on rubber on which we cane build up Malaya. The same applies to tin and other of the great raw materials produced in those Colonies which have a very important Anglo-American trade. If America wants us to be able to take her goods, she must take the products of our Empire. Another question which has to be settled is relations with Siam. Siam has been a hearty collaborator with Japan, and I think we ought to get the question of the boundaries and frontiers between the Straits Settlements and Siam settled once and for all.
  If I may revert to the economic side for one moment, the result of these resources being developed, not only by European but by Chinese capital, has meant that the per capita income of the Straits Settlements is three times as high as the average of the Colonial Empire. The result has been that the social services in the Straits are far better than almost anywhere else in the, Empire. The work which has been done in getting rid of malaria and various other scourges has been one of the great achievements of British Colonial policy. But even when we have done the immediate work of going back into those Colonies, feeding the people, and getting the economic life right, there will be the question of the political future and that is one of the most difficult questions in the world. There are these three kinds of people—it is impossible that they should niix—and many of them are only transients; immigrant communities which come and go.
  There is the same trouble as in Kenya and in Palestine, that is, people with a different level of civilisation coming in fairly large numbers into a country and competing with the inhabitants. I think we must stick to two principles in every case. The native inhabitants of those places have the primacy, but the immigrant
  1290
  communities can also play their part both in the material development and the political and social development of those countries. One of the troubles in the Straits is that it, has been a part of the world where one found the classical "economic man"—immigrants have come in there just to make money. The Chinaman comes to make money and then goes home to die by the tombs of his ancestors. There has been no social conscience which transcends the interests of any particular community—the Chinese community does, not feel any social responsibility for the Malays and vice versa. I think one has to accept the fact that these communities will not mix and try to get them to work side by side rather like the system in the old Ottoman Empire by which each community, to some extent, governed its own social concern, its, internal laws, its customs, its religion, its education and its hospitals; and build up on the people who have come to live permanently in those Colonies. We must also try to develop a public spirit by a proper contribution of taxation and a proper contribution of military service, because it is by duties that you develop public spirit quite as much as by rights.
  I think our role can be well taken from the phrase which comes from one of the great Governors of Malaya, Sir Frank Swettenham, who said:
  "Our role has been to secure the friendship and active co-operation of the people themselves in a form of rule which was to meet their wishes and control their lives while giving them security, justice and fair dealing, with some measure of ease and happiness."
  Up to now the Colonial Office has only made one pronouncement on the policy it intends to pursue and that, I am afraid, is an unfortunate one, They said they will not allow opium in any form to return to the Straits Settlements. I am afraid this is going to have just the opposite effect from that which the Colonial Secretary desires, because it is quite certain that drug addiction will be far worse since the Japanese have been there, The Japanese push drugs out and there will be exactly the same craving for drugs and many new addicts. If you go in for total prohibition you will have exactly the same result as America when she tried the total prohibition of alcohol. Opium is the least harmful form of drug—it corresponds to beer—while cocaine and heroin correspond to bootleg whiskey. If you cut off opium

  1291
  entirely what will happen with these large numbers of addicts will be that you will have a tremendous black market and smuggling and law evasion, bringing in drugs in much more dangerous forms, such as cocaine and heroin. The result will not be to diminish drug addiction but to make the problem worse, with people getting worse drugs than the less harmful opium. I am sure we were on the right lines before the war in bringing in a limited amount of pure opium and gradually eliminating the number of addicts. If the war had not occurred I think the drug addiction problem in the Straits would have, been completely wiped out in 30 years, as the drug addicts died out and no new ones came on. I am afraid that if we go in for complete prohibition in the present circumstances, it will lead, like prohibition in America, to undesirable drugs of worse forms and to a worse drug problem which will have to be tackled again.
  I would like to know what the Secretary of State is thinking about a Malayan tariff union. Up to now the Unfederated Malay States have had the power to make their own tariffs. When we go back, would it not be a good thing if we could get a tariff union of the Straits Settlements? Then, regionalisation in that area is not a fashionable slogan but a practical and urgent necessity and we should, with the Dutch and the French, concert the policy which we are to pursue. I hope we shall do nothing which will diminish the authority of the Malay Sultans. We went there by their invitation as their advisers and they have treaty rights with us and have, up to now, loyally accepted our advice in the development of their social services and in the amelioration of their government. I think it will be necessary when we go in there to have a Minister of State on the spat. It has proved necessary in the Middle East and North Africa to have a Minister of State to deal with the many political problems that will arise. I do not expect the Colonial Secretary to answer all these points in detail, but I hope he will tell us something of his planning machinery for the Far East, and give us an assurance that his decisions on all these points will be communicated to the House and debated in the House before they are put into practice.
  1292
  As to North Borneo, I cannot say much because I have never been there, but in refreshing my memory I found that there were three rulers of the British part—the Sultan of Brunei, Sir Dougal Malcolm as chairman of the British North Borneo Company, and the British Rajah of Sarawak. Are these three authorities going back in identical form? Shall we restore the British North Borneo Company, which I think has now given up trading and is purely a governmental machine? It has been quite a good one and compares favourably with many Crown Colonies, but do we wish to use chartered companies in the future as Governments? As regards Sarawak, I think the Sultan has a perfectly legitimate legal case to return to his realm. The Brooke family became Rajahs in a perfectly legitimate manner and have governed the country, I am told, fairly well. One does not want Sarawak to imitate Siam, which turned a mild and limited Monarchy into an unsuitable Republic which ended in a Fascist dictatorship.
  I would now like to pass on to Hong-Kong, a place which it is impossible for an Englishman to visit without emotion. When you approach it by sea you sail between great mountains rising from the water, scenery rather like the West of Scotland, although on a far grander scale. The first time I went there I entered the harbour in the evening and passed a British cruiser threading its way out of the harbour towards the sunset. I saw *the 3,000 ft. mountain on which were lights all the way up. It was one of the most inspiring sights imaginable. Here was a thriving, industrious city which British security had turned from a barren rock into a great port. What is to be the future of Hong-Kong? Strategically, it has never meant anything to us, and I do not think it has any strategic future unless it is as a United Nations base, which American, Chinese, Dutch and British naval vessels can use and have repair and maintenance facilities. Trade is the foundation of Hong-Kong, and trade was the reason we went there. Trade in the future may be difficult. The crystal in China is clouded and not clear. With the abandonment of our extra-territorial rights the need for secure bases for trading may be more necessary than ever. With the tragic inflation that has happened in China, Hong-Kong and a secure sterling or local currency may be a most valuable asset from a Chinese, British

  1293
  and world trading point of view. It can again be a place of refuge in a troubled world. There would never have been a Chinese revolution if Dr. Sun-yat-Sen had not been able to take refuge in Hong-Kong. Marshal Chiang-Kai-shek's family has also been able to take refuge there. The Colony in the past has been built up as a "free" port and a cheap port. The port and entrepot facilities have always been substantially cheaper than those in any rival port in that part of the world. To be able again to provide the trade of all the world with a free port, with cheap facilities, it is necessary that we should have a clear declaration about the future of Hong-Kong, otherwise we shall not get British firms putting their capital back to recreate what may have been destroyed by the Japanese.
  I am not worried about the future of Hong-Kong, because, it is undoubtedly British and under the Atlantic Charter China cannot lay claim to British territory any more that we could lay claim to her territory. The declaration regarding no annexations surely applies as between Allies. As the result of the Cairo Conference China will get vast new responsibilities in Formosa and Manchuria again, and will be very fully occupied there. The Prime Minister made no exceptions in his statement that he did not propose to liquidate the British Empire. It is essential that we should have a definite declaration of policy from the Government as to the future of Hong-Kong and of the Straits Settlements and of Colonies generally as we must encourage British capital to go back and recreate the facilities which are so important to the prosperity and welfare of the people concerned. Further, some measure of credit assistance from the British Government may be needed if we are to recreate those facilities. As regards the government of the Colony, in the past Hong-Kong, on the whole, has been a happy Colony. Those who went there, went because they desired to live under British rule. But there are difficult problems as the Chinese community in Hong-Kong is partly transient, and not stable. Hong-Kong was so valuable as a source of refuge that its population went up from 630,000 in 1921 to 1,600,000 in 1941—more than double—and the result was that housing conditions were very difficult to control. Also with some of the population
  1294
  living permanently in junks and sampans as they do all along the China coast, immigration was quite uncontrollable.
  I think it most important that the Colonial Office should now start re-training an administrative staff for that Colony, that they should get people to start learning the Chinese language now, especially the Cantonese dialect, and most important of all, to understand the ways and habits of thought of the Chinese people. We want people who can love and sympathise with the Chinese. In the past the prison administrative system in Hong-Kong was not one of which we could be proud. The reason was that when we first went there in the 19th century the standard of punishment on the Chinese mainland was often barbaric. If one compares our own prison system one could say that an English prison could be regarded as something of a paradise. We want an enlightened aid intelligent prison régime of which the British Empire can be proud. We want to redevelop the cultural link which Hong-Kong can give between China and England.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman means "Britain"—
  Mr. Astor: I accept the correction. A most remarkable admixture of races has occurred there between members of the Scottish and Chinese nations who have intermarried in Hong-Kong. A gentleman like Sir Robert Hotung, who is half Scottish and half Chinese, makes one of the most formidable business men in the world. In all these Eastern Colonies we must have regard to their own standards, and not ours. When dealing with Chinese, Hindus and Moslems we are dealing with people who value their civilisation as much as ours. The Moslem does not regard it as theologically superior or domestically more convenient to have to worship a trinity, and have one wife as the Christian Church enjoins, rather than to worship one God and have three wives, like he does. The Chinese regard the philosophy of Confucius as being in every way as high in ethics as anything the West can produce.
  We touch in these Colonies the Moslem world, which covers vast areas of Colonial policy. As Marshal Lyautey said, "The

  1295
  Moslem world is like a drum. If you tap it anywhere it reverberates over its whole surface." The Moslem world stretches from Casablanca to Singapore, through to China. This Moslem world is in the process of a political re-awakening and a cultural renaissance. We see it in the Pakistan movement in India and in the intellectual movements in Damascus and Cairo Universities. It is very important that England and France should try to make their policies go in a parallel way and that the present inter Departmental divergencies that one sees in the Middle East should be unified and that there should be a unified English service dealing with the Arab-speaking world. From the Moslem point of view Palestine contains the third holy city—Jerusalem ranks only after Medina and Mecca—and it is the keystone of the arch between the Moslem world in Asia and in Africa. We must remember that fact. Much depends on the wisdom we may show in, these matters. I hope we shall not only think in-five-year plans, because our relations with China and India, and between Christianity and the Moslem world, are matters in which we require not five-year plans out to think in centuries, studying the past deeply and pondering the future wlsely.
  Mr. de Rothschild: I do not propose to follow speakers who have addressed the Committee on different parts of the Empire. I propose to address myself to mere general questions. I should like first to extend a word of commendation to the Colonial Office for the great amount of work it has done, and also the great amount of work that is being prepared to be done in the future. In the reports that it has published proposals are made for undertakings in 31 different Colonies, and work has been begun on all of them. It is true that the amount of money being spent is still too small and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman foreshadowed that in the future greater sums would be needed. But it is, for all that, a remarkable achievement when you consider that the country is engaged in a life and death struggle and that throughout the war we have been able to put out this immense effort, outside our military affairs, in order to further the welfare of the Colonies. It is, indeed, a matter of which no Government need be ashamed and, if we are attacked in any part of the
  1296
  world for our Imperialism we can answer with very great cogency.
  I wonder whether I ought not to extend a few words of commendation to a new appearance on the Colonial horizon, that is the gentleman who has lately been engaged in correspondence and whose echoes we have heard in to-day's Debate. He styles himself "Colonial Adviser to the Conservative Party," a very intriguing and very novel terminology and title to adopt. I wonder whether this Colonial adviser is also behind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, who is such an ornament and such a pillar of the Conservative Party and whether this new Colonial adviser is, shall we say, the Father Joseph who stands behind the Cardinal in our Colonial administration—I mean the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. If so, this new personage is indeed to be congratulated on the results that he has already achieved. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wishes to know his name, it is one which should command respect if he knows anything about boxing—his name is Sayers—and I expect the hon. Member will not be prepared to take him on.
  I am particularly concerned to-day with two points which are of general interest. The first is our relationship with other Colonial Powers. This matter, indeed, is of increasing interest, not only to us but to our Colonies also, because it is part and parcel of the wider question of the place of these Colonies in the post-war world—our Colonies and those of other Powers as well. I am not going to insist on the bromide that has been poured out so often, that after the war there will be three great Powers which will be foremost in guiding the destinies of the world—the United States, Russia and ourselves. Still, it is necessary to point out that, of these three. Powers, we alone are not self-supporting and that overseas trade is vital to us for the many necessities that we require and for the maintenance of our standard of living. We depend largely on the produce of the Colonies for the maintenance of the standard that we have achieved, in the last 100 years. But the other Colonial Powers, which are all situated on the Western seaboard of Europe, are also in a similar position, with the possible exception of France, though France also in the future is likely to become a more industrialised Power. Some of our Dominions,

  1297
  which no doubt will also become more industrialised, will make heavier demands on the products of our Colonies.
  Countries which do not themselves possess Colonies are also in great need of Colonial produce. I am particularly thinking of those which have been devastated by the Nazis. It is most important for the future peace of the world that these countries, and others which aid not Colonial Powers, should have access to the produce of our Colonies and those of other nations. After the war, as before, there are certain to arise economic jealousies, and, whatever powerful organisation may be created in order to keep the peace of the world, there may well be suspicions, as in the past. Hon. Members will remember the German attitude to our Colonies before the war. No doubt this attitude was animated by the spirit of grab and aggression.
  They could not have pushed this policy as far and as successfully as they did, in the opinion of many people throughout the world, if they had not been supported by suspicions in other parts of the world, for instance, in America, where suspicion still exists on this point. I foresee, as everybody else does, the great development in Colonial affairs which will be necessitated by the economic demands which will be made on the products of the tropics in our Colonial dependencies. This will be in the interests not only of the Colonial people themselves and of the Colonial Powers, but of the world at large. The development of the Colonies cannot take place piecemeal. It will have to be on such a large scale that the poorer Colonial Powers, such as Spain and Portugal, will not have the necessary resources. In fact, even some of the richer Colonial Powers would have great difficulty in developing their Colonies unaided. Full-scale Colonial development will require the resources of all Colonial Powers, acting on agreed lines.
  Many Colonial Powers now find themselves faced with common problems. These are largely the result of the war. This applies specially to those Powers which have contiguous Colonial territories. The Dutch, the French and ourselves have contiguous territories in the Far East, although they are temporarily in the possession of the Japanese. When these regions are delivered, and it is once more within our grasp to develop them,
  1298
  the problems they will present will have to be dealt with internationally. The lion. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) spoke of the relations which will grow between our own dependencies and Siam, but we must not forget that, on the other side of Siam, the French Colonies will also require international development and agreement with whatever Government is in Siam. There have been reports of definite plans and discussions between France and Belgium. According to some reports, the Government of Holland has been included in them. Apparently these discussions, according to the Press, tend toward unified Colonial development after the war. I wonder if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can give us any information on this point.
  If there is to be a more unified economic policy among Colonial Powers than there has been, it is necessary that there should be an approximation of policy as regards administration and the treatment of native peoples. The criticisms of other countries will not be confined to the material sphere; they will also be concerned with humanitarian issues. Whether this concern as regards our Colonies, which has been shown in the past, and which will be shown again, is really genuine or not, the fact remains that the moral element is constantly asserting itself. It does so in all human affairs. After all, international affairs concern the relationship of aggregates and groups of human beings. Public opinion has to be convinced that the Colonial systems are being justly administered in accordance with the ideas of the Atlantic Charter and that freedom which we are all defending to-day. It has been laid down that there is to be no interference with the Governments of any nations except those of our enemies. But the Colonies are not self-governing entities. They are administered from outside. There will, no doubt, be a considerable body of opinion which will try to put them in a different category. America, as we know, is already stressing this point of view.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, knows that the idea of a convention of Colonial Powers has been put forward in various quarters. He himself alluded to it in his notable speech at Leeds. Plans have been put forward by various bodies, and lately the International Labour Office has laid down certain principles which

  1299
  have been discussed at Philadelphia. These principles, as far as they apply to Colonial territories, have been Considered by the representative of our Government at Philadelphia, and he has assured the members of the Conference that the proposals of the I.L.O. will have the consideration of the Government. I suggest that it would be useful if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would call such a convention of Colonial Powers, to which other Powers might usefully be added. My submission is that this convention should lay down certain principles of Colonial administration. It would have no coercive power, but its moral authority might sway public opinion. Reports could be issued by the various Colonial Powers, and these would shed much light on the work they were doing and on the work they wished to undertake.
  It is very important, and I wish to state so most emphatically, that there should be no infringement of sovereignty, by any such convention. This should be made equally plain in the case of regional arrangements. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will make this clear, because I feel that some assurance on this point is called far. The Caribbean Commission has done excellent work, but it seems to look forward to more than advisory powers and, indeed, to be exercising supervisory functions which impinge on administration. Certain sections of American opinion regard this as a herald of fundamental changes. This was recently made clear in the American Press. There was an article, which has been reproduced in some of the British papers, in the well-known American magazine, "Fortune." No doubt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware of it as it has attracted so much notoriety and publicity.
  I was pleased to see that this article begins with warm praise of our own Colonial Office, and of our Colonial achievements. It gives great praise and credit to the work of Britain in the Caribbean in the last 300 years, and it goes on to set out the objectives of the Anglo-Caribbean Commission. Of those objectives, the one that struck me most was that which I wish to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and it was set out as follows:
  "Gradual extension of responsibility for dependent areas, from the single power exercising administration to the international
  1300
  society, as represented by regional commissions."
  "I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that this point of view is entirely unacceptable. This is far from being the sort of development that we envisaged when we put forward the idea of regional arrangements. Australia and New Zealand have recently drawn up a protocol for a regional agreement in the Pacific. It deals mainly with defence and with strategic arrangements in the Pacific, but it does not, in any way, embody any administrative changes such as those which have been advocated in "Fortune." That Pacific agreement does not include America, of course, since America does not, as yet, administer any part of that area. It has been suggested that' the Pacific agreement is not altogether approved by Washington. It would be interesting to know whether that is true, and if so what is the reason.
  Before I sit down, I should like to say only one word about the relations of our own Colonies with this country and among themselves. We have all heard to-day of the missions sent to the Colonies by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. We have seen the very good results they have had as shown by the interesting speeches to which we have listened, and which have brought home to us the pulsating life of those Colonies, made familiar to those who have been able to visit those Colonies. There is no doubt that these missions certainly bring us closer to the inhabitants of those Colonies but what is also needed is that the inhabitants of these Colonies should be brought closer to us in a more appreciable way than is done by the administrators of the Colonies who are sent out by the Colonial Office. At present we have a one-sided process. I should like to see the people of our Colonies brought closer to us and also to one another across the many leagues of sea and land which separate us and them.
  This can best be done in the capital of the Empire. We all remember listening to the visitors who came here on the occasion of the Coronation. Undoubtedly, those visits led to a greatly increased reciprocal understanding, and that understanding, which was so happily begun, has been continued since. But it needs to go a great deal deeper. Common deliberations are necessary. This has been shown in another sphere, by the conference of Dominion Premiers, and

