Sitting of 7 February 1945

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COMMERCIAL GAS BILL
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  WADEBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL
  Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CONWAY AND COLWYN BAY JOINT WATER SUPPLY BOARD) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR AND CIVILIAN INTERNEES, FAR EAST
  Colonel Sir Arthur Evansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet received a reply to the telegram addressed through the Protecting Power to the Japanese Government in July last suggesting that a further exchange of civilian prisoners should take place; and if, in order to relieve the anxiety of their relatives in this country, he will make a full statement on the up-to-date position.
  The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): As my hon. and gallant Friend will know, His Majesty's Government have been trying for some time to obtain an agreement with the Japanese to a second exchange of civilians; but I regret to say that no formal reply has been received at present.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he now has any further statement to make respecting prisoners of war in Southern Asia occupied by the Japanese; and if he has any information regarding a change in the attitude of the Japanese Government to the demand for inspection.
  Mr. Law: In the middle of December, the Swiss Government and the International Red Cross Committee communicated to His Majesty's Government a proposal from the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs agreeing under certain conditions to visits by representatives of the International Red Cross Committee to the Santo Tomas civilian internment camp at Manila, a prisoner of war camp at Singapore, and a prisoner of war hospital in Siam. This offer does not, of course, cover more than a fraction of the camps in the Southern area, but the Japanese have stated that they regard these limited visits as a first step. Meanwhile, as the House will have realised, American forces have taken the Manila camp. The Japanese offer was conditional upon representatives of the International Red Cross Committee being permitted to visit Japanese subjects held in British, United States and Allied countries, and, in particular, Japanese held in New Caledonia, Saipan, Tinian and Guam.
  His Majesty's Government at once replied that neutral representatives have long been permitted to visit all Japanese held in the British Empire, and that full reciprocity therefore already exists as far as the Empire is concerned. The French Government have recently stated that they are prepared to authorise the sending of an International Red Cross delegate to New Caledonia. I understand that the United States Government have not yet replied in regard to visits to camps in Saipan, Tinian and Guam.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is it not a fact that one of the reasons why this welcome development has not taken place before, is the

  2045
  refusal of the United States Government to provide these facilities for the Japanese? Will the right hon. Gentleman not use his good offices to see that that difficulty is overcome, so that this development will be continued?
  Mr. Law: I understand that the United States Government have not yet replied. I can assure the hon. Member that they are in no doubt as to our view on the matter.

  SYRIA AND LEBANON
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will issue a White Paper setting out the promises, in respect of Syria and Lebanon, given by His Majesty's Government to France, Syria and the Lebanon, respectively, and still in force.
  Mr. Law: The statements of policy, all of which have been published, are four in number, of which two are extracts from speeches made by the Prime Minister in this House. I will gladly have copies of the four documents placed in the Library of the House.
  Mr. Keeling: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is necessary to inform public opinion and to remind the public of what the facts are? Would it not, therefore, be very useful to have a White Paper?
  Mr. Law: I will certainly consider the point my hon. Friend has raised.
  Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman incorporate in the White Paper the declarations made by General Catroux specifically to the Lebanese and the Syrians?
  Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information regarding recent events in the Levant States.
  Mr. Law: From accounts which have appeared in the Press, hon. Members will know that there has been tension for some time in the Levant States and that demonstrations have taken place. The occasion for these demonstrations was the Syrian demand for the immediate transfer to the Syrian Government of the so-called troupes spéciales. This, however, is a complicated question, into the history of which
  2046
  I cannot go now. I would only emphasise that the real difficulties are by no means confined to this point, but extend to the wider question of the future relations of France with the Levant States, whose independence she has proclaimed. Just what these relations are to be is primarily a matter for negotiation between France and the States themselves. But they will have to be defined sooner or later by an agreement or settlement of some sort, and it is the view of His Majesty's Government that the sooner discussions to this end are started the better. Difficult as many of the questions at issue are, we believe that there is no reason why they should not be satisfactorily settled, given a fair measure of understanding and restraint on both sides.
  Meanwhile we have the right to expect that no action will be countenanced by either side which is likely to create a threat to security in an area under British operational command or to undermine the loyalty and discipline of the troupes spéciales which form part of the Allied Forces in the Middle East.
  Mr. Astor: May we have an assurance that there will be free negotiation and that the States will not be subjected to any undue pressure?
  Mr. Law: This is a matter for the two States concerned. I have indicated the attitude of His Majesty's Government to the matter, which is one for negotiation between those two States. They have to reach a settlement, and His Majesty's Government hope that they will reach a settlement.
  Major-General Sir Edward Spears: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in to-day's paper there is an announcement that the French Minister of Information has said that he hopes for the eventual independence of the Levant States? How is this compatible with the guarantee given by France, and ratified by us when we occupied those countries in 1941, that the Mandate had come to an end, and that the two Republics were from that moment sovereign and independent States?
  Mr. Law: I have not in fact seen any such statement and I cannot vouch for its accuracy, and until I have a full report, I prefer not to comment upon it.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: Is not this just the sort of question which might usefully be discussed by the "Big Three," and does it not emphasise that General de Gaulle should have been invited to that meeting?
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers the declaration of General Catroux in June, 1941, when he said he had come to put an end to the Mandate?
  Mr. Law: I do not think I have said anything to indicate that I have forgotten it.
  Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that demonstrations have taken place in Syria and the Lebanon against the French refusal to hand over the Syrian national Forces; and whether he has considered a copy of a note of protest from the Syrian Foreign Minister to the French authorities.
  Mr. Law: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor). As regards the second part, no copy of a note of protest has yet reached me.
  Mr. Stokes: Does not my right hon. Friend recollect the declaration made by General Catroux at Beirut on 26th November—
  Mr. Speaker: That appears to be a question which has been asked previously, and there is a rule against repetition.
  Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. This is a different declaration, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recollects that on 26th November, 1941, General Catroux solemnly declared the Lebanon an independent State, and said they had the right to appoint diplomatic representatives, and the right to control their own Army?

  EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION)
  Sir Alfred Beitasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the nature and duties of the British political representatives in Finland, Bulgaria and Rumania; whether His Majesty's Government contemplate entering into diplomatic relations with those countries; and
  2048
  whether the Soviet Government have diplomatic representations in them.
  Mr. Law: The duties of the British political representatives in Finland, Bulgaria and Rumania are to protect British interests in those countries. His Majesty's Government do not contemplate entering into diplomatic relations with the Governments of those countries during the armistice period. The Soviet Government do not maintain diplomatic representatives in those countries.
  Sir A. Beit: Can my right hon. Friend say to whom these political representatives are responsible? Further, in view of the fact that both Russia and ourselves are represented diplomatically in Italy, which is an ex-enemy country, why should we not have similar representation in other ex-enemy countries?
  Mr. Law: The representatives in question are responsible to His Majesty's Government. The case of Italy is not parallel. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave a reply in the House on 8th November indicating the position of Italy.
  Mr. McGovern: Has not Russia very efficient representatives in all these countries, although they might not be called diplomats?
  Mr. Law: And I think that we have efficient representatives, too.
  Commander Agnew: Do the duties of these political representatives include the arranging of facilities for correspondents of the British Press to carry out their functions in the capitals of these countries?
  Mr. Law: I can only repeat that the duties of these representatives are to do all they can to protect British interests.
  Sir A. Beit: Has Russia also political representatives in these countries? Were not these other representatives appointed by the Allied Military Commission?
  Mr. Law: The Soviet Government do not have political representatives as we do.

  BRITISH COUNCIL CLUB (FOOD PURCHASES)
  Sir Thomas Cookasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what circumstances public funds were used to

  2049
  purchase Norfolk rabbits in excess of controlled prices for consumption at a British Council Club.
  Mr. Law: The Club in question, which was set up jointly by the Greek Government and by the British Council, purchased rabbits from a Norfolk dealer from August, 1943, onwards. The weekly accounts for these purchases show that the price was in every case within the limit fixed by the Ministry of Food. In February, 1944, however, the vendor began to send in supplementary bills marked "expenses," which were at first paid, but in March, 1944, were queried by the Director of the Club, and upon the vendor's failing to give a satisfactory reply, the purchases were discontinued. I may add that the Inspector of the Ministry of Food who visited the Club expressed himself as satisfied that the Club had acted quite innocently in respect of the transactions in question.
  In any case, no public funds are involved in this transaction.

  LIBERATED TERRITORIES (ELECTIONS)
  Mrs. Cazalet Keirasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the agreed policy of the United Nations that no Government in liberated countries will be formally recognised before a properly constituted general election with a secret ballot takes place.
  Mr. Law: The policy of His Majesty's Government as regards the recognition of governments in liberated territory must depend on the circumstances of each case. It would not be possible to lay down rigid criteria in advance as suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Keir: Does not my right hon. Friend think that we ought to stand for, and insist on, free elections and secret ballots in all the liberated countries?
  Mr. Law: I think the attitude of His Majesty's Government was made perfectly clear by the Prime Minister, in his speech on the war situation the other day. We do stand for certain principles, and we will do all we can to see that they are carried out. That is one thing, but it is quite another thing to constitute ourselves as a kind of honorary nursery governess in the countries of our Allies.
  Miss Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the results of the elections will not be indicative of the real feeling of the people if, for example, the women's votes are excluded, and only half the community exercise the franchise?
  Mr. Loftus: Does my right hon. Friend propose to apply the tests of freedom as given by the Prime Minister in his farewell message to the Italian people, as tests by which the Government will be judged?
  Mrs. Keirasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Government's policy of ensuring that a General Election takes place in all liberated countries at the earliest possible date, it is the Government's intention to stipulate that universal adult