  1301
  also by the interesting visits that have been made by Mr. Curtin to the people of Canada. I suggest that arrangements should be made for periodical meetings to be held in this country every two or three years. They should be attended by men and women from every part of the Colonial Empire. I should like to see those representatives sent to this country, after being elected by their nationals. All the members should be responsible people, sent to this country in an official capacity. I am not thinking of a glorified Cook's tour, but of a body capable of acting in an advisory capacity to the Colonial Office itself. Such a body would be able to deal with the general problems which affect the Colonies, diversified though they may be: problems of health, nutrition, industry, and so forth.
  I do not want to go into any details but to trace the mere outline of a proposal which can be filled in later. The number of representatives need not be very large. Their election might well have a unifying effect on the Colonies concerned. In the case of the West Indies, where unification is the desire of so many people in this country, the process might well help to unite the various parts. A sounding-board of this kind would be of common use for the component parts of the Empire and would do more than anything else to hold them together. I do not wish to repeat what the right hon. and gallant. Gentleman has told us about the remarkable help that has been given to this country in its war effort, or about the magnificent sacrifices that have been made by the people of the Colonial Empire. Every day new facts are brought to our notice. Only the other day we heard, on the wireless, that in the South African contingent in Italy, there were included Basutos and Bechuanas from the two Protectorates which are so closely related, racially, to many inhabitants of our Colonies. It was heartening and vivifying to know that those Protectorates, in which this House has always taken such a particular pride and interest, will be represented to-day among those who are entering the capital of Italy, among the troops representing Britain and the Allies in Rome.
  We are all impressed by the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman about the Nigerian who was dropped by
  1302
  parachute in Burma, and who fought under Admiral Mountbatten with English, Indian and other troops of our Allies. These men left the shores of Africa for Burma, a country "of which they knew little"—if I may adapt a historic phrase. They went there to defend common interests with us. They are bringing their help to an Empire which they love and I look forward to the day when these men, and others from the Empire, can come to this country and to this capital, which is also their capital, to discuss the affairs of the Empire. Thus, will they cement further the links which bind us to their countries and which, I hope, will bind them to us for a long, long time.
  Mr. Sorensen: We have ranged over a very wide sphere to-day. Inevitably, the 80,000,000 people in the Colonial Empire would require many days to do them justice. It is the misfortune of all of us that however long we may speak on any particular subject—quite apart from the fact that we may limit the time of other speakers—we cannot even then do justice to our particular aspect of the matter. I propose to confine myself to one aspect in 10 or 12 minutes at the outside. It is rather significant that we have been listening to-day to statements regarding two invasions, the invasion of Europe, with all its prospects, and the invasion of Africa and Asia in the past, with all its results. After all, our Colonial Empire is largely the result of our past commercial and military invasions. It is equally true, of course, that other countries did invade, conquer, settle, acquire, and in other ways try to secure greater power and territories themselves. We are therefore no worse than the rest.
  We find ourselves, however, in possession of this vast area and these 80,000,000 very varied people. We have to ask ourselves what we are going to do with them. That is very largely determined by our own outlook on life, which may sound trite and platitudinous, but has nevertheless a great significance. I say that, because a number of hon. Members, from time to time, exhibit the fact that they have travelled very widely, and as a result of that they are assuming, having been to Hong-kong, Singapore, Africa and elsewhere, that they are more able to discuss Colonial affairs than those of us whose pockets are very small, and who have been able to visit only our own country

  1303
  and continent. I would observe that those who have been to distant parts, whether they come from these or the opposite Benches, come back much the same as they were when they first went there.
  In other words they interpret what they see according to their political philosophy and ethical faith. Those who go convinced that democracy is effete and impracticable, come back saying that democracy is quite impossible in its application to African and Asiatic people. Those who believe in democracy as something to be achieved soon or in the distant future, go to the same areas as the others have done, and come back more convinced than ever that they must strive for the implementation of their democratic faith. These visits, while invaluable, are not so important as getting one's outlook right. If that is not settled, all that one does is to have a Cook's conducted tour and to come back as wise as when one began.
  I mention that because I believe the crucial issue of the war in Europe will be settled, not merely on the fields of battle, but on the political fields. If we cannot win pacific victories for democracy, if we cannot take risks and have adventures for democracy, then, even if this war for democracy in Europe is won, democracy will nevertheless be betrayed. It is for that reason that some of us are so deeply interested in this Colonial question. We appreciate the knowledge possessed by many who have been able to go abroad and see the various areas of our Colonial Empire. We have read a fair number of books on the subject by those who have been there much longer than the casual visitor. We have also come in contact With the native inhabitants themselves, who are not the least important element. Appreciating all these facts and the probable difficulties, we, nevertheless, say that according to our own professions of self-government, freedom and democracy we must take risks and adventures, particularly in our Colonial Empire. That is why I am delighted to have heard a large part of, the Colonial Secretary's statement to-day.
  While the discussions that have taken place regarding the need for improving nutrition, developing education and so forth, are all to the good, and again, while I thoroughly appreciate the urgent need for economic development, aided from this
  1304
  country, I would also add that if we are only going in for a certain economic plan for a number of years—five, 10, 15 or 20 —it may do a great deal to improve the material life of the people in those parts, but if we do not also go in co-terminously for a drastic political plan, we may, in fact, merely be building a totalitarian State. It is, indeed, easy for men to betray their meed of freedom for the mess of pottage of economic security. If you offered a choice between a vote and no job, or of a job and no vote, a great majority of people would infinitely prefer the job with no vote. Because of that, it is to me imperative that we should not merely concentrate on building up the economic life of the people—that must be done—but that we must, at the same time, bend our energies towards developing the political life of the people, and even take risks in so doing.
  I revert for a moment to the point that whether we believe the Colonial peoples are capable of developing politically into full self-government depends on our out-look. If we have no faith or are backward-minded we do not believe it. On the other hand we believe there is an ultimate purpose for man in this universe, we say that the capacity of the human race is, with certain variations, much the same; that from the peoples of West Africa, given a chance, given proper nutrition, proper education and the meeting of economic needs, there can be derived the same richness of mind and thought as have come from the people of this country. U would seem that that is so. I think it is true that biologists and ethnologists have been trying to find out whether there is any intrinsic limitation on the part of, say, African people, and they have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence at all of that. This means that if there are people who are undeveloped it is not necessarily because they are intrinsically inferior, but that they lack the opportunity for the development of resources and capacities that are theirs.
  I come back to this. If we once appreciate what I have described on a previous occasion as "the glory that shall be revealed," it is our moral obligation to see to it that Colonial peoples possess not only every economic and social necessity for their lives, but also those political rights and responsibilities by which their human

  1305
  dignity can be made manifest. It is a moral approach, I agree. I cannot see any justification at all save the moral one, for making this appeal. Why should we not exploit and take advantage of backward people; why should we not go to Africa and elsewhere and wrench wealth from the soil, and leave just a few fragments as compensation for the inhabitants? The answer is the moral one, that we are our brother's keeper.
  I would suggest in addition to the excellent plans for economic development described from time to time, though many are still inadequate, that we should also embark on a political plan. In particular I would like to see, not merely in the Caribbean Islands, where Jamaica is about to embark on an experiment to which we look with hope, but also in West Africa, adventures undertaken in political development. It is tragically true that the great majority of those on the legislative council, executive council and in important administrative posts are not Africans. I know that many may not have had the necessary training in the past, but that is not true now. It may be a risk, but nevertheless, as a testimony of our belief in democracy and selfgovernment—these things for which the other invasion has started to-day—I would ask the Colonial Secretary whether, in regard to West Africa in particular, he cannot plan out a political development for the next 10 or 15 years which, in the next few years, would enable the majority of the executive councils and the legislative councils and important administrative posts to be filled by competent trained Africans.
  It might mean a certain risk; but; again I say that you have to take the risk. We can take risks enough in war; why, cannot we take risks in peace? I disagree entirely with some Members who have spoken to-day, with hesitation and fear, regarding the education and development of our Colonial brethren. By facing such issues, we can help the world. Let is boldly say to our Colonial brethren, "Here and now we put this trust in you, not as stewards of your future, not as superior partners, but as comrades, believing that if you have the opportunity you will respond." I believe that if the Colonial Secretary were to announce such action in our Colonial Empire, particularly in West. Africa, he would strike a
  1306
  stronger blow for the principles for which men are dying today than by anything which he has said before. That would hearten our Colonial peoples, and hearten ourselves as well.
  Mr. Wakefield: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but the Secretary of State said two or three things which I would like to carry further. I am very glad that he paid a just tribute to the valour, steadfastness, and courage of those men of the Colonial Empire who have volunteered to defend the principles for which we are fighting. The hon. Member for' North Islington (Dr. Guest) said that it was a pity that greater use was not made of our man-power in the Colonial Empire, now and before the war. I would ask the Colonial Secretary whether he is making plans to give an opportunity after the war for men in the Colonies to volunteer for the Armed Forces. Are the men who have been fighting shoulder to shoulder with our own troops, in various parts of the world, to be allowed to help to provide the forces which, the Prime Minister has said, will be necessary, when peace returns, to ensure that there shall be no repetition of what is now taking place? Will they be allowed to volunteer for squadrons of the Air Force, for their own Army Territorial services, and for serving in ships on their own coasts? I hope that the Colonial Secretary will be able to give some assurance that an opportunity will be given to the men of the Colonies, who, in their tens of thousands, are now serving, so that they may feel that they are in real partnership with us in preserving those principles for which they and we are now fighting. I am sure that nothing would receive greater approbation in the Colonies than an announcement by the Secretary of State that, in the post-war set-up, there will be opportunty for these men to volunteer in the same way as our own people, in peace-time, were able to volunteer for service with the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, the Auxiliary Air Force, and the Army Territorial regiments.
  I believe that not enough attention has been given to the preparation and presentation of films and broadcasts in the Colonies. I think that that is going to be the most important factor in the future development of the Colonies. If the standard of living in, the Colonies is to be

  1307
  raised, greater attention must be given to the kind of broadcast and film which will achieve the results we all want, in the interests of the natives. The film or broadcast often tells quite a different story to the native from the story it tells to us. May I illustrate that by a brief story? A certain firm in this country, in order to sell its product, bicycles, prepared posters, showing a native on a bicycle being chased by a leopard, with the appropriate wording to indicate that if, you had a bicycle you could escape from a leopard which was chasing you. But the native did not look at it that way. He took the poster to mean that if you bought a bicycle you were certain to be chased by a leopard. Unless we are careful, some of the films and broadcasts to the Colonies will defeat their own object; so I ask the Colonial Secretary to continue, with even greater force, the good work which he has started, and to carry out the research which is necessary in order to understand how best to present our objects to the natives, taking advantage of the wonderful opportunities provided by the film and radio for instilling into their minds the desirability of improving their conditions and raising their standard of living.
  If we are to achieve the objects which the Secretary of State has so eloquently described, we must educate the native into a desire for better conditions of life. It is no use paying higher wages if the native, instead of working five or six days, merely works three days, arid lives at the same low standard. I was told the other day of a man who, before the Malay States were invaded, had a native as a driver. This native brought to him two brass spoons, worked most exquisitely. He took those spoons to a jeweller in Singapore, to get them silvered. The jeweller said he would certainly not do that, as it was the most wonderful work he had ever seen, but he would pay the native go dollars a month to go in and work with him. The employer of this man thought he ought to tell his driver about this offer, as he could not possibly afford to pay him that amount-of money, so he went to him and said, "I have got a splendid job for you at go dollars a month," but the driver said, "No, I do not want to go at all." He was perfectly happy with his pay, which suited his requirements, he had enough clothes and food for his wife and family, and he was not willing to go.
  1308
  I tell that story merely to show that many natives are very happy with their own conditions, and I think we must use the films and the broadcasts to show to them the desirability of raising their standard of living in a variety of ways. If we show them that, they must, at the same time, be given the means to raise their standard of living, and wages must rise in accordance with the greater education given. These things must go hand in hand. It is no use paying them higher money, if it means that they are going to work two or three days a week and remain-on their same low standard of living. All this has got to be worked out in an extremely careful way, and. I want to suggest to the Colonial Secretary that this can best be done by greatly intensifying the study of the means of presentation, by both film and broadcast, to the natives of our ideas.
  My third and final point is this. The Secretary of State has said how advantageous it is to have personal knowledge of the Colonial Empire and personal contacts with the people in the Colonies. I hope that, as soon as travel becomes easier, much greater opportunities will be given to civil servants and members of the Minister's own staff continually to visit our Colonies. Air travel has now made this possible in a way which was not possible before the war, I think it is vital, for the proper administration of the Colonial Empire, that all those of the Colonial Secretary's staff, from whom he seeks advice, should have continual opportunities of becoming up-to-date through practical personal experience. This can be done by visits to these territories, to see what is going on there, so that, when they write their minutes, it will be done not from something read in a book, seen on a film or received second-hand from other people, but from first-hand knowledge of the problems on which they report. I hope the Treasury will not restrict the Minister in this direction, but will give him all possible support. I hope the Colonial Secretary will be able to continue in the great work he has done. We are all anxious to support him in the energy and enterprise which he is showing in the development of this great trusteeship, in which fie, this House of Commons and this country have so great a responsibility.
  Colonel Stanley: I am sure that the Debate we have had to-day has been one

  1309
  of great interest and of great practical value. There have, I know, been more speakers who would have liked to take part than there was room for, and that I think, will reinforce the request, which I think comes from all parts of the Committee that, if possible, we should have a second day. I have no reason at all to be dissatisfied with the series of speeches, which, on the whole, have been favourable to the policy of my Department, and, where they have been critical, have been critical in a constructive and helpful manner. I am afraid I have occupied the time of the Committee for a very long time to-day, and I only intend to deal, in courtesy, with points raised in the Debate.
  The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) raised the point which he has raised before in our Colonial deliberations and which is certainly a very important one, of the establishment of a Colonial Development Council. The name of Colonial Development Council was supported by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart), although the account he gave of its constitution and activities seemed to differ radically from that of my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not pretend for a moment that any organisation that I have set up centrally here is perfect, is not capable of improvement or that good suggestions cannot be made. I should frankly like to know more exactly how this Council is to be composed and exactly what its duties are to be. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight gave me the impression, certainly, that it was going to consist of a small number of whole-time people—he emphasised "whole-time" people—and, therefore, presumably paid by the Colonial Office.
  Captain Macdonald: May I point out that I did not say that all the members of the Council should be whole-time, but suggested that the chairman and secretary should be?
  Colonel Stanley: Then it really does seem to me to differ very little from the Advisory Committee which I have set up, largely in response to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. I have, of course, since the last Debate, set up an Economic Advisory Committee. I do not pretend for a moment that this Economic Advisory Committee has executive power, nor do I pretend that, it is able, somehow
  1310
  or other, without depriving the Secretary of State of his responsibilities, to prevent some swing of policy when the Secretary of State is changed. I do not see how that can be done unless we are gradually arriving at the point where there is a great consensus of agreement on Colonial policy on all sides of the House. This Economic Advisory Committee are able, first of all, to advise me upon specific economic problems which I refer to them, and, secondly, themselves to take the whole economic field and submit their advice to me. They have already given me very valuable advice on specific problems. They themselves prefer, as a method of work, to try to cover the whole economic field and present to me, in the end, a report on general principles. I am not expecting this Committee—they cannot possibly do it—to inquire into the exact industrial capacity of any country or the location of particular industries. I want them to advise on general economic principles and prospects as applied to the Colonial Empire, and I do not think that this Development Council could really do any more.
  I want to emphasise that these Colonies are on their way to nationhood, and we cannot dictate to them about their Colonial policy. This board, which has no authority, could, sit down and say, "We will not allow this Colony to have a certain industry, but will put it, instead, somewhere else," Only the Colony, and I who am responsible, can do that, and I should only like to do that as a result of the kind of machinery that I sketched out beforehand which enables, the various Colonies in their regional work to argue the thing out among themselves, though in the end there must 'be some power to enforce decision. In that way I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, and he was a right to be anxious about a very important bit of machinery. I have this Economic Advisory Committee, which, I confess, was not exactly what he asked for but which I set up largely on the representations of himself and his friends and it will fulfil, in connection with the other machinery, the sort of rôle which he has in mind. I hope that he will give it a fair chance and see what developments take place.
  He made another rather interesting suggestion with regard to West Africa. I had appointed in West Africa, as part of the

  1311
  regional machinery, a Civil Members' Committee, which at the moment is under the presidency of Lord Swinton. The hon. and gallant Member asked what would happen when sooner or later, Lord Swinton having done most invaluable work for us in that area, feels that there are other calls upon his activities. I think that everybody, without knowing exactly what I would propose to Parliament when the time comes, realises that the position cannot fall back to what it was before. There must be some way of taking decisions more on the spot and getting co-operation between the Colonies in the area. I note the interesting suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend that the chairmanship of the Committee should pass to a new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
  Finally, the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised the question of the British West Indian Airways. I am afraid I can only say to him at the Moment that the position has been extremely unsatisfactory. Since be left they have been, without the new planes. Every effort is being made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air to provide them. Considerable difficulties have arisen in connection with technicalities—I can only call them that—of Lend-Lease, but I can assure him that I share with him the view, of the importance of this company, the enterprise they have shown so far, and their determination. I anticipate on my part and on the part of His Majesty's Government that, somehow or other, we shall provide the aircraft which at the moment they need to carry on an effective service.
  I pass to the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), I never know now whether to call him by that name or by that new title which, I. believe, was conferred upon him ivith appropriate ceremony at Lagos. [An HON. MEMBER "What was it?"] I do not know what it was, but it was, I know, extremely complimentary. The hon. Gentleman, in the course of an extremely interesting speech, displayed to the Committee the very vitalising effect of his recent visit and his recent contact with the area. I think, in fact, he provided the answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). The hon. Gentleman the-Member for West Leyton argued with great force, and
  1312
  from his own point of view, with great conviction, that he could make a better speech, not having been to the Colonies, than any one on this side of the Committee could make, even though he had been to the Colonies. But good as the speeches are that he makes now, they could be made better still if he had the advantage of seeing the places of which he speaks, and I hope very soon he will have that opportunity.
  Captain P. Macdonald: I would suggest that the hon. Member should find out what the Colonies themselves think of his speeches.
  Mr. Sorensen: I am well aware of what some of the Colonies think.
  Colonel Stanley: The hon. Member for Shipley raised a very important point with which I had dealt at Question time and recently in a Debate on the Adjournment with regard to the possibility of long-term planning under the provisions of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. He pointed out that the Act was only on the Statute Book for 10 years, that four of those years had already expired, that we had not yet completed our planning and that as the future life of the Act got-shorter and shorter, so it would become more difficult for the Colonial Government to plan for the really substantial development which should be taken into consideration. I have told the Committee before that the White Paper provides for a review of the Act from time to time. That is certainly the intention and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that a review of the whole terms of the Act should take place before conditions have become such that the needs of the Colonies have got beyond the possibilities of the Act. I have told the Committee already what I hope will come out of such a review, but I am not anxious to undertake such a review until I have got further with the plans which are being prepared. It is not much good saying that the time is not long enough and that the amount is not enough, until I have a clearer idea of what I shall want and what the money is to be. My duty will be to collect long-term plans from the Colonies and translate them into the financial demands that they make and see how much can be provided from their own resources by the Colonies themselves, and then I shall have material plans to

  1313
  discuss with the Chancellor which might be put before the House, I hope, very much for its acceptance.
  The hon. Gentleman raised another very interesting point with regard to the movements of Governors and other members of the Colonial Service as between Colonies, which is admittedly a question of great difficulty. I fully sympathise with the desire of the Colonies that a man having learnt the particular problems he has to know—and this applies particularly when you get to the higher ranks and the moves are more frequent—should, stay. There is a great deal to be said for that and whenever possible I try to leave these officers for a very substantial period. But the hon. Member will also realise the difficulties on the other side. It is not always a very good thing—in fact it would be a very bad thing—if a man entering the Service went to a small Calony and never had a chance of exercising his own powers on a wider job and there was nobody who could come into that Colony with experience to give an impetus to that Colony's administration. One has to try, while giving every sympathy to the local desire that members of the Colonial Service should stay for long periods, to balance beween those two things.
  One other point I want to deal with is a point which was repeated by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) and that was the need for a geological survey of the territory. That was one of the points I should have liked to elaborate, and would still like to elaborate if we have another day in which we can deal more fully with research. I quite agree there is a vital need both for a geological survey of the Colonial territories and also for a geodetic survey. I think they are both equally important. With regard to both, I am discussing with the experts in those lines the possibility of a plan, over a period of years, which will enable us for the first time to get a complete survey of all Colonial territory. I am not yet in the position where that is: quite ready to go to the Research Committee, but I hope before long to do so, and I can assure hon. Members that it is absolutely essential, for the sake of sound economic planning in the Colonies, of sound planning of communications, and of sound agricultural policy, that we should have the facts which can alone be revealed by those two services.
  1314
  The hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) in his thoughtful speech referred largely to the position of private industry in Colonial development. I referred to this in our Debate last year when I made it perfectly plain that, as far as I was concerned, I thought there would be not only an opening but a real need for the assistance of private capital for development; that the calls upon capital in the Colonies, the calls upon financial assistance which Parliament and the Government could give from here, were going to be so great that there would be plenty of room for the introduction of private capital. I pointed out, however, that private capital in the Colonies in future could only go in on terms which, while they would not deprive it of any opportunity, would make certain that the territory and its inhabitants would have a square deal. Part of it, I quite agree, is really more a question of building up the proper labour machinery to ensure that there are proper wage agreements and proper industries. Part, as I think the hon. Members said, should consist of assistance for an industry which is going to be of real economic value to the territory. I do not want to tie myself to the sort of suggestion made by the hon. Member that we should say there should be no excise duties, or that we should stop dumping or unfair competition; I would rather leave it to the individual Colony to go into the best way to help the particular industry, but we have to face the fact that if we are to develop new secondary industries in the Colonies, in the early days they will want same help. What we have to be careful of is that we do not give extravagant help to industries which can never, however successful they are, exist without it.
  There is this extraordinarily difficult problem, for which at the moment I do not pretend to have found the solution, but on which I have asked for advice from the experts—somehow or other we have to leave room for African capital, for African managerial skill as and when it is ready to take a part in this-industrial development. In the need for economic development as quickly as we can get it, at a time when there is no, or little, African capital and not sufficient African managerial skill available, we must not fill the gap with imported capital and imported managerial skill in a way which,

  1315
  for ever or for a long period, prevents the African himself from meeting this need. It is not an easy problem but it is one which, I believe, can be solved to the benefit of the Colony, of the inhabitants of the Colony, and of the industrial enterprise of this country as well.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife first asked me about the question of education in the West Indies. I have just looked up a speech which I made on this subject on 16th March last year and I frankly confess to the Committee that I stand surprised at its excellence. If the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of looking at it, he will see that I referred to exactly the point which struck him during his tour, and that is the danger that West. African education up to now has followed far too much the Victorian ideal, and has been far too much divorced from the environment, from the way in which we try to develop modern education. He raised one very important point with regard to the use of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. He said he felt that if it were devoted only to capital expenditure, and no part was used for recurring expenditure, he would be in favour of that. I do not think it is as simple as that. I may be over-simplifying it, perhaps, but he did make that point, he asked me whether it was reserved only for capital expenditure, or was it to be used for recurring expenditure as well?
  I quite see his point, and I agree with him that the purpose of this fund is to enable the Colonies to develop their resources so that eventually, if possible, they should be able to maintain their own standard out of their own resources. However, I do not believe we can do that pump-priming merely by confining this to capital expenditure. They have to be helped, in the first instance not only with school buildings, but with school teachers; they have to be helped in the first instance not only with soil erosion measures but with trained agricultural teachers. I do not think you can separate capital and recurring expenditure; certainly I am not attempting to do so, and I am accepting as suitable for a grant, -items of recurring expenditure. I shall, however, always have in mind, and I think hon. Members have in mind, that the object of this Act, if we can so work it, is not that of a permanent charitable contribution from the
  1316
  House to the Colonies but to—give them a start in developing their own resources and achieving financial stability.
  The hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Wootton-Davies) spoke with great authority on the question of palm oil. I will not follow him into the very technical differences between "hards" and "softs," but I will deal with this one important point which I know must have occurred to the hon. Gentleman many times when he was in Nigeria. That is, the effect upon the cultivation of palm oil in Nigeria under the peasant proprietor system of the plantation system elsewhere in the Congo or the Far East. Let me say at once that, in no circumstances, have we any intention of abandoning the policy, which, from the-social point of view at any rate, has been the sheet-anchor of our rule in Nigeria, and that is the ownership of the land by the African for the African. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the plantation system appears in some cases to produce in the financial result by greater integration, greater opportunity for research, greater opportunity for machinery, an article with which it is difficult to compete. I know it is very much in the minds of all people in that area, and those responsible, whether there is not some way, by methods of co-operation, that we can meet this plantation competition without sacrificing the social benefits of the system which we maintain.
  Mr. Wootton-Davies: Would not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that West Africa cannot compete with plantation palm oil because of the inferior quality they produce? Inferior quality must surely kill their trade in palm oil.
  Colonel Stanley: There was great difficulty about competition. The West African industry remained in existence but did not expand at the rate at which the plantation industry expanded. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) gave an interesting description of the problems which face us in Malaya. He started by giving a quotation from a letter by the Duke of Wellington, from which I received great assistance and guidance. Wellington was a very great man, a very good Tory, although I am afraid that all of us must admit that he was not even a Tory reformer. He was just a plain Tory. I said a few words in my opening speech of the steps we are taking to set up standing machinery to

  1317
  deal with these problems. I will not go into the matter further at the moment, except to say that my hon. Friend's analysis of the particular political problems was very accurate. As regards his question about Hong-Kong, I can only refer him to the statement—to which he referred himself—made by the Prime Minister, which, I think, needs no alteration or addition.
  The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) said he was disappointed because he thought I had not given guidance to all the Colonies as to planning. He pointed out how varied all the Colonies were. Well, if you once try to give general instructions or general directions to all the Colonies, then the factor common to all becomes very small, very exiguous and very platitudinous. Although we try to state what we are trying to get at, when it comes to actual principles on which they shall work, I see little alternative to discussion, Colony by Colony, of the problems which face them. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) said a few kind words about me but referred with some acidity to the fact that an adviser, or expert, on Colonial affairs had been appointed by the Conservative Central Office. The hon. Gentleman, coming from the party he does come from, can hardly complain about an adviser being attached to a party. I remember the time, in the palmy days of the Lloyd George Fund, when there were more advisers around the Liberal Party than there were members. You could not see the wood for the trees or the trees for the wood—I do not know which.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to an interesting discussion of our relations with other Powers. I gladly give him the assurance he asked for, that suggestions we have made about regional commissions and conferences, which I think have met with general agreement in all parts of, the House, involve no infringement whatsoever of our sovereignty, by which I mean our administrative responsibility. That statement has been definitely made by the Prime Minister and by myself. It will interest the hon. Gentleman to learn that when I went to West Africa, shortly after making the statement in the House about regional commissions, I found that the one thing that worried them out there was the thought that in some way regional commissions
  1318
  meant some kind of international administration. It is not only that such administration would be inefficient, because you cannot share responsibility among a number of people, but they saw in such commissions a great obstacle between them and their goal. They said, "We believe you want to help us along the road towards self-government, but here is a new body which will sit over our heads and make a sham of self-government." Therefore, I am only too glad to give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
  The hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) asked for a political programme lasting 20 years. I do not believe in laying down "skedules," as they are called on the other side of the Atlantic, of political programmes lasting 10, 20 or 30 years. It all depends on how they work. I believe that you have to proceed by generous trial and error, by taking slight risks and not by laying down a programme such as the hon. Member suggested.
  Mr. Sorensen: Why not take risks for a limited period of time?
  Colonel Stanley: I have given an account to the Committee of the changes made in the last year, which involve a considerable degree of risk. Changes are always going on, because we seriously desire to foster self-government and also see that it works. If it does not we here are not the people to suffer; the millions of people in the Colonies are those who suffer. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) referred to opportunities for service after the war, and he will realise that it is quite impossible for me to make a statement to-day. It depends on the decisions taken in the light of whatever military forces are required in the future. I am certain, however, that in any of these forces the people of the Colonies will have ample opportunities for service.
  With regard to films and broadcasting, they will assume an increasing importance in the future. These methods, of education, rather than propaganda, would be available for grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act and we are, encouraging plans of that kind. The account my hon. Friend envisaged of Africans misreading or misinterpreting films rather frightens me. I only hope that if they are shown Hollywood films

  1319
  their failure to understand them might prove their salvation. I must conclude by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate for the extremely valuable suggestions they have made, and by expressing the hope that we may have another opportunity to deal with the many important subjects with which we have not had time to deal to-day.
  Ordered:
  "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain McEwen.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  UNITED NATIONS (EMBLEM)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain McEwen.]
  Mr. Mander: I make no apology for raising on the Adjournment a matter of which I gave notice about six weeks ago, in which the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Vernon Bartlett) and myself are interested. It seems to me to be quite appropriate to this occasion, when the United Nations are going forward to one of the greatest events in their history, or in all history., is the question, which may seem a small one but has its important side, of a United Nations flag or emblem. It is generally agreed that, after the war, a new world organisation is to be set up and, if it is to succeed, it is important that there should be associated with it something in the nature of colour and ceremonial, so that its prestige may be built up in a better manner than in the case of the League of Nations. I should like to see it have some emblem or flag, or I hope it will have a song. If one were looking for a suitable battle song one would not have to look much further than the sort of thing so well shown in the well-known lines of the American "Battle Hymn of the Republic:
  "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the corning of the Lord."
  or
  "I have seen Him in the watchfires of a hundred, circling camps."
  or
  "He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat."
  I understand that for historical reasons
  1320
  the hymn would not be-Appropriate: but it expresses the kind of feeling required.
  Mr. Kirkwood: What about "Scots Wha Hae"?
  Mr. Mander: We all know the deep feelings of pride and emotion which any national flag calls forth. It is not suggested that our 'own national flag or that of any other country should be suppressed or got rid of. I mention that because in an interesting Brains Trust broadcast recently when this question was raised the extremely clever people who answer these questions answered it on the basis that all national flags were to be abolished. Nothing could be more absolutely preposterous, as I should have thought would be obvious even to the Brains Trust. We all know the feelings that are evoked, and always will be, by the Union Jack, the Stars and Stripes—Old Glory—and the Red Flag, although we remember that the Union Jack is composed of the national flags of three different races.
  May I briefly run through the history of this kind of thing? I suppose that the earliest international flag of any kind would be at the time of the Crusades, when the Cross was used as an emblem. After the last war, I understand that the Inter-Allied Shipping Commission made use of an Inter-Allied flag which was flown on all their ships in every port to which they went, and it answered satisfactorily. If I may be permitted in the presence of some hon. Members to refer to the late, and by me, at any rate, lamented League of Nations, there was one occasion on which a flag was flown. The League lacked certain things—force and colour—and these are the things we all want to see in any international organisation of the future. In 1933 in the dispute between Colombia and Peru concerning the territory of Leticia, a flag was flown consisting of a white rectangle with an inscription in dark blue. In 1930 there was an international competition for a flag of this kind. There were 1,640 entries, hut they were a little disappointing and no first prize was given. There were two second prizes. One was given for a design of a five-pointed star inside a circle, representing the five Continents inside the world. The other design was five linked circles inside a circle representing the same idea. The colours were white or silver for peace, blue for truth and yellow or gold for good luck.

  1321
  There was an instance during the present war when a United Nations flag was flown in Washington for a brief period. It represented four red lines on a white background, and these were supposed to be the four freedoms. A question was put to the Foreign Secretary about a year ago on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman expressed his interest and sympathy and said that if anything of the kind were adopted the Government would give it their blessing. The point has been made that it would be extremely difficult to get all the United Nations to agree in a matter of this kind, but that does not seem to me necessary. We could start with the three great Powers who have their masses of men in the Services. At the present moment British and American nationals acting in concert have some emblem, which shows that it is not altogether out of the picture even now. If the three great Powers were able to agree, in due course the others would probably fall into line. I agree that we cannot negotiate with the whole of them at the present time.
  I should like to see a flash on the uniform of every serving man in the United Nations. I am going to makes, suggestion of what it might be. We should find something based on tradition and history, and I do not think we can do better than to look back to ancient Greece, which means so much today and has meant so much in the history of culture and philosophy. Above all, let us look to Athens, where democracy first showed itself on the earth's surface. When the Athenians went into battle they made use of two symbols, the olive for peace, and the owl for wisdom. I suggest we could do much worse than follow their example. An alternative might be found on some of the interesting banners on the Bayeux tapestries of the Norman Conquest, for instance, at the Battle of Hastings. I have been looking at them recently, and I, think there are certainly opportunities here.
  All I ask the Government to do is to treat this matter seriously. It may be said that it is only a matter of sentiment and emotion, but let us remember what an enormous part in the world of human beings sentiment and emotion play, and let us make the most of the feelings which are evoked by great symbols. I would end with a verse of poetry which I think well
  1322
  repays recall, as it so aptly expresses these suggestions.
  Mr. Leslie Boyce: Will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to sing it?
  Mt. Mander: The lines are:
  "Off with your hat as the flag goes by,
  And let the heart have its say.
  You are man enough for a tear in your eye,
  Which you will not wipe away."
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Hall): No one denies the interest which my hon. Friend has taken in the matter about which he has just addressed the House. I must point out however that when the Question was first raised it concerned a United Nations flag, whereas he commenced his speech to-day by wanting an emblem and a song. I trust that it will not be thought that His Majesty's Government are not alive to the psychological and practical considerations which he has placed before us, but I would mention Some of the reasons which have so far led them to doubt the appropriateness of taking the initiative in this matter with the other United Nations.
  In the first place, both the moment at which any United Nations flag should be instituted and the manner of its use and indeed its design are questions which demand some consideration. What would be the most suitable time, from the political and psychological point of view for its introduction, assuming that such a flag was desirable? It is suggested that the most suitable time from the political and psychological point of view would be when some permanent political organisation of the United Nations is instituted. Until such a time it would be necessary, in order to avoid the drawing of premature political conclusions, to make clear that the adoption of a United Nations flag did not imply the existence of some kind of international authority transcending national sovereignty.
  While this difficulty could, no doubt, be overcome by framing an agreement in suitable terms with the other nations there would still be the difficulty of defining the occasions on which such a flag could be properly used. Without such a definition it would always be possible for any one, or any group of the United Nations acting unilaterally, to implicate other nations in matters with which they were not concerned or had not given their consent. Preliminary ex-

  1323
  amination of this matter suggests it would not be easy to frame such a definition. Indeed it might be necessary to draw it so narrowly that the occasions on which the flag could be used would be too limited to make it worth having one. It is also anticipated that some difficulty would be encountered in finding a design for such a flag which would be acceptable to all the United Nations. It is true, as my hon. Friend suggested, that a flag of this kind has been tried out but I think the general consensus of opinion not only in this House and in this country butt in other countries as well is that it is very much more effective to have the flags of the United Nations flying side by side than a flag common to all.

  LANDINGS IN FRANCE
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I promised to report to the House later on in the Sitting. I lave been at the centres where the latest information is received, and I can state to the House that this operation is proceeding in thoroughly satisfactory manner. Many dangers and difficulties which at this time last night appeared extremely formidable are behind us. The passage of the sea has been made with far less loss than we apprehended. The resistance of the batteries has been greatly weakened by the bombing of the Air Force, and the superior bombardment-of our ships quickly reduced their fire to dimensions which did not affect the problem. The landing of the troops on a broad front, both British and American—Allied troops, I will not give lists of all the different nationalities they represent or the States they represent—but the landings along the whole front have been effective, and our troops have penetrated, in some cases, several miles inland. Lodgments exist on a broad front.
  1324
  The outstanding feature has been the landings of the airborne troops, which were on a scale far larger than anything that has been seen so far in the world. These landings took place with extremely little loss and with great accuracy. Particular anxiety attached to them, because the conditions of light prevailing in the very limited period of the dawn—just before the dawn—the conditions of visibility, made all the difference. Indeed, there might have been something happening at the last minute which would not have enabled airborne troops to play their part. A very great degree of risk had to be taken in respect of the weather.
  But General Eisenhower's courage is equal to all the necessary decisions that have to be taken in these extremely difficult and uncontrollable matters. The airborne troops are well established, and the landings and the follow-ups are all proceeding with much less loss—very much less—than we expected. Fighting is proceeding at various points. We have captured various bridges which were of importance, and which were not blown up. There is even fighting proceeding in the town of Caen, inland. But all this, although a very valuable first step—a vital and essential first step—gives no indication of what may be the course of the battle in the next days and weeks, because the enemy will now probably endeavour to concentrate on this area and in that event heavy fighting will soon begin and will continue without end, as we can push troops in and he can bring other troops up. It is, therefore, a most serious time that we enter upon. Thank God, we enter upon it with our great Allies all in good heart and all in good friendship.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

BRITISH ARMY
  Officers (Allowances)
  Officers (Allowances)
  Overseas Service
  Overseas Service
  Parliamentary Candidates
  Parliamentary Candidates
  Anti-Typhoid Inoculation (Pte. F. G. Bass)
  Anti-Typhoid Inoculation (Pte. F. G. Bass)
  BRITISH FORCES (DUTY FREE PARCELS)
  BRITISH FORCES (DUTY FREE PARCELS)
FUEL AND POWER
  Restrictions (Printing Works)
  Restrictions (Printing Works)
  Electricity (Domestic Supplies, Charges)
  Electricity (Domestic Supplies, Charges)
  POST-WAR SECURITY (ALLIED POWERS, CONVERSATIONS)
  POST-WAR SECURITY (ALLIED POWERS, CONVERSATIONS)
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Tribute to Staffs
  Tribute to Staffs
  Office Cleaners
  Office Cleaners
  Ministry of Food (Infestation Division)
  Ministry of Food (Infestation Division)
  INCOME TAX (HOUSEKEEPER ALLOWANCE)
  INCOME TAX (HOUSEKEEPER ALLOWANCE)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Unused Clothing Coupons
  Unused Clothing Coupons
  Companies (Enemy-held Shareholdings)
  Companies (Enemy-held Shareholdings)
  AFFORESTATION
  AFFORESTATION
  SERVICE CANT4ENS (STAFF, HOURS)
  SERVICE CANT4ENS (STAFF, HOURS)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Post-War Organisation (Municipal Aerodromes)
  Post-War Organisation (Municipal Aerodromes)
  Airman (Regrading)
  Airman (Regrading)
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (GENERAL FORCES PROGRAMME)
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (GENERAL FORCES PROGRAMME)
  ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (VITAMIN D IMPORTS)
  ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (VITAMIN D IMPORTS)
  ORDERS IN COUNCIL (CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  ORDERS IN COUNCIL (CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  COAL HOLDINGS REGISTER
  COAL HOLDINGS REGISTER
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Young People's Centres (Catering Licences)
  Young People's Centres (Catering Licences)
  Meat (Imports)
  Meat (Imports)
  Milk Surpluses
  Milk Surpluses
  Salmon
  Salmon
  ARMED FORCES (POSTAL CHARGES)
  ARMED FORCES (POSTAL CHARGES)
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  CANCELLED RAILWAY TRAINS
  CANCELLED RAILWAY TRAINS

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsuntide Recess, the House met, The LORD STANMORE on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

WAR SITUATION: LANDINGS IN FRANCE.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on the war situation?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE)(Lord Cecil): My Lords, the House will certainly wish to have some account of the stirring events of the last few days. As your Lordships are aware, the Prime Minister has already spoken in another place and the House, I know, will understand if I confine myself closely to his statement. It is as follows:
"The House should, I think, take formal cognizance of the liberation of Rome by the Allied Armies under the command of General Alexander, with General Clark, of the United States Service, General Leese in command of the Fifth and Eighth Armies respectively. This is a memorable and
2
glorious event, which rewards the intense fighting of the last five months. The original landing, made on the 22nd January at Anzio, has in the end borne good fruit. In the first place, Hitler was induced to send to the south of Rome eight or nine divisions which he may well have need of elsewhere. Secondly, these divisions were repulsed and their teeth broken by the successful resistance of the Anzio bridge-head force in the important battle which took place in the middle of February. The losses on both sides were heavy, the Allies losing about 20,000 and the Germans about 25,000 men. Thereafter the Anzio bridge-head was considered by the enemy to be impregnable.
"Meanwhile, the great regrouping of the main Army had to take place before the attacks could be renewed. They were at first unsuccessful, and Cassino still blocked the advance. On the 11th May, General Alexander began his present operation and, after unceasing and intense fighting by the whole Armies, broke into the enemy's line and entered the Liri valley. It is noteworthy that, counting from the right to the left, the whole of the Polish, British Empire, French and United States Forces broke the German lines in front of them by frontal attack. At what was judged the right moment, the bridge-head force, which had by this time reached a total of nearly 150,000 men, fell upon the retreating enemy's flank and threatened his retreat. The junction of the main Army with the bridge-head force drove

3
the enemy off his principal lines of retreat to the north, forcing a great part of his Army to retire in considerable disorder and with heavy losses, especially in material, through mountainous country. The Allied Forces with great rapidity were grouped with special emphasis upon their left flank, which soon deployed against Rome. After cutting the important highways the American and other Forces of the Fifth Army broke through the enemy's last line and entered Rome, where the Allied troops have been received with joy by the population. This entry and liberation of Rome means that we shall have the power to defend it from hostile air attack and to deliver it from the famine by which it was threatened.
"However, General Alexander's prime object has never been the liberation of Rome. Great as are the moral, political and psychological advantages of that episode, the destruction of the enemy's Army has been throughout his aim. The Allied Forces, with the Americans in the van, are driving ahead northwards in relentless pursuit of the enemy, who are at the same time being engaged along the whole length of the line as they attempt to escape to the north. It is hoped that the 20,000 prisoners already taken will be followed by further large captures in the near future, and that the condition of the enemy's Army which he has crowded into Italy will be decisively worsened. It would be futile to attempt to estimate our final gains at the present time. It is our duty, however, to pay warmest tribute of gratitude and admiration to General Alexander for the skill with which he has handled this Army of so many different States and nations, and for the tenacity and fortitude with which he has sustained the long periods when success Was denied. In General Clark, the United States Army has found a leader of the highest order, and the fighting qualities of all the Allied troops have shone in noble and unjealous rivalry. The great strength of the Air Forces at our disposal, as well as the preponderance in armour, has undoubtedly contributed in a notable and distinctive manner to the successes which have been achieved. We must await further developments in the
4
Italian theatre before it is possible to estimate the magnitude or quality of our gains, great and timely though they certainly are.
"I have also to announce to the House that during the night and the early hours of this morning the first of a series of landings-in-force upon the European Continent has taken place. In this case the liberating assault fell upon the coast of France. An immense armada of upwards of 4,000 ships, together with several thousand smaller craft, crossed the Channel. Mass airborne landings have been successfully effected behind the enemy's lines, and landings on the beaches are proceeding at various points at the present time. The fire of the shore batteries has been largely quelled. The obstacles that were constructed in the sea have not proved so difficult as was apprehended. The Anglo-American Allies are sustained by about 11,000 first-line aircraft which can be drawn upon as need be for the purposes of the battle. I cannot, of course, commit myself to any details. Reports are coming in in rapid succession. So far the Commanders who are engaged report that everything is proceeding according to plan. This vast operation is undoubtedly the most complicated and difficult that has ever occurred. It involves tides, winds, waves, visibility both from the air and sea standpoints, and the combined employment of land, air, and sea Forces in the highest degree of intimacy and in contact with conditions which cannot be fully known. There are already hopes that actual tactical surprise has been attained, and we hope to furnish the enemy with a succession of surprises during the course of the fighting.
"The battle which has now begun will grow constantly in scale and in intensity for many weeks to come, and I shall not attempt to speculate upon its course. This I may say, however. Complete unity prevails throughout the Allied Armies. There is a brotherhood in arms between us and our friends of the United States. There is complete confidence in the Supreme Commander, General Eisenhower, and in his lieutenants, and also in the Commander of the Expeditionary Force, General Mont-

5
gomery. The ardour and spirit of the troops as I saw myself"—
that is the Prime Minister speaking—
"embarking in these last few days, is splendid to witness. Nothing that equipment, science, or forethought can do has been neglected, and the whole process of opening this great new front will be pursued with the utmost resolution both by the Commanders and by the United States and British Governments whom they serve."
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure it will suffice to-day if I confine myself to thanking the noble Viscount for the statement he has made and to joining with him in the sincere tribute he has paid to General Alexander and to the Forces under his command in Italy. I am sure that many of us, with recollections of experiences of the last war, looked forward with great apprehension to the attack upon the very strong positions that confronted our Armies. It must only be due to consummate skill and to the use of all arms is scientific combination that a break-through was achieved in so short a time and that success has so far crowned this brilliant undertaking. I am sure we should like to express our appreciation of the most important fact that the great and historic city of Rome has escaped damage to the great extent that it has. Finally, I join with the noble Viscount in what he has said about the great adventure that started to-day and which will, in future, make the sixth of June a memorable date.

THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am happy to inform the House that the King has been pleased to extend the term of Sir Henry Badeley's tenure of office as Clerk of the Parliaments which, in the normal course, would have terminated upon his reaching the age limit towards the end of this month. In recommending my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to submit Sir Henry Badeley's name for this extension, I was able to assure him that I had consulted the Lord Chancellor and the Leaders of the other Parties in your Lordships' House who cordially agreed with my recommendation. I should add, perhaps, that Sir Henry himself will be very pleased to continue in the service of the House. I am sure that the recommendation which I have made
6
will receive the warm approval of your Lordships.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am asked by noble Lords on this side of the House to express our cordial concurrence in what the noble Viscount has proposed.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches also desire to concur. We have heard with much gratification that we are not to lose, yet awhile, the principal officer of the House, whose courtesy and kindness are appreciated by all of us.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think perhaps one word should be said also from the Bishops' Benches, to signify our pleasure that Sir Henry Badeley will still remain in the service of the House.

ACCOMMODATION IN THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
Message from the Commons to acquaint the House that they have come to the following Resolution to which they desire the concurrence of their Lordships—namely, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons be appointed to inquire into the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster, and to report thereon with such recommendations as appear to them desirable.
LONDON MIDLAND & SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LONDON MIDLAND & SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SECRET SESSION.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do sit in Secret Session.
Moved, That the House do now sit in Secret Session.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
The Official Reporter then withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
Sitting resumed in Open Session.

EDUCATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I regard it as a privilege to move that this House should give a Second Reading to this Bill. I have spent much time during the morning trying to reduce to the minimum the amount of your Lordships' time that I shall have to occupy this afternoon in view of the very large number of speakers, but I hope you will forgive me if on a subject of great detail I at any rate endeavour to do justice to the Bill which is before you. The Prime Minister last year foreshadowed a four-year plan of social advancement after the war. This Bill is the first of the Government's major measures of reconstruction. It has met with the general consent of members in another place and it has won widespread support in the country.
The object of the Bill is to ensure a fuller measure of education and of opportunity for young people. It seeks to provide the means for all to develop the various talents with which they are endowed, and if in its administration it fulfils the hopes of His Majesty's Government, then the machinery that is here provided will have enabled the life of successive generations of this nation to be vastly enriched. Whatever may be the wealth or the material resources of this country, our greatest national asset lies in our children. Our hopes for the future greatness of Britain depend upon them—depend, firstly, I believe, upon their characters, and secondly upon their mental and technical capacity. The object of this Bill is to make such provision as will secure those ends. There can be no doubt of your Lordships' approval of the objectives we have in view, and I hope you will consider the proposals that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education has presented to Parliament are adequate for their purpose.
They have certainly been very carefully considered. From the day when my noble friend Lord Soulbury was President of the Board of Education, a series of negotiations have been conducted with representatives of local authorities, with the teachers, with the Churches, with unions, with co-operative societies and with all other interests that might be concerned.
8
Continuations of these conversations have informed the Department; they have involved many modifications in the original and in succeeding proposals. They have led to the production of a Bill which can be said to be something more than a Government measure. My right honourable friend Mr. Butler called it a "national measure" which the political Parties, the local authorities, the Churches, the teachers, the unions and the public at large have all helped to frame. In another place the Bill has been pulled together, and improved, and the Government now ask your Lordships' help in making this Bill the great Education Act of 1944. I submit it to your Lordships as a measure conceived in a bold and generous spirit. I believe it to be the desire of the nation that it should pass into law. Boldness in planning for the future is in accord with the spirit of the time. During these last few years we have given up so much, we have made so many sacrifices, so many of our old cherished convictions and privileges have been abandoned in the new unity that has bound us in a struggle for life and freedom, that we cannot be content to see the planning of the future after the war shackled and fettered by conceptions of government that have become worn out. New times give birth to new ideas and this Bill is a fitting measure for the new world into which we are moving, even although in the characteristic British way we move so quietly as to be scarcely conscious of the boldness of our adventuring.
The very title of tins Bill is significant. It is "an Act to reform the law relating to education in England and Wales." Previous Education Acts have been associated with the names of Mr. Balfour and Mr. Fisher. This Act will be, I think, gloriously associated with the name of Mr. Butler, to whom, I submit, this nation is greatly indebted. This Bill involves nothing short of the complete reconstruction and reform of the statutory system of education, and it provides for very wide extensions in many directions. At the present time the only obligation placed upon parents in respect of their children's education is to cause them "to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic." Those words, which you will find in the Act of 1921, were taken verbatim from Section 4 of the Elementary Education Act of 1876. This new Bill makes a totally different

9
approach to the problem from that of any of its predecessors. It is an act of reform born of the recognition that the plain fact is that our public system of education is no loner adequate to meet the needs of the nation. In origin, this present system is a system for the compulsory provision of elementary education, on to which there was later imposed, by the Act of 1902, a permissive system of secondary education. Despite the fact that the elementary school system now covers part of the secondary school stage, the two systems are still rigidly distinguished in Statute regulation, and the disparity between the two is emphasized in a number of ways—differences in standards of accommodation and amenities, in the size of classes, in the salaries of teachers, in the charging of fees and in the units of administrative control.
I do not know how many of your Lordships have read that most fascinating paper published by the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Arnold McNair, Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool University. That Committee point out in their Report that the atmosphere of the Poor Law and a trail of cheapness lay across the elementary schools right up to the end of the nineteenth century, and the elementary schools still remain the cheap part of the educational system. And yet these are the only schools which the great majority of the children of this country attend. Under the proposals now before your Lordships the present division of education into the two fields, elementary and higher, will come to an end. Instead, under Clause 6 of the Bill, the system of public education will be organized as a continuous process, conducted in three successive stages—primary, secondary and further—and each local education authority will be required by Clause 7 to contribute towards the moral, mental and physical development of the community by securing the provision of efficient education at all three stages. The term "elementary education" will disappear, and with it the notion that we have one type of education—elementary—for one section of the community, and another type—secondary—for another section. In the future all children will have a secondary education.
That is not to say that every child will have the sort of academic training of the type now provided by the grammar
10
schools. One of the greatest disadvantages of the present system is, as the White Paper pointed out, that too many of the nation's abler children are directed into a type of education which prepares primarily for the universities, and for the administrative and clerical professions, and too few find their way into the schools from which the design and craftsmanship sides of industry are recruited. The result has been the quite unwarranted and, I believe, thoroughly pernicious belief that the black-coated worker is a better person than the artisan or craftsman. In the future, the secondary stage will be designed not only to provide academic training for the selected few, it will be designed to give equivalent opportunities to all children over eleven years of age of making the most of their varying abilities and aptitudes.
Clause 8 of this Bill, which imposes on authorities the general duty of securing that there is sufficient school provision for primary and secondary education in their area, lays it down that the school must
"afford for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities and aptitudes."
It thus looks forward to Clause 34 of the Bill which, recognizing that an education in the three R's only is no longer sufficient for the future citizens of a great modern democracy, makes it
"the duty of the parent of every child of compulsory school age to cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude."
The school-leaving age will be raised to fifteen, and to sixteen as soon as, in the words of Clause 33, "the Minister is satisfied that it has become practicable to raise to sixteen the upper limit of the compulsory school age."
All types of secondary school will be conducted under a single code of regulations, while under Clause 59 (1) the prohibition of fees will be extended to all secondary schools for the maintenance of which the local education authorities are responsible. It has been suggested that the policy outlined here will lead to a lowering of the standards in the existing grammar schools and to a numbing uniformity. This is a matter that certainly deserves very close consideration, because it is, I know, of particular concern to many of your Lordships who are governors of some of the older grammar

11
schools up and down the country. I myself take some pride in being the governor of one of these schools which was founded in 1515, and therefore I have taken some personal interest in this question. The key to the problem, I think, is to be found in Clause 16 of the Bill. That clause provides that every county and auxiliary secondary school shall have a governing body constituted under an instrument of government, and shall also have articles of government setting out the functions of the local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher. The clause represents a very great advance, and it is to be noted in particular that subsection (5) provides that in framing the articles of government for an auxiliary school regard is to be had to the manner in which the school has been conducted heretofore. In the course of debates in another place, the President of the Board of Education announced that conversations were taking place between the various parties concerned. These have now been embodied in a White Paper entitled "Principles of Government in Maintained Secondary Schools" (Cd. 6523). It is a matter of satisfaction that the various interests concerned have arrived at agreement on general principles.
The reconstruction of the statutory system of education entails two further reforms about which your Lordships will expect me to say something. The first is the reform of the dual system and the revision of the present system of local educational administration. In, dealing with the long-standing problem of the dual system, I do not propose to lead your Lordships into the subtleties of Clause 14 and Clause 15, nor to deal with the minutia of Clauses 22 to 30. I think it would be more acceptable to your Lordships if I dealt with the matter much more generally and briefly. It is not always realized that one-half of the public elementary schools in England and Wales have been provided by voluntary bodies, and that these schools house about one-third of the total number of pupils. Many non-provided schools have so few pupils that their efficient and economic organization is impossible. Most of them are in old buildings; nearly 92 per cent. of them date at least from 1902, and most of them from very' much earlier. In general, non-provided schools are markedly inferior in the matter of
12
premises and amenities to the provided or council schools, and this disparity would obviously become more marked as educational standards in such matters as the size of classes were raised.
If a real educational advance is to be made and the children in the voluntary schools are to enjoy physical conditions and facilities comparable to those offered to children in the council schools, to say nothing of equal educational opportunities, it is manifest that there must be a revision of the existing arrangements, which date back to the year 1902. Without further financial aid than the Act of that year and the recent Act of 1936 provided, the Churches cannot bring their schools up to the standards which will enable them to play their proper part in these reforms. A number of attempts have been made in the past to deal with this problem, but for one reason or another they all broke down. The proposals in this Bill, which are the outcome of very long, very patient, and very careful consultation with all the interests concerned, have commanded a far greater measure of agreement than any previous proposals. I am not suggesting that everybody is satisfied; no one body got everything that it wanted. In a matter of this kind, where there are obviously so many divergent views, there must be give and take.
As it is, the various denominations have, I think, fared very much better than at one time they would have regarded as possible. Speaking in the debate on the White Paper, the most reverend Primate said:
"If it had been suggested to us ten years ago that the State would offer 50 per cent. of the cost of renewal and maintenance and still leave the school in the hands of the denomination that controls it, it would have been regarded by us as beyond our wildest dreams."
He will no doubt be telling your Lordships later on in this debate what view he now takes of the Government's proposals, which you will find in Clauses 97, 98 and 99. The last-mentioned in particular, I am bound to say, goes further than any member of the Government would have been prepared to contemplate this time last year. The Archbishop of Westminster has acknowledged that, while the Roman Catholic community abide by the principle that all the expenses of Roman Catholic schools ought to fall on public funds,

13
the measure of assistance for which this Bill now provides goes a considerable way to meet many of the objections to our original proposals. Positive steps have also been taken in Clauses 26, 27 and 53 to redress the old Nonconformist grievance of the single-school area, which for the first time finds some sort of statutory definition in Clause 99 (3). Nor do the changes benefit only the Church schools. The obstacles to reorganization and the existing hindrances to the great mobility of teachers will in large measure be removed, whilst the introduction of controlled status will substantially reduce the fields of religious tests for teachers.
I said earlier that in a matter of this nature there must be give and take. I should not like to leave your Lordships with the impression that what I may call the religious provisions in this Bill are the outcome of hard and reluctant bargaining. The provisions in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 25, that the school day in all primary and secondary schools should begin with a corporate act of worship, and that religious instruction should be given, give effect to two of the five points put forward to the President of the Board shortly after he assumed office by a deputation of Anglicans and Free Churchmen which was led by the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang. It would be wrong to regard the provisions of Clause 25, or of Clause 72, which gives effect to another of the Archbishop's five points by enabling the syllabus instruction to be inspected by His Majesty's inspectors, as concessions wrung from an unwilling Government. The Government have from the very beginning had the conviction that all education ought to have a spiritual background. This Bill makes provision for religious instruction and for the corporate act of worship.
Like the arrangements for the conduct of voluntary schools, the present arrangements for the local administration of education date back to the year 1902, or really to the year 1896, for it is quite clear that the framers of the Act of 1902 had in mind the fate of Sir John Gorst's abortive Bill of 1896, which entrusted the administration of all types of education to the councils of counties and county boroughs. Until the present Bill, no attempt has been made to deal with that problem, although the passage of years
14
has led to the most glaring anomalies and has shown more and more clearly how educational progress is hampered by a system which in county areas assigns some of the stages of a child's education to one local authority and others to another. The proposals embodied in Clause 6 and in the First Schedule are designed to achieve a proper unity in the local administrations of education, while affording ample scope for the exercise of local interest and experience. These proposals have been criticized. They have been criticized by the protagonists of the smaller authorities on the ground that they will destroy local interest. They have been criticized by the representatives of the counties on the ground that so much is assigned to the boroughs and the urban districts that the counties will become mere precepting authorities. The fact that such diverse criticism can be made of the same proposals is, I think, ample proof of the President's success in resolving the dilemma that confronted him. Moreover, in the divisional executive he has effected an innovation in the world of local government which has big possibilities, and may well lead to the long-needed revival of enthusiasm for local government matters generally.
I referred earlier to the fact that some 90 per cent. of the children of this country cease their education at the age of fourteen. The raising of the school age to fifteen, and subsequently sixteen, will do something to remove the defect of what the White Paper calls "under-exposure" to education. But those measures will not be sufficient in themselves. If the youth of the nation is to be given the mental, moral, manual and physical equipment to make the best of life, both as individuals and as members of the community, the work of the schools must be carried on into the period when young people begin their industrial and commercial life. Provision is therefore made in Clauses 41 to 44 of the Bill for a system of compulsory part-time education for all young people of fifteen to eighteen who are not in full-time attendance at school, or who are not receiving suitable alternative part-time instruction for an equivalent number of hours. The substance of these proposals was contained in Sections 75 to 79 of the Fisher Act. As your Lordships will be aware, those sections have fallen everywhere into

15
disuse with the notable and proud exception of Rugby.
The Government have naturally sought to profit by that tragic failure, and the Bill embodies several important changes from Mr. Fisher s proposals. To begin with, the Fisher scheme was probably prejudiced to some extent by the use of the words "continuation school," which suggested to many a mere extension of the education provided by the voluntary school. What the Government scheme now envisages is not a going back to school, but an entry into a new phase of life, with preparation for the needs and the responsibilities of manhood and womanhood; and instead of being called "continuation schools" these new institutions will bear what seems, at any rate to me, to be the attractive name of "young people's colleges." In the second place, a definite target date is fixed for the establishment of these colleges. Section 41 makes it the duty of local education authorities to establish and maintain young people's colleges not later than three years after the school-leaving age has been raised to fifteen.
In the third place, there will be a single appointed day. The Fisher Act allowed different appointed days for different areas. The starting of continuation schools in particular areas, and especially London, without regard to what was happening in neighbouring areas, led to acute difficulties in regard to employment, since two boys living in different areas but seeking work in the same place might be available, one for five and a half days in the week and the other for four and a half days in it. Fourthly, the obligation imposed by the Fisher Act to attend for a specified number of hours a week is replaced by an obligation to attend on one whole day or two half days for forty-four weeks each year, or, where continuous attendance is more suitable, as it may well be in agricultural districts, for a continuous period of eight weeks or for two periods of four weeks each year. This scheme will make big demands on industry and commerce, but industry and commerce must meet these demands if they are to be fitted to hold their own in the post-war world and I, expressing a personal opinion, believe that industry and commerce will welcome these proposals. Our principal asset in the post-war world will be the quality of our people, and we must develop to the
16
full the skill and the capacity of the young people from whom industry and commerce will be recruited.
This brings me to the subject of technical education, which forms an important part of the field of further education. It is the third stage of education defined in the Bill. Now here is a very noteworthy change. At present the provision of technical education is under Statute a power, not a duty, of the local education authority. Many authorities have exercised their power with enlightenment and with great profit to their citizens, but it remains the fact that our technical provision is uneven, and in many areas, and in particular aspects, it falls far behind the needs of to-day. Much of our accommodation and equipment is inadequate and is less than ought to be available in a highly industrialized country such as this. The truth is this country was the first in the field of industrial development, and was happy in the possession of distinguished and competent inventors, natural resources, and an aptitude for craftsmanship among its people. But these advantages for too long obscured the fact that, with the advance of science, technical training as well as natural aptitude was essential if we were to keep pace with our competitors in the world's markets. The situation was reviewed shortly before the war and a programme prepared involving the capital expenditure of some £12,000,000 for new and extended premises, but only a start had been made when the war began.
Under the Bill what was a matter of permissive power will now become a matter of duty; and it will be the duty of the local authority to prepare schemes of further education in which full provision will be made for technical education, and when such schemes are approved it will become their duty to put them into effect as and when required by the Minister after consultation with the local authority. Related to this are the proposals for compulsory part-time education of which I have already spoken. While this part-time education will in part be devoted to the continuance of general education, including physical training, there will be a considerable measure of practical work for all and, for those who can benefit by definite vocational training, substantial provision will be possible within the compulsory hours. These things are a preparation of our citizens for the future.

17
We ought, after a time, to have working in industry young workers more adaptable, better equipped and better developed, offering better material for the more advanced technical training which the march of science will demand.
There are many important aspects of the Bill on which I have not touched at all, such as the highly important change in the functions of the central authority which we find contained in Clause 1, and the provisions in Clauses 66 to 71, for the registration and inspection of independent schools. But I know that many of your Lordships wish to speak and in the time that remains at my disposal I should like, if I may, to concentrate on three aspects of this problem in which I am particularly interested. As part of the general scheme for improving the educational system of the country, the Government are concerned to see that the best provision is made for the health and well-being of the children, and also for the care of those who are handicapped by physical or mental disabilities. They propose in the first place to extend the powers and duties of local authorities in regard to the medical inspection and treatment of school children. Under Clause 46 the authorities will be under an obligation not only to provide for the medical inspection, at appropriate intervals, of all children attending primary and secondary schools and young people's colleges maintained by them, but also to see that any child will be enabled to obtain, free of all cost to the parents, any form of medical or surgical treatment, except domiciliary treatment, he or she may need. Medical inspection will be compulsory, but parents will, of course, retain the right to decide whether or not their children should receive treatment. The school medical service is primarily concerned with the maintenance of the health of school children and the treatment of defects which render them unable to benefit from education, but local education authorities are also responsible for the children who are temporarily or permanently disabled in body or mind. Under the Bill the authorities will have the duty of ascertaining all children in their areas who suffer from such disabilities and of providing suitable education according to their several needs.
I come finally to the matter in which I have perhaps the deepest interest—the provision of school meals and school milk. It is, indeed, if
18
I may for a moment strike a personal note, a matter of great satisfaction to me that during the war I have had some opportunity, in association with my right honourable friend Mr. Butler, of helping to build up these services on a large scale. Development now is continuing apace. Our aim is to have complete provision, and the Bill makes a corresponding legislative change. In place of the permissive enactment of forty years ago, we propose under Clause 47 to place a duty on authorities to provide school meals as part of the ordinary facilities of a school. I believe that this important step in nutritional policy will do more than anything else to ensure that the children of this country enjoy good health and attain sound physique. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who played a conspicuous part in placing the Act of 1918 on the Statute Book, described that Act as
"an attempt to create a new source of national wealth in a race of men and women sturdier in physique, richer in intellectual accomplishments, more efficient in technical skill, stronger, wiser and happier than those who have preceded them."
That was the noble Earl's commendation of the Act of 1918. I submit that if we want to judge of the measure of success of that attempt which the noble Earl then so eloquently described, we cannot do better than look around us to those battlefields on land and sea and in the air, and to the factories, fields, and offices, where throughout the last fifty-seven months the boys and girls who passed through the schools and colleges of this country since 1918 have shown their mettle and put their qualities of body and mind—and most of all of character—to the most searching test that unhappy circumstance can provide. They have given conspicuous proof of gallantry, toughness, adaptability and self-sacrifice in a common cause. National character has been weighed in the balance, and it has not been found wanting.
My hope and belief is that, if this Bill becomes law, new opportunities never provided before in the history of this country will be offered, and not only offered but taken by, the people on whom all real educational progress must depend—the mothers and fathers who make the homes from which the children come, the men and women in the teaching profession who make the schools and colleges, the men and women who serve on the various bodies, both local and central, through

19
which the educational system is administered, and last but most important of all, the boys and girls and young people themselves. We are moving into challenging times. We shall have made great sacrifices for the freedom and the opportunities that these times will present. Whether our hopes are realized will depend on the character, on the spiritual outlook, and on the mental capacity of our people. Let us then, in our time at least, give them the best training and equipment that lies within our knowledge and within our power, and then, hope being justified by effort, let us pray that they will use their qualities in mutual service to one another and to the community is general so that they may make this a happy land, worthy of the ideals and the sacrifices that have placed the Britain of to-day in the forefront of leadership among the nations of the world, placed it to-day at the highest pinnacle of its long and glorious history, and given us still higher hopes for the great to-morrow. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Woolton.)
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, it is hard to follow the massive statement to which we have just listened on this massive Bill. It must have been a great satisfaction to the noble Lord, the Minister of Reconstruction, to place before your Lordships to-day a measure which is itself a great foundation stone of the whole fabric of reconstruction. It is true that he has not himself laid this stone, though there are others from his hand which we shall be discussing later. He has paid a just and generous tribute to the Minister who, with such order and skill, has actually been responsible that the foundation stone represented by this Bill has been well and truly laid. I believe that the democracy which ceases to have faith in more and better education soon ceases to be a democracy at all, and I welcome this Bill because it shows once more the faith of democracy in education. It is not only, as the noble Lord said, a great Bill, a complex Bill, but to my mind it is an exciting Bill, and I envy the opportunity of those in whose hands will lie the implementing of its manifold provisions.
20
It is no part of my intention to-day to attempt to examine the far-reaching proposals that this Bill contains. Some of them have been sketched by the noble Lord opposite in his opening speech, and I do not claim to have any of that special knowledge which is required to pass an informed judgment upon the crowded list of reforms in the administration and organization of our schools contained in this measure. After all, it must in the nature of things be the broad principles of this Bill that we must debate to-day and exercising the gentle art of selectivity it is upon certain of these principles and their implications for our people and our future that I want most to dwell this afternoon. There was once a publication of my Party called Labour and the Nation, and if I had to give a title to the observations which I am to address to your Lordships to-day it would be The School and the Nation. As I see it this Bill has a double purpose. On the one hand, its high purpose is aimed towards the goal that all our people should receive the training needed to make them, one and all, good citizens and servants of the nation. On the other hand, the aim is to make use in that training of all the nation's resources both of material and of mind. If these objectives are achieved and extended—it will take much time and much effort still—then our schooling will cease to be a separate sideline cut off from the main stream of national life, confined to a few brief years of childhood and adolescence and conducted by men and women, too few in number and faced with baffling difficulties, living too much out of touch with the surge and swell of life outside and divorced too often from experience around them.
Let me explain what I mean. Broadly the intention of this Bill—the Butler Bill as it must of course be called, setting the name of Butler side by side on the roll of Parliamentary fame with those of Fisher and, before him, Forster—is to complete the circle of schooling. I know that in the effort the Minister would himself commend the assiduous help he has received from his Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede. Completing the circle of education, there is first the development of nursery schools; then there is the determination to make a reality of properly articulated post-primary education available to all children of all classes and incomes, freely, and fitted to

21
the talents of each; and there is the intention by means of adolescent education in the young people's colleges and by means of improved and enlarged technical education so vital, as the noble Lord has said, to our industrial future, to close the fatal gap after ordinary schooling, the gap which has been more responsible than any other single factor for whatever waste or frustration there may have been in our system of schooling hitherto.
But that is not all. The gap after ordinary schooling is in fact too often a lifelong gap. The young people's colleges, once established and then as we may hope extended in their scope, can with the technical institutions prevent zeal and talent from running to waste in the adolescent years. But the adult years follow and education properly conceived never ends. Between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four, when some young men and women are at the universities, others are striving for their footing in society and life. They are starting work; they are mating; they are setting up homes; they are taking their compass bearings on life. Then, when they have found their work and started their homes, when they are on the way, their need is no less great. Adult education, adult schools, technical training on the broadest lines, the freest possible choice of all subjects which have to do with the community's life, work and culture—all these are needed and in the greatest possible profusion. And there is a pointer towards all of them, if no more than a pointer, in this Bill.
Education, as I have said, is unending. The kind of education that will be given at successive ages must differ in its subjects, in its methods, in its teachers. Such experience as I myself have had in these matters has been with young people who have left school and look forward to work and life, and my observation and experience have shown me that it is instructors they need and want at that period of their lives rather than schoolmasters. They want to get to know the world in which they are going to work and live. They want contact with the kind of people and the kind of experience that they are likely to encounter. They want the older people as well as the younger people, the volunteer as well as the professional. For myself I do not much like the sound of this new profession of youth leadership. Youth leadership does not lend itself readily to
22
a profession and I do not like the term "youth leaders." After all, the war correspondents from Italy have told us, the sullen young Nazis captured on the Italian front described themselves, most of them, as being in civilian life "professional youth leaders." In a democracy, leaders are not made like that, they arise by the free choice and acceptance of their fellows, and what these young men and women want in their colleges or their institutions is help and guidance. They want, it is true, organizers, but above all they want the utmost possible contact with the main stream of national life. I look forward to seeing in the young people's colleges and the technical schools on an increasing scale part-time as well as whole-time teachers and instructors drawn from all walks of life and experience, to help to bring these young people into a closer knowledge of, and sympathy with, the nation they belong to.
I do not stress this coping stone of adolescent and adult education because I underestimate the essential foundation of schooling proper. Indeed, I believe that the first essentials are elementary and secondary schools, primary and post-primary, in which children can be properly taught and teachers can teach properly. I believe that to be the first essential. I believe that this Bill, by the raising of the school age and by the complete revision of education after the primary stage, can make possible immense strides towards the right building of the right foundations. The reason that I do emphasize these later stages in the scale of education is this. I believe that if they are not made and managed properly, much, if not most, of what has gone before runs the risk of running to waste. It is not the fault of the schools that so many people lose their aptitudes and their curiosity in later years. It is the fault of the system which brings education suddenly to a stop. It is because of this gap which allows, almost encourages, boys and girls to forget and to go backwards. It is especially true of education that the end crowns the work.
We have all of us observed that there is a tendency to decry the progress that has been made in education, but I believe that is very much misguided. I believe that shortcomings which arise from the absence of later schooling have been put

23
down too often and quite wrongly to the faults of earlier schooling. But, my Lords, the achievements since 1870 are taken for granted. It is the shortcomings that are magnified. It is true the reconstruction of post-primary schooling and the development both of adolescent and adult education have not gone forward to the extent that was promised twenty-five years ago. It is true that because of this gap between schooling and manhood and beyond a great deal of the work has gone to waste; but that is not the fault either of the schools, the teachers or the education authorities. It is our fault, the fault of Governments, the fault of Parliament.
People ask: What is the use of education when boys cannot acid and girls cannot spell and cheap mass amusements dominate their lives? I see sometimes, occasionally, the symptoms, but I disagree with the diagnosis. The cure is more education, not less. In the old days all democrats believed in education, and it is still as true to-day as it was when Disraeli said it seventy years ago, that the stuff of democracy is an educated people and an educated electorate, just as the stuff of a successful industrial nation is an educated industrial personnel. It was Lord Haldane who said of Imperial Germany that he did not fear their armies but he did fear their education. Can it be said to-day, of all days, that the signal achievements of this country in battle and in the factories during this war have been a poor advertisement of our schools? I join with the noble Lord opposite, if I understood him correctly, but certainly for myself I say emphatically, No.
What is happening on every battlefield and in every factory at this time is a splendid tribute to that devoted band of men and women, underpaid, often slighted, who have devoted themselves as teachers to the schooling of the soldiers and sailors and the airmen of to-day. I ask you to consider the difference between the Army of the last war and the Army of this war, and when I use the term "Army" I use it to indicate the Forces at large. The Army of the last war was indeed divided into two nations, the educated and the uneducated. There was a great gulf between them in speech, ideas and manners. That is not so now. In a war which has thrust men from all classes closely together in small units, in bombers, in tanks, and on gunposts, forced them
24
together more closely than ever before, the fact has been proved by daily contact that this has become, or is in rapid process of becoming, one nation with the same language, the same ideas, very much the same speech and the same manners.
If I may, I should like parenthetically to refer to a modest experiment I have myself carried out in recent years, beginning shortly before the war, which from quite another angle demonstrates the same thing. I thought it would be useful, interesting and rather important to know what young people were thinking in the difficult days which, in 1938, it was obvious confronted us. So I offered a prize for essays for boys from a mixed group of half a dozen public and secondary schools, and I was so fortunate as to be able to enlist the support of the Headmasters of Rugby and Stowe, of my own old school, St. Paul's, of Emanuel School, an old Elizabethan foundation, now one of the United Westminster foundation schools, and of two London County Council schools, the Bec School and the Wandsworth School. Perhaps your Lordships will be interested to know what I suggested they should write about. This experiment extended over a period of five years, last year being the last of this particular series. One of the subjects was "After the war there must be a new world order: what sort of a world order?" Another was "Totalitarianism, its cause and cure." Another "The effects of the war on English habits and institutions." Another was "Winning the Peace."
I mention those subjects to your Lordships because you will see that they are topical subjects directed to instigate thought on the part of any young fellow who was going to write an essay. I am not going to tell your Lordships the order of merit as between the schools—I think it would surprise you—but the outstanding fact to which I wish to draw your attention, and which I think is most interesting, was that these young people in the immediate pre-war period and during the years of war, have been thinking about very much the same things on very much the same lines, no matter from which school they came or what were their home conditions or by whom they were taught. I think myself that was most significant and encouraging, and the war has proved it in a multitude of other and much bigger ways.

25
Thus I say that this Bill is necessary not because of past failures but because of past successes. Surely it is education more than anything else that has been responsible for this moulding of a nation which is becoming one nation, one community, despite all the serious differences which still exist. Full employment, social security and the rest are essential, of course, to continue the process, to get rid for good and all of these two nations, for without education continuous in extent and common in content—that is the key—these other measures will not do their work. Education is the touchstone by which we are free, by which we prosper, by which we discover our common nationhood. But I must not be too eulogistic about the past. There have been many failures, there have been grievous gaps to fill. To build upon past successes, shortcomings must be remedied. The chief gaps are the failure, so far, to raise the school-leaving age, which must be done promptly and to time-table; the failure, in a very large percentage of cases, to recondition the schools themselves; the failure to reorganize post-primary education, largely due to the historic accident which has caused so many schols to be run, in fact, by poor religious bodies; the failure to continue education adequately beyond the school.
In this Bill, as I read it, a definite promise has been given to remedy these shortcomings. But surely we ought to have some specific time-table. Surely the onus should be laid on the Government to explain why it cannot—if it cannot—do this and that. Surely this Bill, in many more of its particulars, should be obligatory, not permissive. That would justify the Minister being given more binding powers over local authorities, and the counties and county boroughs being the one all-purpose education authority for large areas. But there are two lions in the path. One is money, the other is men. One is rates, the other is teachers. It is imperative, if the cost of the new education is to be tolerable, that there should be some reform of local finance; a readjustment between central and local finances. I referred to this subject when addressing your Lordships on the White Paper on the National Health Services. I mention it again now in order to say, as I said then, that my noble friends on these Benches regard this reorganization of finance as between central government
26
and local government, as a matter of first importance, and will seek an early opportunity of raising it again as a separate and pressing matter.
It is essential, if the process of schooling from the cradle to manhood is to be made effective, that the right kind of teachers should be available in sufficient numbers at every stage. We need not only more teachers but also teachers who are more differentiated, teachers with experience more broadly based and, in a sense, more skilled and more worldly-wise teachers. Personally I regard the McNair Report on the training of teachers—to which the noble Lord did little more than refer—as the key document of the New Schooling. It is here that the school and the nation are to be brought closer together for the benefit of both. To my mind, it is, in its way, an inspired, as well as an inspiring, document. Faced with the need for more teachers in a very short time, it has the courage not to suggest a dilution of teachers' training. On the contrary, it suggests an extension of the normal period of training from two years to three, with the invaluable addition of an entire term's continuous teaching practice in the schools.
Nor is this just wishful thinking. The extra numbers will be got, according to the McNair formula, by widening the net of recruitment to bring in men and women of all sorts and ages, of all sorts of qualifications and experience and of all sorts of attainments. The object will be to tap the entire life of the nation for would-be teachers. Once again, the school and the nation! The immediate need for, perhaps, 70,000 teachers when the war ends, and the school-leaving age is raised, will be met by special emergency, intensive methods. They, too, will be based upon the McNair formula of wide recruitment. The teachers will come largely from the Forces, whatever their previous background. They will do their intensive course of training, they will go into the schools and learn their jobs. They will, at the same time, in the two years after training, acquire fresh education in education so that they will be at no disadvantage compared with the former normally trained teachers.
Thus, as regards the prospects of the New Education, I acclaim these two fundamental principles for the procurement of the right numbers and the right kind of teachers. Draw them from every

27
point in the national life where good teachers may be found and, having got experienced men and women, give them the utmost practical knowledge of the schools and the actual problems of teaching. Let them know the world they come from, and let them know the schools to which they are going. It is this principle of continuing contact with the community which is the new principle of the New Education: equal opportunities for all citizens not only to learn all their lives, but also to help in a thousand ways, in the schools, the young people's colleges, and adult education, part-time and full-time, in the process of teaching, and in the guidance and leadership of the young as they grow up and when they have attained the full stature of manhood and womanhood. What I look for is a communal effort, in which all the community will learn and all the community will teach, too.
This Bill will be what we all make it. The noble Lord opposite in the concluding paragraphs of his speech, said that this Bill must have a spiritual background, that education must have a spiritual background. I subscribe to that statement. Those who are now fighting and working and striving for us, the school children of the past, have gone a long way towards fulfilling, and this Bill will enable the children of the future more completely to fulfil, the precept of Mr. Gladstone with which John Morley closed his great biography:
"Be inspired with the belief that life is a great and noble calling—not a mean and grovelling thing that we are to shuffle through as we can, but an elevated and lofty destiny."
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, this Bill will, I am convinced, be received in all quarters of the House with cordial welcome, and by none with greater satisfaction or greater cordiality than noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, for the Liberal Party, during its history of more than a hundred years, has ever placed in the forefront of its policy and its programmes the widest and fullest possible extension of the education of the people. Now, to-day, we welcome with the utmost warmth this Bill, presented by a Conservative Minister of Education in a Coalition Government—perhaps the finest Education Bill that has been laid before Parliament since the Forster Bill of 1870,
28
under which was established a national system of education compulsory and universal. It has been said that nothing great is ever achieved without enthusiasm. Mr. Butler has brought to his task enthusiasm, and he has in this Bill achieved something great. If some future historian were to try to select one thing which more than any other would typify what is best in our British civilization of the present age, he might well put his finger on this Bill.
I propose to say nothing on what used to be the very vexed question of religious education; I am aware of my own disqualifications. I cannot refrain from recalling, however, that I was first elected to Parliament in the year 1902, when a great controversy was raging throughout the country on Mr. Balfour's Education Bill of that year, and that I made my maiden speech in another place on the Third Reading of that measure. I am happy to remember that I urged a wide and impartial provision for religious education, and for a settlement of the controversies which were then raging. Forty years on, I am glad to be living in an age when a better atmosphere and a more tolerant spirit prevail, and to see another Bill laid before Parliament on the same subject receiving a very different reception from that accorded to Mr. Balfour's Bill of 1902. Well is it that that should be so in the present age, for there can be no doubt that the troubles of the world are due more than to any other thing to the rebirth of paganism and to the absence of any agreed moral standards. Politics and economics are means only, and not ends; they have to have their ends set for them by the moral law, and in our European civilization it is the ideas embodied in the Christian ethic which can alone supply that moral law. It is right, therefore, that the system of British education, subject to due provision for conscientious objection, should give full recognition to that fact and effective application to that principle.
Coming to the proposals of this Bill, two years ago, in July, 1942, I moved a Resolution in your Lordships' House calling attention to the need of expansion after the war of the national system of education. That Motion received very cordial support from all sides in this House. Everything that I asked for on that occasion is now to be found in this Bill, so far as it can be dealt with by

29
legislation. The provision of nursery schools, the extension of the school age, part-time further education, the encouragement of the youth movement, care for physical training, for better nutrition and for health generally, registration and inspection of private schools, a wide access to secondary education, provision for adult education—all those things are here, and many more as well. Naturally, therefore, I for one give this Bill a very cordial welcome. Perhaps in passing I may congratulate the Government on the draftsmanship of the Bill, which is free from the legalistic jargon of which we have so often to complain. It has to be in its clauses elaborate and detailed, for it has carefully to weld together the three factors which must be co-ordinated in all our social legislation—the State, the local authorities, and voluntary organizations and private effort. For that reason the Bill is necessarily complex, but it is easy to understand, and, as I say, superior in draftsmanship to most of the measures which come before us.
I would draw attention especially to the value of Clauses 46 to 52, which deal with matters which used to be regarded as outside the purview of the national system of education—medical inspection, nutrition, clothing, cleanliness and so on. In particular I would mention Clause 51, giving facilities for recreation and for social and physical training. When so many of the children from the great cities were evacuated in the early years of the war, people were shocked by the condition in which many of those children were, educationally and physically. After seventy years of national education, and in what an indignant orator once called "this so-called twentieth century," many of these children came to the villages in a condition which was generally felt to reflect a great stigma upon the nation as a whole. Those defects will no doubt be largely dealt with when this measure comes into full operation.
Clause 59 is also of great importance, abolishing fees for higher education. It is likely to do very much to substitute for what was called the educational ladder—a term which implies something precarious, and even dangerous—something in the nature of a broad staircase, up which the boys and girls may rise from the primary to the secondary schools and onward to further education. I welcome also very cordially the provision for
30
young people's colleges, although I cannot altogether share the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, with regard to the name given to them. It has been subjected to a good deal of criticism which seems to me justified, and I have no doubt that the people as a whole will before long give them some more suitable, colloquial name, though I should not like to suggest what that name will be.
I have in fact no amendments to propose to this Bill, though I believe that some of my noble friends on these Benches may submit particular points for the consideration of the House. I would mention only two matters, both outside the framework of the Bill, and necessarily so, because they raise questions of administration rather than of legislation; but I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, whether the Government could, at the end of this debate, make some statement of policy on these two points, because they are matters of fundamental importance. There are many educationists who see the greatest defect of all in our present school system in the excessive size of the classes. Before the war, one-third of all the classes had more than forty pupils, and 100,000 children were in classes of over fifty. That must defeat the purposes of any education system. It recalls the methods of mass production and the assembly lines of aeroplane and motor car factories. Each child, so long as you have these immense classes, is simply being passed along from class to class and from school to school, and each teacher is required to put in his own little piece of specialized knowledge, and at the end a finished product emerges, perfectly standardized and fully conforming to the specification.
That, however, is the very antithesis of a good education system. We are dealing with human beings, with living minds, and the purpose of education should be to keep them individual, striving, original, knowing above all how to learn and having a desire to do so. The matter depends very largely, of course, on the adequacy of the supply of teachers, and the Ministry is trying to increase that supply; but perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply at the end of the debate may be able to make special reference to this question of the size of classes, for without a radical reform in that matter the hopes which are founded upon other improvements are likely to be disappointed.

31
The second point on which I would venture to put a question relates to the use of the clauses which deal with adult education. Here I would reinforce what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Nathan. In this matter of adult education we are in this country backward and belated. The White Paper that was presented before this Bill was produced said very little about adult education and there was much criticism on that ground. The President of the Board of Education made further reference to that in Parliament, and the Bill is more expansive than the White Paper. But I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in introducing the Bill, although he necessarily had a very wide field to cover, said no word on the whole of this broad question of adult education. When financial proposals were laid before another place, this was linked with technical education and a provision of only some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a year was to be made under this Bill. To my mind the two ought not to be united. Technical education and other forms of adult education, whether in the universities or by voluntary associations like the Workers' Educational Association, the University Extension Movement and other forms of instruction, should be dealt with by separate authorities. There is always a certain competition between the cultural and the vocational, in which the cultural is likely to prove the earthenware pot which may be broken by the brazen pot in the fable.
There are many who are very ready to use our education system as the means of teaching our young people how to make a living rather than for teaching them how to live. The human is more important than the technical, just as the man is more than the work. I trust that the Government will give far more attention than at present it is indicated that they will do, to this subject of adult education in general. It is recognized now that the boys and girls in these schools at the age of fourteen have an entirely inadequate education—an education that is not sufficient to make them really good citizens. All the more reason, therefore, that we should make up for that defect in the past, which is irremediable because they have left school—for all the adults of the next generation are already out in the world—by encouraging
32
in every possible way their further education. Also the universities during these years of war are able to give degrees, except in technical education, to hardly any of the young men, though still to a certain number of young women; and consequently there again there will be a deficiency of leaders in politics and in all forms of national life which can only be supplied by further facilities for adult education in other ways. Let us remember that here we feel the whole brunt of world competition. In the American universities—and I know it is true that their standards are on the average not quite equal to ours—there are more teachers than there are students in the whole of our universities.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): It is a bigger country.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I know, but the difference is not so great as that. They have three times our population but about ten times our number of university instructors. I speak from memory and perhaps my figure of ten is not correct, but it is of that order. The universities under this Bill, and by this Government and future Governments, will have their independence fully respected, and that is vital to the whole of our education system; but that they should receive adequate support, financial and other, is also essential. To secure the spread of adult education among the people and to make up for this lost ground it is necessary tthat there should be a special stimulus—propaganda, organization; and I doubt whether, if that is left only to the Ministry, it will be found to be adequate. With all respect to the Ministry, or to any other Government Department, I do not think you are likely to find there quite a sufficiency of zeal and energy and readiness to go out into the country and propagandize in such a cause as adult education. I would suggest for the consideration of the Minister that some special agency should be formed, partly composed of officers of the Department, but partly of outside persons, who should have the special duty of building up throughout the country a great system of adult education separated from the movement aiming at fuller technical education.
Can we afford it? Well, this is largely a matter of finance. I have mentioned previously in debates in your Lordships'

33
House that the national income has vastly increased; and not only the paper income, but the real wealth of the country, owing to its increase of productive capacity, is likely to be greatly enlarged compared to what it has been in the past. A wise parent, after providing the necessaries of life for himself and his family, will make great sacrifices in order to secure good education for his children; and a wise nation will do the same. Not only is the treatment of the young the test of a nation's civilization but also there is no expenditure which is likely to be more remunerative. In our complicated society, with its industry, its agriculture and its commerce such as they are, it is essential that the people should be fully educated, and with a democracy it is vital that our citizens should have a wide range of knowledge and the highest possible intellectual standard.
Hitherto in our population of some 45,000,000 we have derived most of our leadership, whether in politics or matters intellectual or in industry or commerce, from the well-to-do classes. There can be no statistic, but perhaps 5,000,000 out of the 45,000,000 have in fact provided, not indeed all, but the vast majority of the intellectual power for the whole community. Now if we have equality of opportunity—and equality of opportunity is the opportunity for people to show how unequal they are in abilities and in capacities; which is quite right, for no one is so foolish as to think that all are equal in their abilities—if we have equality of opportunity, bringing those who are unequal, because they are superior, to the top, the nation may draw upon the whole of the 45,000,000 and not only on the 5,000,000, or whatever it may be, for those who will be the moving agents in its life and its progress. I am very glad indeed that the Government have introduced this great Bill, and also the health proposals and that others are in prospect; that they have not listened to those of little vision who say with a sneer, "How can we expect during a great war to give thought to making a new heaven and a new earth?" We can give thought, not perhaps indeed to making a new heaven and a new earth, but at all events to making a better social system, breeding a finer people.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, it is surely a good
34
omen that our debate upon this subject takes place on the very day on which, as we hope, the liberation of Europe is commencing. Those two things may well be linked together in our minds, and give us great courage as we look forward. But I should like my first words to be an addition to that chorus of congratulation that has been addressed to the President of the Board of Education on his achievement in framing this Bill and in carrying it so far. He has displayed not only enthusiasm and untiring energy, but great patience, great sympathy of mind, and a readiness to take account of what has been presented to him from various quarters. As one of those who have been engaged in urging upon him what could only be the aims of a particular group, I wish to acknowledge here the readiness with which he, as always, heard what was put forward, the fullness with which he has allowed for it, and as I think, the great success with which he has struck a balance that almost all of us are ready, perhaps with very minor changes, to accept.
I am glad that the noble Viscount who has just spoken has referred to the vital importance of administration in connexion with this Bill, for, of necessity, it leaves very much to be determined, after its enactment, by the spirit in which it is taken up in the various localities. It had been my intention to say something at the outset about what seemed to me the two most urgent needs of education generally—namely, the raising of the school-leaving age and the reduction in the size of classes. The noble Viscount has already expressed them, and there is comparatively little that I would say. The reduction in the size of classes is an administrative and not a legislative matter, and it would be a great encouragement to many of us if, in the course of this debate, we could have the assurance that it is the intention of the Government to do all they can to promote advance in the matter of reducing the size of classes. It is simply impossible to teach, in the proper sense of the word, a class of fifty children; you can only entertain it. The skill which teachers show in keeping the attention of this mob of children is, to somebody who has, after his own fashion, been engaged in efforts actually to teach, is frequently astounding. No doubt to keep the attention fixed on any object for any length of time at all is an important element in

35
the educational process, and has a high value; but it is a cruel burden to place on teachers eager to do their utmost for the children in front of them that they have to spend so much of their time, in fact, in merely striving to retain their attention.
The grounds for raising the school-leaving age have been stated, and it is not necessary to repeat them; but among them I would put the immense importance of maintaining children in some form of society to which they belong, and which they feel belongs to them, instead of throwing them out at that exceedingly ill-formed period of life into the rough and tumble of the world outside. Then there is the fixing of what has been already learnt. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has already referred to this. I am perfectly sure it is true that the schools are often blamed for failing to teach well what was in fact well taught until fourteen, but has since been forgotten, because it is a really established principle that whatever is learnt until fourteen, if it is thereafter neither learnt nor practised, will be forgotten by twenty. I first came into contact with boys from very poor homes about forty years ago in the Oxford and Bermondsey Club. There we found that at that time the majority of the boys of eighteen had already almost forgotten how to read. There had already been universal compulsory education in this country for thirty years. They had all been in schools, they had all been taught to read, and boys of thirteen and fourteen could read, but the boys of eighteen could not. That would not be true to the same extent to-day. The intervening period has carried us very far forward, and our people are enormously more literate than they were.
It still remains true that a good deal which is learnt at school, however, is neither studied nor practised thereafter, and is in consequence forgotten. This has itself a great and important bearing on the main interest with which I approach this matter—religious instruction—for I am sure that here, too, the raising of the school age will prove to be of enormous importance in securing that the young men and women of this country will retain what they have been taught as a result of their being kept longer under the influence of that instruction. Besides that, there is health. The statistics are very serious with regard to the decline in
36
health, and even the rate of mortality, that follows the school-leaving age. To retain our children at school, and therefore subject to medical inspection and care in those further periods from fourteen to fifteen and then to sixteen, will again, of itself, bring an immense improvement in the health of the whole community.
The other general topic on which I would ask leave to say something before coming to my main concern is that of adult education. After what the noble Viscount has said I shall be very brief. Adult education has been near my heart for a long time. I was the first President of the Workers' Educational Association and held that office for sixteen years. I have never ceased to be deeply interested in it. I believe adult education to be of the most urgent importance at this time. The Army has developed most valuable educational methods. We have not always been wont to turn to the War Office for intellectual inspiration, but I believe that both in the A.B.C.A. provision and in the "British Way and Purpose" provision there has been set going in and through the Army a current of intellectual interest which will not, of course, entirely survive the time when it no longer appears on the orders of the day, and many of those who have felt its influence have become detached from it; but many will be eager to go forward if the provision is there.
If adult education is to thrive there must be much more care as to its provision. Over and over again the places where adult education classes meet are such as would damp the ardour of all but the most enthusiastic. For adult people to sit at children's desks for a couple of hours while they are lectured or engaged in discussion is itself a daunting experience. We need centres provided for adult education. I believe that what the Bill now offers—a great improvement on the White Paper—is likely to be sufficient for what most local authorities will be ready to take up, but it is of the most urgent importance that we should allow proper weight to those considerations which, in the period that follows the war, will be of great importance in helping towards the social stability of our country in what is bound to be a difficult period.
Now I turn to what must be my own primary interest in this Bill, and I want first to acknowledge the

37
fact that it writes religion into national education in a way which has never been done before. The requirement for the universal, corporate act of worship in all schools, the requirement for the periods of religious instruction in all schools, including the secondary schools, is of immense importance and marks a very genuine epoch; but there are two things I should say about that perhaps by way of warning. One is that we should take note—and I am surprised there has not yet been very much public note taken—of the attitude of a large part of the teaching profession, especially those in secondary schools, to this requirement. The resolution of the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, deprecating the requirement of this universal act of worship, should not be lightly regarded. The majority of them are already conducting such acts of worship in their schools, but these join with the others in deploring the fact that it should become compulsory. They have a feeling that the note of compulsion is out of place in this connexion. I do not share it; I think they are fundamentally mistaken; but I would urge that as this is brought into operation great tenderness should be shown towards those who are already in a position of leadership and trust in our schools and who feel, to some extent, that the conditions of their service are being changed.
I do not think that Parliament representing the public should be swayed very greatly in its decision on such a point by the consideration of the wishes of those who are the servants of the public for the purpose. Let the public through Parliament determine what it wants, and then let the teachers enter the profession knowing what is going to be required of them. That must be the necessary process. I believe we shall be able to win the good will of the teaching profession if, as this is brought into operation, there is a good deal of tenderness shown for those who are already, as I have said, in these positions of responsibility and of trust but have not seen their way to introduce these acts of worship into the life of their schools. I should not be at all distressed if that became a provision that in fact took effect with every new appointment. But it is one thing to write religion into the national system, it is another thing for religion to come alive in it, and, of course, we entirely depend upon the teaching profession.
38
Tribute has been paid most justly to the McNair Report. It is a most readable document, far more readable than are most such reports. It shows a splendid grasp of the problem as a whole, but I am bound to say that its references to the subject of religion in the schools are disappointingly meagre. Just at a moment when a Bill is being passed which requires that there shall be religious instruction given in all schools, a great report on the training of teachers dealing with every aspect of the subject, mentions religion twice, and twice only, and those two mentions are these:
"We should add, too, that many colleges provided by voluntary bodies have chapels or rooms set apart for devotion, and these they greatly appreciate."
That is one of the two references and it comes as an addendum to a paragraph dealing with the supply of laboratories, studios, workshops and gymnasia. When I read that I was very forcibly reminded of the headmaster's prize day speech in Lambkins Remains, which opens, some may remember, with the words:
"The moral and religious tone of the school are all that would be desired. I wish the same could be said of the inorganic chemistry."
The other reference to religion in the McNair Report appears in Section 226, where they draw special attention to the fact that the Board of Education have announced in the White Paper that in future religious knowledge shall be an optional subject for the purpose of enabling a student to obtain a teaching qualification certificate. And that is all they say about it. There is not one word about qualifying teachers to give this instruction, and this is going to be the main part of the problem of bringing alive in the schools the religion which in this Bill is being written into the national system so effectively. That fact represents the need for a perpetual vigilance and eagerness on the part of those who care for this aspect of the matter, and the debate in your Lordships' House on the White Paper showed that this was one of the matters that was uppermost in your Lordships' minds, if we are to secure the good results at which the Bill is quite plainly aiming.
One of the great triumphs of the Bill is that it does offer a reform of the dual system such as has won a very large measure of assent and seems likely to avoid creating any considerable measure

39
of bitterness in any quarter. That, considering the history of the matter, is a very great achievement. Of course I should wish that all education should be religious and that the word "religious" should include, because it is incomplete unless it does include, attachment to a worshipping community. Where you have in a village a virtually homogenous community in its religious tradition—and there are instances up and down the country—with a Church school working in close association with the parish church and where the whole of the inhabitants are entirely content, and indeed more than content, with what is provided from generation to generation, there the religious influence of Church and school is pervasive of the whole life of the community. But we know quite well that that cannot be so in all the circumstances of our national life because denominational attachments are so varied and are so diverse in different places.
What is the real value of the denominational school? Partly, no doubt, the syllabus, but I cannot regard that as the most important matter, especially in these days when we have syllabuses so good for use in the county schools—about that I shall say a word in a moment—partly it is the choice of the teacher, though in practice that does not work out in many cases as a very free choice. The persons available are often so few that the managers in effect are guided and are bound to be guided by the advice which they receive from the local authorities. And then there is the association of the school with the Church itself. That is to my mind by far the most important element in the life of the denominational school. Where they can be side by side, where it is easy to go quickly from one to the other without any waste of time, where it is felt that the school is a part of the activity of the Church as well as of the State, there you have something of quite enormous value provided that it can be conducted with substantial fairness to all those whose interests are concerned.
An expression was used by the President of the Board in another place with reference to another point (to which I must make allusion in a moment) to the effect that the loans which it is proposed are to be made available for the transitional work, that needed in bringing the
40
schools up to standard, should not be so used as to perpetuate the grievance of the single-school areas. It has been made quite clear since that was not meant to be interpreted as a suggestion that the presence of a denominational school in a single-school area involved, and necessarily constitutes, a grievance. There are many places where it does not, and provision is taken in the Bill to secure that where it would lead to any grievance a loan should not at any rate be available for the continuance of that school. But the case is sometimes presented as though our concern for the rights of minorities in these instances should be allowed to obliterate the rights of the majority, and that would seem to me to be a kind of inversion of democracy of a rather serious kind. No doubt it is true that the acid test of true democracy is to be found in the rights of the minority. It is to be assumed that the majority shall have its way broadly speaking; but if it is argued that so long as there is any minority that objects the majority cannot have what it wants, that would be oligarchy of a new type.
Another anxiety that was expressed on this point was lest, if loans were available, the denomonational schools would perpetuate their existence to an extent destructive of the intended balance of the Bill. It is to be remembered that all schemes for the Church's action will be subject to the initial survey. The local education authority will make its survey and draw up a schedule of those schools which are to be retained, and there cannot in any case be any question—certainly, I should strongly oppose the Church attempting to raise the question—of retaining as a denominational school any school which, according to the survey, ought not to be retained either as a denominational or undenominational school. The survey governs the situation. The school then is anyhow to be retained. I suppose it is true that because loans are available a few more schools may be preserved as aided schools than would have been preserved otherwise, but there has never been any intention to use this as a means of trying just to save any school that was in any sense salvable, but to make effectively practicable the offer that the Government have made to us in the Bill.
If all the money requisite had to be found in a single lump sum that would

41
mean an almost impossible demand, pressing most unequally on different parts of the country and on different areas within any one district. Moreover, if the various managers were to apply for loans independently there would be something like financial chaos at the basis of the whole of the planning of the future education system. By providing the channel of loans under the control of the Minister, this regulated order is brought into the whole system, and those of us who are concerned with the preservation of denominational schools on the basis provided for aided schools are deeply grateful for the provision introduced during the passage of the Bill in another place. Of course it must be our aim, where we can with full efficiency and with fairness to all concerned, to save the schools as aided schools. That must be the Church's policy. We should be turning our backs upon the whole policy we had upheld through generations if we took any other course. To that we shall be turning our effort as the foundation on which we are to build.
It is a great mistake to deprecate the value of the Church school in the status of the controlled school. That is done partly, I think, because there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the value of the agreed syllabus itself. I have heard various persons speak of an agreed syllabus as if it was impossible that it should contain any reference to the real substance of the Christian faith. That is partly because there is a confusion in many people's minds between the word "denominational" and the word "doctrinal." An agreed syllabus must not contain anything specifically distinctive of one denomination, but of course it may contain the whole of common Christian doctrine. The one most widely used in England is the Cambridge syllabus. It is estimated that it is used to teach 70 per cent. of the children in all elementary schools. One paragraph of that syllabus contains the statement that:
"the Christian faith is something definite, not to say dogmatic. In an age so untheological in its outlook as ours is, dogma is suspect, and sometimes rightly so. Yet a purely undogmatic Christianity is a contradiction in terms … the Christian religion is not a vague religiosity but a way of believing and living revealed in the concrete stuff of history.… It is not a colourless and inoffensive piety to suit all tastes but a Word of Judgment and forgiveness and blessing proceeding from a
42
Person in history, to believe in whom is to believe in the living God."
That statement is taken from the preface of the most widely used agreed syllabus and I think people's minds should not be confused by the suggestion that an agreed syllabus cannot be used to teach Christian doctrine.
My venerated predecessor, the noble and most reverend Lord Lang, has written to me a letter from which I should like to quote. He writes that I am at liberty to say
"that it is a deep regret to me that absence in Scotland prevents me from taking part in the discussion of the Bill, that if I had been able to do so, even though I think that in some details it might have been and might be improved, I would most certainly have supported you in your estimate of the Bill as a really great measure of educational reform; that as regards the voluntary schools, knowing as I do from long experience the special difficulties which have always surrounded that question, I consider that the Bill proposes to treat them with fairness and in some respects with generosity: and that I hope that those who are responsible for them will … rise to the opportunities which the Bill offers.…"
I turn for a moment to the question of secondary education and here there is a provision which I am most anxious we should understand clearly. I should like to ask the noble Earl who will reply if I am right in understanding Clause 25, taken in conjunction with Clause 24, as securing the right to parents of any denomination whose children are attending a county secondary school to have those children instructed in the tenets of their denomination within school hours, either outside the school premises where that is practicable or within them where withdrawal is impracticable, provided that the cost of this provision does not fall on the local education authority. That appears to me to be written in the Bill quite clearly, but it appears so little understood that I should be grateful for an assurance that I am right. If there is that opportunity in all secondary schools, remembering that secondary education is going to begin at eleven years of age, we have something which we must prepare ourselves to use vigorously.
There is one further point which I should like to put to the noble Earl. It is in connexion with the young people's colleges. There is frequent reference to religious instruction in other parts of the Bill but nothing with regard to the provision of religious instruction in young people's

43
colleges. May one understand that the phrase used in the clause governing young people's colleges really makes opportunity for the provision of religious instruction, discussiongroups on religious questions and the like, if the young people attending the college or any considerable group of them desire that? I have been much exercised by the question whether it is sufficient to speak of religious instruction or whether we ought not to aim at speaking of Christian instruction. It is quite true—and this may be a sufficient safeguard—that the instruction to be given takes place in the denominational school or in accordance with an agreed syllabus drawn up by a conference on which the religious denominations are represented, but there is a body of opinion which is eager to interpret this as covering the instruction in the tenets of all religions, after which the children are to be allowed to take their choice.
The prospect of giving instruction in the tenets of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism and others to children under fifteen, leaving them afterwards to form a judgment upon their merits, is rather alarming to anyone familiar with the practice of teaching. I cannot believe that anyone would seriously undertake that. But there may be a study of comparative religion, or rather a comparative study of religion, because there can be no comparative religion, there are only people who are comparatively religious, and there is some danger that the comparative study of religion may take the place of instruction in Christianity. There is no doubt, I think, what is the intention of the Government. I have considered whether I should ask for it to be made clear by a definition of this point and if the noble Earl is willing I might meet him afterwards, or he may be able to give us such an assurance as to make it unnecessary.
The total result, anyhow, is that we have in this Bill a framework for a living organization of educational service, offering as much as a legislative Act could provide, but calling for a new measure of enthusiasm for the cause of education in all its branches, including religious education—a new measure, new both in quality and in extent, if all its promised benefits are, in fact, to be secured for the future generations of our people.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education has every reason to be congratulated on having secured what we all know as "a good Press." I doubt if ever before any Minister has been so successful in getting overwhelming support for his proposals as he has done on this occasion. A short time ago I was not prepared, altogether, to join in this general chorus of approval. I felt frankly disappointed that my right honourable friend had not gone out of his way to make special provision for our Catholic schools. It will not be disputed that long before any other public body in England showed any interest in education, especially religious education, the members of the communion to which it is my privilege to belong were insistent in making provision for the religious education of their poor. And let it be remembered that the children of the Catholic poor in England meant the children of the poorest and the least well-to-do of the population of the country. I confess that I should have rejoiced had the President seen his way—relying on his good Press and on his own personal powers of persuasion—to take a bold line, and make special and separate provision for the Catholic elementary schools. In this connexion, I deeply regret, as all your Lordships must also regret, the absence of my noble friend Lord Russell of Killowen, which is, I am sorry to say, due to very serious indisposition, and which will prevent him taking any part at all in this debate or in the future stages of this Bill. I know he has very strong views on the Bill, and I think his absence makes a distinct void and a blank which I am afraid none of us is capable of filling.
We live in days of wishful thinking—and let me say, by way of parenthesis, that wishful thinking has come into its own during the last few days. I have already said that I was not prepared, a short time ago, to be very enthusiastic about the attitude taken up by my right honourable friend the President. But it has since come to my knowledge that at interviews with members of the Catholic hierarchy and others he has given evidence of a desire to meet some of the points brought to his notice. Therefore I am only too glad that instead of attempting to criticize him I find that I have to thank him—and I beg to do so

45
most cordially—for the line he is now taking.
When we come to the Committee stage it will be, I think, quite possible and proper to introduce some Amendments which will meet with his approval, and, I hope, the approval of the House and enable him and his successors to make maintenance grants in such cases where they think it desirable to do so and thereby do a great deal of good for the preservation of the schools. In this connexion, I cannot help quoting, if your Lordships will allow me to do so, the opinion expressed in another place by Mr. Cove—himself not a Catholic—one of the honourable Members for Glamorgan. He is reported in Hansard as having said on the 9th of May—
"I am prepared to meet up to 100 per cent. clear and genuine denominational schools, but I am not prepared to give money to schools that do not meet that situation."
Again on the 12th of May he said:
". … if the State accepts the continuance of Church denominational schools, if the money is not enough, I, for one, am prepared to provide the money."
I venture to commend those statements of the honourable Member to your Lordships, and I trust that they may also meet with the approval of your Lordships' House.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the President of the Board of Education has received a chorus of congratulations—which is rare in the history of Education Bills—on a great plan of educational reform, and I should like to add my own. The main framework of the Bill has now been settled, we can take it. At the same time, there are certain matters on which it is proper to make friendly suggestions. Before anything else, I should like to declare how fully I recognize that it is with the teachers more than with any other agent or factor that the real work of education, and therefore of improved education, lies. Without their work, sympathy and cooperation, and without an addition to their ranks of the best possible recruits in increasing numbers, the most admirably planned legislation will be fruitless.
My principal comments will be on the subject of religious education and the dual system. I am in the unenviable position of taking a less cheerful view of these two departments than the most reverend
46
Primate, who, however, I know, will forgive me. Perhaps it is not amiss that another point of view which is widely held—certainly in many quarters outside—should find expression in your Lordships' House. Much emphasis has been laid in the White Paper, and in debates, on the provision for universal religious instruction; writing it, as the most reverend Primate said, into the education system of the country. I am full of gratitude for the facilities given or promised for such education, but, whatever the intention of the President, I am very doubtful whether his hopes will be realized quite as perfectly as he believes. I want to call attention to some serious defects not in the principle of an agreed syllabus, on which I am wholly in accord with the most reverend Primate, but regarding the contents of religious instruction according to an agreed syllabus as contemplated in the Bill. Religious instruction is the only compulsory subject. Personally, I regret that it is made compulsory by Statute. It seems to me that it would be far better to trust the local education authorities and the teachers, and to rely on the continuance and development of what is at present an almost universal practice, and to give increasing attention to helping the teachers. Everything, after all, depends upon them. Under the Bill, religious instruction and an act of worship are compulsory. On the other hand, it is compulsory not to inquire of any applicant for the post of teacher in a county school about his religious opinions. We may therefore have the strange position in some county school that, while religious instruction is compulsory in that school, no teacher is willing to give it.
Then there is a more serious difficulty, to which the most reverend Primate has alluded. There is nothing to require that religious instruction according to an agreed syllabus should be in any particular faith. It is intended to be in the Christian religion, but intention is different from statutory obligation. The conference under the Seventh Schedule, called to recommend an agreed syllabus, has to be unanimous, and unanimity may be very difficult to secure in some areas. There are to be four committees, each committee, not each denomination, having one vote. One committee, representing the Church of England, has one vote; another committee, representing all the other religious denominations, chosen at the discretion of the

47
local education authority, and which may include the Free Churches, Unitarians, Christian Scientists and Jews, has only one vote to represent the whole company. Then there is a committee of teachers, with one vote. The fourth committee represents the local education authority itself, also with one vote. That conference has to be unanimous in recommending an agreed syllabus. If unanimity is not obtained, there is no obligation on the Minister, or on the body of persons authorized by him, to provide a syllabus of a Christian character.
Religion in other European countries is an ambiguous term. I do not doubt the intention of the President, but why, with all due safeguards for the children of parents who are not Christians, should not it be laid down, as it has been over and over again in schemes under the Endowed Schools Act for fifty years or more, that the religious instruction given in the school should be in accordance with the principles of the Christian faith? Moreover, already 83 per cent. of the existing local education authorities have adopted some form of agreed syllabus; that is to say, out of 316 authorities only about 55 are without an agreed syllabus. Of these 316, 170 have adopted one of the four best, including 105 who have adopted the Cambridge syllabus. The total number of local education authorities will be reduced under the Bill from 316 to 146. Is it not a pity, therefore, to have this elaborate procedure which is laid down in the Seventh Schedule? I believe that there should be, as the Archbishop's first point says, a Christian education in all schools, but I would rather trust the local education authorities and the teachers and the existing practice, and withdraw the statutory obligation, about the later consequences of which I am rather fearful.
I turn now to the proposals regarding the dual system. The President has, as everybody admits, taken immense trouble, and he has obviously been, from what has already been said in this House, very successful in persuading the different interests to approve. He has certainly been extremely industrious and ingenious; but, sorry as I am to differ from what has already been said, in these proposals I see no lasting settlement. I see an opportunity for a comprehensive settlement of the problem of the dual system, in a far more favourable atmosphere than any of
48
his predecessors had, not taken advantage of. I ask your Lordships to consider for what the principal parties in this situation of the dual system are contending. First of all, there is no doubt that the local education authorities, the teachers and the Free Churches desire a unified system—the end of the dual system—with school buildings and the appointment of teachers under the control of the local education authority. The Free Churches ask that in single-school areas their children should not be obliged to receive Church of England teaching. In the case of the voluntary schools, the appointment of teachers and the control of buildings are for them, I urge, a secondary matter; their primary concern is security for the effective continuance of the religious instruction and observance which they have been accustomed to give and to teach in their schools for their own children.
I urge that the proposals in the Bill fail to satisfy the local education authorities and the teachers. Instead of a unified system, and instead of the two types of school which at present exist, there are to be four different types of school—the county, the controlled, the aided, and the special agreement, with four different methods for the appointment of teachers and for dealing with buildings. Mr. Butler gambles on a very large number of non-provided schools becoming controlled schools. It is a big gamble, and there are signs, as the most reverend Primate has said, that a good many voluntary schools will seek to be aided schools, and not least in the rural areas, where the Church school is stronger on the whole than it is in the towns; but these are the schools in the single-school areas, and this will not be very satisfactory to the Nonconformists. What I am most afraid of is something which has not yet been alluded to in this House. It is that there may be as many, or more, voluntary schools which, owing to the financial provisions, cannot become aided schools, refuse to be controlled schools, and resist to the death being taken over or closed by the local education authority—not a very pleasant prospect for any one.
Again these proposals fail, apart from the single provision with regard to loans in single-school area schools, to meet the grievance of the Nonconformists in those areas. They fail to satisfy the voluntary schools themselves. That is, I know, a view that is not shared by many people

49
more important than myself, but this is how I see it. The main feature of the Bill's plan is the controlled schools. But here very plainly that for which the voluntary schools care—namely, the continuance of the existing religious instruction and observance—is substantially affected. At present, in the 10,600 Church of England school departments religious instruction throughout the week is based on the Bible and the Prayer Book, linking up the children with the Church. In the controlled schools the agreed syllabus is compulsory for all on three days, and denominational teaching given to those whose parents ask for it on two other days. I am very far from questioning the necessity of teaching all children a common Christianity, a faith in which all Churches share. Obviously the greatest part of religious instruction to children in school must be of this character. But those who reflect on the meaning of religious instruction will see that some relation to a church is vital. Church connexion, whether for the Methodist or the Baptist, or the Anglican or the Roman Catholic Church, is more important than a distinctive formula. Any satisfactory reform of the status of non-provided schools must surely aim at bringing the Free Churches into closer connexion with their children in those schools, rather than merely reducing the influence of the Church of England.
But everything hinges on the teachers. So, taking the agreed syllabus and the denominational teaching as we find them in the Bill, let us ask what provisions are laid down in the Bill that they shall be competently taught in controlled schools, say in ten years' time, when the present staff has changed. One startling fact emerges after close scrutiny. Except for reserved teachers there is no guarantee that any teacher in a controlled school will be willing or competent to give any religious instruction at all. For, under Clause 28, the authority is not allowed to ask about religious opinions in a controlled school any more than in a county school. So, in controlled schools where there are no reserved teachers, when the present personnel changes, there is no security that any teacher on the regular staff will be willing or competent to give it. Thus everything turns on the reserved teachers. In no case are they to be more than one-fifth of the regular staff. But where the school has fewer than three teachers there will be no reserved teacher at all.
50
I doubt whether it is sufficiently realized that the great bulk of Church of England schools are small schools, and under the Bill in any case the Church schools will be small schools and in the main junior schools. Are there many schools likely to be in this category? There are, and there will be. The average attendance in all Church of England departments is 94. There are at present, according to Table 14, 2,894 schools with under 40 children in them. This, of course, means one or two teachers. Many of those schools may quite likely fail, some of them will disappear. But when reorganization is completed, including those I have mentioned I estimate that on the basis of Table 14 about 6,000 Church of England school departments, that is, over half of the total number, will be schools with fewer than three teachers. Therefore, if controlled, there will be no teachers on the regular staff about whom the authority or the managers are entitled to ask any questions as to religious opinion.
In passing, I would remark that the Church Assembly, by a unanimous vote last year, passed a resolution saying that they could not approve of a Bill which did not provide for a regular member of the staff competent to give denominational teaching. All I would say is that the situation, when you look at it with clear eyes, is very different from the present, and when the implications are understood, which they are not at present, it cannot be satisfactory to voluntary schools. And there is a final—I am sure unintentional—injustice to the reserved teachers. Under the Bill as drafted, putting Clauses 26 and 28 together, once a reserved teacher always a reserved teacher, and it will be quite legal for any authority to say that no reserved teacher may ever become a head teacher. But Mr. Butler may reply, "If you do not like controlled schools there are the aided schools," and here is this offer of 50 per cent. and the word "generous" has been used in this House to-day about that offer. What does it actually mean? Building regulations, published after the Act has been passed, will require a higher standard for school buildings. I have no quarrel with that. Children ought to have the best buildings, but the liability is unlimited. Building costs have gone up, I believe, as much as 60 per cent. since the war began, and to secure any adequate

51
number of aided schools an initial outlay of millions, whether by capital or loan, will be necessary. And new alterations will be demanded as time passes, so that there is no end to the process.
But my objection goes deeper. I contend that the proposal of aided schools is wrong in principle. Why should the voluntary schools pay in order that denominational instruction should continue? There is a very strong case for more public control over the appointment of teachers and the alteration of buildings and the position of buildings on financial grounds, but there is no justification in principle for demanding large financial contributions to make building alterations as a condition of continued facilities for denominational teaching. It might be argued that there should be no denominational teaching in State-supported schools, but once admit, as the Bill admits, that this is legitimate, it is merely mercenary to suggest that the parents or their sponsors should get as much denominational teaching as they will pay for—everything in aided schools, less in special agreed schools, still less in controlled schools, and nothing in county schools. Why should the teaching of religion be put on a different footing from, say, the teaching of geography? If the Government genuinely desire religious instruction to be adequately given in every school, one of the first steps should be surely to encourage schools which already give their teaching according to trust deeds, and not to add to their burdens. I believe that very little experience of the working of the measure will show the necessity of an amending Act. We shall at last do what this Bill fails to do. I realize that the present Bill is not likely to be altered, but a final settlement must come some time which will not only do justice to what exists of the single-school area grievance, among other things, but also to the principle to which I have referred.
The principles on which a final settlement is reachable, as I believe, are the ending of the dual system and the continuance of the present religious instruction and observance with safeguards especially for single-school areas. I would place the conditions in this form: (1) Transfer of all non-provided schools, sites, and buildings to the local education authority, subject to facilities for use outside school hours. (2) Religious instruction
52
and observance to continue in all transferred schools in accordance with the trust deeds, but syllabus instruction to be available to children whose parents desire it. (3) All teachers to be appointed and dismissed by the local education authority, but in order to secure the continuance of the existing religious instruction and observance the head teacher and the teachers responsible for religious instruction and observance shall always (except in schools in single-school areas) be approved, as regards their religious belief and character, by representatives of the denomination in whose interests the school has been conducted. (4) In schools in single-school areas—(a) the teachers responsible for religious instruction and observance to be approved as regards their religious belief and character by representatives of the denomination in whose interests the school has been conducted with the exception that at least one teacher be appointed for syllabus teaching by the local education authority; (b) the managers shall always include one or more representatives of parents and also of other denominations, if any, than that in whose interests the school has been conducted, and shall be consulted by the local education authority when a head teacher is appointed. (5) Where the local education authority is satisfied after inquiry that a new school of a denominational character is required, for example, owing to movements of population, provision should be made on suitable conditions for the building of a new school of a denominational character.
I would point out that this secures a unified national system, that all teachers would be appointed by the local education authority instead of by 10,353 bodies; that the denomination's approval of head teachers only applies where there are also county schools; and that the denomination's approval of those responsible for religious instruction and observance secures continuance of the existing religious instruction with an extension to meet the needs of other denominations, and it will be understood that in the case of schools of strongly homogeneous character a larger number of teachers responsible for religious instruction and observance would be required than in schools less homogeneous. Lastly, in single-school areas, the local wishes and the needs of the different denominations are carefully regarded. This is, of course,

53
as many here know, not a reproduction but something on the lines of the Scottish solution in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, which has worked for twenty-six years. The White Paper issued on the subject last year by the Secretary of State for Scotland stated that "the provisions of Section 18 have worked on the whole with remarkable smoothness."
In the plan I have put forward there are very important variations from that plan to meet the different conditions in this country. It is not a hard-and-fast plan, but I believe that it may one day form a basis for discussion, and the result of discussion with friends of different denominations and interests is by no means unfavourable. I have no illusion that it will escape criticism either from the right hand or the left, but that it is unifying, that it is in principle fair to all parties and in the interests of the children and of religious education, and that something like it is bound to come in time, am just as sure. To achieve such a unified system all parties must pay a price.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, in the long run the prosperity of any country must depend primarily on the quality of its people. For that reason alone we would all wish to congratulate His Majesty's Government on putting first things first, in that the first piece of postwar legislation on any major issue is this Education Bill. At the risk of seeming a little monotonous, I should like to join in congratulating my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education. This is a good Bill, as the most reverend Primate truly said. It is a readable Bill, and I should also like to congratulate the Board of Education on being the first Government Department to produce a Bill in readable English, which is most appropriate. It is a courageous Bill, it is sound and, perhaps most important of all, it is comprehensive. It gives evidence of a broad survey of a great and broad subject. Thanks largely to the tact, patience, and wisdom of the President of the Board of Education, it has been found possible to deal with matters of the deepest controversy in such a manner that, speaking broadly, we can say all sections and all parties accept the proposals.
I refer, of course, mainly to the subject, which I do not feel very qualified to discuss, on which the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, has just been
54
addressing us. On that issue I venture to make just one remark. Both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, expressed quite different points of view, stating their disagreement with certain proposals of the Bill. I do hope that they and all others who are not entirely happy about the provisions of the Bill dealing with the religious issue will realize that this is a very delicate structure and that there are many others who also disagree with these provisions but have stretched their consciences very far in order to contribute to a most valuable compromise. I hope they will not run us into the danger of bringing the whole structure of the agreement down on our heads. If so, they will do something that would be disastrous to education and I believe very harmful to the cause of religion itself.
I am quite sure it is unnecessary to impress on the President the simple and obvious fact that this Bill, excellent though it is, represents the beginning rather than the end of his task. It still remains to be seen with what drive, energy and determination His Majesty's Government are prepared to press forward in order to bring its excellent provisions into operation. To what extent and at what pace is it going to be possible to recruit the 70,000 extra teachers that will be needed? I am not quite clear whether the figure of 70,000 takes into account the teachers that will be lost during the war. I rather think it does not. How are those teachers going to be recruited? How are they going to be trained? And if we are to get men and women of the right quality, how are they going to be paid? There is also the question of building priorities of labour and material. I am not quite clear from what the President said in another place whether he was prepared to be quite as pugnacious on that subject as it may well be necessary to be if he is to get a due share of labour and material. Then what pressure will he be prepared to bring to bear upon slack or recalcitrant authorities?
Finally, there is the question of finance. I do not want to go into detailed figures but I am not happy about the figures given by the President as to the amount required to bring this Bill into operation. I wonder whether it is going to be sufficient. Whether that is so or not there

55
is one point on which I am very clear, and that is that the provision being made for filling the gap between the different authorities and their conditions is not going to be sufficient. This is a matter that is of most vital importance to rural communities. Take the extremes of, say, Westminster on the one hand and the whole of Wales on the other. In another place the figures were given. I have not been able to check them myself but they were not contradicted ministerially. It was stated that a penny rate for the whole of Wales raised £45,000 a year, the same amount as a penny rate produced in Westminster. When we realize those figures we cannot conceive how the President will be able to make such adjustments as are necessary by means of the 55 per cent. provision. But apart from that he is providing £1,000,000 a year to meet that gap and that variation, but I cannot believe that is sufficient. If I am right in that, then it means continued educational difficulties and continued poor education throughout our countryside.
There is one other point on which, speaking personally, I am not prepared to press the President very hard. He was pressed on this subject in another place. I refer to the speed of raising the school age to fifteen and then to sixteen. I regard the raising of the school age as vital to our whole educational system; nevertheless I think many of us have seen a great many children even between thirteen and fourteen years of age marking time and wasting time in the schools at the present time because the schools are not equipped properly to deal with them. Pressure for greater progress there must be, but pressure also there must be for making the necessary preparations. And there must be no taking premature action. The Government will not be fulfilling their duty to the children of this country simply by issuing a fiat that they are to stay in school another year. The buildings have to be provided and equipped and manned, and it would certainly be a tragedy if, in order to hasten the raising of the school age, there was any delay in that most important matter of reducing the size of classes. In all human activities, even in these days of mass production, there remain certain activities that still resist the criteria of quantity.
56
I know it is a platitude but none the less it seems to me necessary to say that education is in the foremost of any list of our requirements that one might draw up. Arising out of that there is one particular step the President is proposing in the Bill that I think we must all welcome. It affects the whole philosophy as I see it of our educational system. That is making in future one post-primary system of education and doing away with the distinctions that have been introduced in the past between the senior school and the central, secondary and technical schools. The snobbery that has attached—and this I think has been said in different words to-day—to the bookish education of the secondary school has all too frequently produced a type of person that was neither cultured nor indeed very useful. Do not let us use such words as "cultural education" and "general education." The secondary school on the whole has in the past been just as much devoted to what we may call the sordid object of getting on as was the more openly and frankly professing technical school. The School Certificate was not a badge of education but a means of getting a job on an office stool. One of the things from which we have suffered very much in the past was the extraordinary belief in the cultural and social superiority of the office stool. I hope that the step which the President is taking to bring together the whole of post-primary education under one head and giving it in future equal status will do something to correct what has been a tragic illusion in the past.
None of us, I think, would desire to see the system of post-primary education become vocational education, but I want to see it brought more closely into contact with life as the child sees it and is likely to be interested in it. One of the tragedies of the past, which the President is seeking in this Bill to rectify, was the sudden transition of the child, in the space literally of one day, from being a child into being an untended cog in the economic and industrial world. It is not merely that fourteen was much too early for this to happen, or that fourteen was for obvious reasons a particularly unfortunate age, but the whole principle of sudden transition whether at the age of fourteen or fifteen or sixteen is wrong. I would support very strongly what the President said in another place, that it is right straight away to start dealing with this

57
important and vital problem. This is what one might call a character development scheme rather than pure education. It is a scheme under which every boy and girl, from the day he or she leaves school to the age of eighteen, can go once a week to someone who will look at him or her not as an employee or a worker but as an individual and who will give help and advice.
Incidentally, there is the importance of continued medical inspection and treatment. More good material has been lost in this period of life in the past than any other. The simple fact is that the child cannot become a man in a day, and if the social system tries to force him in that way the result is bound to be disastrous. I think the President realizes also how extremely difficult it is going to be to handle this important problem, and that neither the ordinary school nor the ordinary school teacher is going to be of much use in dealing with these young people. Apart from the educational aspect there is going to be a certain problem of discipline. We only have to cast our own minds back to this age, when we were at public schools, to remember that if there was a bad disciplinarian there was likely to be a state of chaos. I expect we all remember the two bricks trick—taking two bricks into the classroom, throwing one out of the window and dropping one on to the floor, and calling "Oh, sir, someone has thrown a brick into the room." But when we were at public school we at least felt that we were schoolboys. These young people will have the feeling of being adults because for four or five days in the week they are working in a factory.
I see that a proposal has been made that we should attempt to recruit some of the 70,000 extra teachers from the Services. I have no doubt that if we draw from that source, especially for this purpose, we shall get just the sort of men and women with the type of experience that we want Permanently in this sort of institution, so I hope recruitment of that kind will not be regarded simply as a temporary emergency scheme. There has been some discussion lately as to whether instruction in these schools or colleges—whichever they may be called—should be technical or cultural. I confess that such a discussion rather strikes a chill into my heart. It seems to me to point to the
58
type of conduct that we want to avoid in these institutions. Surely what matters most is that the young people should be interested. One of the great tragedies of some of our younger generation is their apparent lack of interest in anything, their lack of hobbies, their lack of the habit of reading. Even the inevitable pictures are just a means of passing time. The first task of those who conduct these institutions should be to find out the interests of those who attend, and they should be more of the type of a club leader than of a school teacher. It may be that books will be used, it may be that playing fields will be wanted, or the interest may be in machines. In the country it may be animals or fields or garden crops, and particularly in the case of the girls the interest may be in cooking ranges or sewing machines. Those who like music may be provided with or taken to concerts and others could be encouraged to visit picture galleries. We had in the shelters an organization doing such work as this in connexion with music and exhibitions of pictures. The important thing is to develop what is the most precious gift in life, an active interest in some aspect of life.
It is impossible to touch on all aspects of this Bill, the chief merit of which is its comprehensiveness. I should have liked to say something about adult education, but I will refrain from that and will conclude by a very brief reference to the extension of nursery schools and nursery classes. I congratulate the Government on dealing with the vexed question of compulsory medical inspection and treatment, on their encouragement of the provision of school meals to which the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, referred, and in which he has been so greatly interested, on the increased powers given to the President—a very sound and wise development—and finally on the attempted rationalization of areas and powers of local education authorities. I content myself by saying that all those are sound reforms, and all of them are very wisely proposed and dealt with in this Bill. For the rest, I would only join with others in wishing the President God-speed with his Bill and, what is, perhaps, almost equally important, in wishing him the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his other colleagues in carrying through this great task that he has undertaken.
LORD QUICKSWOOD: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not fear the tediousness of a comprehensiveness of treatment if I say one abstract word to begin with. I should like to ask why we all applaud and admire this Bill which has been so generally approved because it makes a great advance in secular education. Why do we value a great advance in secular education? Not, I think, because it promotes virtue. It is certain, I think, that advances in secular education do not promote virtue. The Germans are one of the most highly educated peoples in the world, but they are certainly not the most virtuous.
If you turn to the Renaissance, a period of great intellectual activity, when there was great educational and cultural development, you find that this development was often accompanied by profound moral depression. However much you examine contemporary life or past history, you will find no ground for saying that education promotes virtue. Neither do I think it promotes happiness. No doubt, indirectly, it may enable people to do things which, indirectly, give them pleasure, and in that sense, you may say it helps to promote happiness, but speaking of the direct effect I say that there is no ground for thinking that it makes people happy. Imagine a university town with a garrison of soldiers. Pick out twelve teachers from the university and twelve privates from the barracks. Make inquiries; ask which amongst them are the happiest. I think you will find that the soldiers are quite as happy as the teachers.
Therefore, I do believe that what we are all so enthusiastically engaged upon is not the pursuit of either virtue or of happiness. But it is, I think, the pursuit of efficiency. That is the great, the supreme virtue of education—that it enormously increases human efficiency. There is then this very important and very obvious—though often overlooked—distinction to be drawn. Whereas virtue and happiness are absolute things, efficiency is relative. You are efficient for a purpose. No one is generally and universally efficient in the abstract. He is efficient for something. And that is of a great practical educational importance—that truth which is so often overlooked. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said that education was sometimes divided—I think he said between
60
cultural and vocational education. I would suggest to him that that is not really a scientific distinction. All education is necessarily vocational if you understand vocation in the full wideness of the natural meaning of the word. It aims at fitting the individual for, at making him efficient for, some walk of life or another, or some conduct of life or another. That is the great end of education—to increase efficiency for a purpose.
Now that also illustrates the truth that education is immensely selective. I consider myself a well-educated person, but there are vastly more subjects learnt and taught in various educational institutions all over the world than I ever learnt or was taught. The whole conception of education is that you select, out of a great number of things, certain things which it is worth while for a particular child to learn and for teachers to teach. Who is to decide that selective process? Who is to say what is to be the walk in life of the child, and so enable the authority, whatever it is, to give him the education that will fit him for that purpose, that will make him efficient for that purpose? I say, evidently the parent. The parent is the person who ought to be able to choose and I suggest that the idea behind the conception of education is that the State should offer to the parent educational facilities for any reasonable vocation that the parent likes to choose, and that, thereupon, the child should learn what is necessary for that purpose and is likely to make him efficient for that purpose.
There is, I am afraid, among educational authorities, a great deal of impatience at the conception that it is for someone to choose and that that someone must be the parent. There is apt to be disregard altogether of the parent's outlook. For example in this Bill it is proposed to raise the age of compulsory education at once to fifteen and ultimately to sixteen. I dislike every part of that proposal. I dislike the use of compulsion. I dislike quite as much making the standard of when a child should leave school an age rather than the progress which he or she has made in learning. I do not think that compulsion is defensible in a democratic system. When you allow every adult person to have a vote to determine all sorts of political questions of which many of them understand very little, on what ground can you, at the

61
same time, deny them the right to say how the education of a particular child is to be conducted?—this being a matter which they understand perfectly, for they know a great deal more about that child than the education authority or the Minister of Education, and they are much more likely to be right about what the child needs.
The conception that parents are unscrupulous and not to be trusted, if true of a very small minority, is quite untrue of the great majority. The great majority are most earnestly, and even passionately, anxious to do their best for their children, and are perfectly to be trusted without compulsion to keep their children at school as long as it is in the child's interest to be kept there. Of course, there are differences of opinion on that point. You find these differences among working men, most respectable and hard-working people. In this connexion I heard a very amusing anecdote the other day. The wife of a carpenter said, quite sadly: "It does seem a shame to keep the boy at school now, just when he's old enough to learn something." She was thinking, of course, of his being taught by his father to become an expert carpenter. She thought that that was the vocational education most suitable for him. I cannot feel certain that she was wrong. She would be wrong, of course, about a certain type of child who might require a literary education in order to become a great man on different lines. I am far from saying That the fullest opportunity should not be provided for giving the most complete education that can be given when it is desired. I would have no fixed age for leaving school. I would keep the child there until he learns, first what the State thinks it is necessary for everybody to learn, and then what the parent wishes him to learn. If you are to have compulsion at all I would have it on that basis.
Then you ask: What would be your standard for the State? I suggest that a standard is to be found in a subject which is often treated as very elementary but is, in fact, very important. We often speak of the Three Rs—reading, writing and arithmetic—as if they all ranked together in importance. Nothing can be more mistaken than that view. Writing is, of course, a useful accomplishment, but I have known such a number of eminent persons who wrote exceedingly badly that I cannot believe it is a necessary part of
62
a good education. As for arithmetic, simple addition is very useful; it is part of the gloomy apparatus of accounts from which none of us can escape; but I wonder how much arithmetic, members of your Lordships' House habitually use? Could you do a sum in Rule of Three? I wish that I knew how many of your Lordships could do that; I greatly doubt whether many of you could. You will be familiar with the story of the eminent statesman who, when offered a table of statistics prepared in terms of decimals, said with impatience "What do these damned dots mean?" I do not believe, therefore, that arithmetic ranks very high.
Reading, however, is the very essence of education; it is the vital thing. By that I do not mean reading as taught, I suppose, in an ordinary elementary school, but reading so that one can read for pleasure, reading which is absolutely effortless. That is the standard which I should set. No one should leave school until he could read a page of good English without the slightest effort, hesitation or difficulty, and until he could explain the more important words. I am quite sure that if such a rule existed there would be no illiteracy afterwards. People who get to the point where reading becomes a pleasure rather than an effort never go back. They never lose the habit of reading. It is to this clay and in ordinary experience the real test which distinguishes what we call an educated person from an uneducated person—whether he reads for pleasure or whether he reads with effort. That would be my standard, and it is a far better standard, I suggest, than a limit of age. A limit of age is bad in both ways; you keep some children at school for too long, and you turn a large number of others out too soon. It is far better to keep them there until they attain the standard which the State thinks necessary, which would, of course, vary from child to child, and then let them have as much more education as the parent wishes.
Now let me turn—and this shall be the concluding division of my observations—to religious education. I feel the force of what the most reverend Primate has said—that there are provisions in this measure which forty years ago would have been considered very generous to denominational education, such as the facilities for taking the children out of school for religious instruction. That would certainly

63
have been greatly prized in 1902. Nevertheless, I feel that the Bill suffers, as all the preceding measures have suffered, from trying to combine two different theories of religious education which are essentially incompatible with one another—the theory of undenominational teaching, which merely aims at giving the child a certain knowledge of religious literature and religious subjects, and the denominational system, which aims at associating the child with one religious body or another.
I cannot myself doubt that the second is the efficient way of conducting religious education. Almost all the noble Lords who have spoken have dwelt on the extreme danger of forgetting, between the age of fourteen and the age of twenty-one, a vast proportion of what has been learnt in school. That is true in secular education, and it is just as much true in religious education. If there is nothing to continue the religious practice and interest of the child after he leaves school, the best possible agreed syllabus will soon be forgotten. I often think that these elaborate proposals for improving the syllabus of religious education might be cynically described as proposals for training children in the art of forgetting theological propositions. The more you teach them, the more they have to forget; and that is all that happens. If, however, you associate the child with a religious denomination he falls into the system of the denomination, his religious knowledge is made practically interesting, his religious life is continued and he does not go back. That is what we aim at doing; our aim is to make people first pious and then virtuous. We aim first at piety and then at good conduct. We are distressed by juvenile delinquency. Let us then bring common sense to bear and do what we recognize is necessary in the case of secular education, and have a continuous system which will create a religious sense in the child and keep the religious life and interests of the child alive. That can be done only by associating him with some religious body or another.
I greatly regret that some such system as the Bishop of Chichester outlined cannot be adopted on this occasion, but I would venture on a much more modest suggestion which would, I think, help some denominational schools a good deal,
64
and, what is much more important, would help the general level of denominational and religious instruction. We have in the Bill aided schools and controlled schools—I am referring now to auxiliary schools. Why should not we have one other category, a school parentally managed? Why should not there be a school in which the foundation managers are elected by the parents? Every year there would be an election at which the parents of the children at that time in the school would vote, and they would elect the four foundation managers out of the six who would manage the school. Such a school might, I think, with perfect propriety have the whole cost of the education provided and of all the buildings borne by public funds, because I think that parental control is essentially the same and depends on the same principle as ratepayers' control or as the control of the Minister of Education.
We think it right and just that the State, through the Minister, should control the school, because a large part of the cost is borne by taxes. We think that the local education authority should exercise control, because a large part of the cost is borne by the rates. But there is one thing in the school which is provided neither by the rates nor by the taxes, and that is the children. There could be no school if there were no children, and it is the parents who provide the children. The parents, therefore, are perfectly entitled to control the school so furnished. If it is legitimate that the ratepayer who pays the rates should have some control, and that the taxpayer who pays the taxes should have some control, it is also right that the parents who furnish the children should have some control. I would give them control only by giving them power to elect the managers, and therefore to control the religious education. I would provide that a school so managed should be exempt from trust deeds and perfectly free to give any religious instruction which was desired; and, being an auxiliary school, it would not come under the Cowper-Temple clause.
If that provision were introduced into the Bill, it would relieve almost entirely the difficulties of the Roman Catholic schools, because the Roman Catholics would have very little difficulty in appointing managers of their own faith, and it would relieve a certain number of

65
other schools. It would, moreover, recognize the most important and valuable principle that parents are the right and true people to have the authority in the matter of the religious training of their children and in the matter of the general management of the school, so far as it is not regulated either by the local education authority or by the Minister.
We shall make no progress at all, however, as long as this undenominational theory is still supported by great, important and justly respected bodies of public opinion. A heavy responsibility lies on the Free Churches and their ministers. It is they who support this theory expressed in the Cowper-Temple clause. As a matter of fact, the provisions of the Cowper-Temple clause relate only to formulas and catechisms, and not to teaching the essentials that lie behind them; yet that clause has created the impression which has operated so strongly, that religious education in a public school ought not to attach a person to any denomination, and that is fatal. That is to hamstring religious education and prevent it walking down the path on which alone it can make true progress. It is only by attaching a child to a religious body that you really will have religious practice and religious interest, and continue it a religious and pious person in the path of good conduct that you are anxious that it should traverse.
So that I feel that a heavy responsibility lies on the Free Churches because they have maintained this undenominational teaching. If they changed their minds the whole education question could be solved directly. If they could only be converted to see that what they are doing is in opposition to religious education—that the Cowper-Temple clause is really a charter of educational incompetence, because it is the efficiency of the religious teaching which is so hampered by that requirement—if they could be brought to see that, the whole situation would be changed. I do not know whether in this Bill so great a change is to be hoped for. One thing might be put in, I think with general consent, and that is to require those teachers who give religious teaching in any school to inculcate in the pupils that it is part of their religious obligations to attend in normal circumstances public divine worship at least once in each week, in accordance with the wishes of their
66
parents and with the teaching and customs of whatever religious body those parents approve. I think that might quite well be inserted as a declaratory clause, as indicating to the teachers what is part of their duty as religious teachers. That would at any rate recognize the truth that you get no good out of religious education unless it is followed by that religious practice of worship which alone the denominations provide.
That is all that I wish on this occasion to lay before your Lordships. I feel that as long as the present friendly relation between public authority, whether local or central, and various religious bodies continues, as long as we have a President of the Board of Education like Mr. Butler, who really values religious education, it is very likely that this Bill will work more favourably than some anxious people are disposed to fear. But it all depends on that, I am afraid. If you imagine a hostile Minister and a hostile local education authority, if you imagine an irreligious movement running through the country, then indeed this Bill gives very little security, very little hope, of safety for the religious interests of the people.
We must face the fact that we live in a time of great religious crisis. The movement which has been so desolating Germany and Italy will certainly spread all over the world; indeed it has, in one form or another, spread everywhere. There is a widespread tendency to substitute the worship of man for the worship of God. If that becomes stronger and stronger—and it very well may—as happened in respect of the democratic movement at the end of the eighteenth century, when the defeat of the French Armies which was supposed to crush Jacobinism, did not in the least destroy that element of Jacobin-ism which was democracy—there might be a less desirable survival than took place then. It might be a movement of opinion definitely Anti-Christian, definitely setting up the conception of human perfection in place of the worship of God. And I think if that did happen, if there were such a movement, then the machinery of this Bill would be found to give no protection whatever for the religious life of the people. If we should have a hostile Minister and a hostile local education authority, we should soon pass into the Anti-Christian movement which would then be strong. I therefore greatly regret that there will be a danger of the denom-

67
inational schools growing weak just at the time when we need all the strength of all the Churches put together to stop the attack which is threatened, the attack of a great Anti-Christian movement.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Clifden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and the debate adjourned accordingly.

LOUGHBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 8th of February last and 24th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.
House adjourned.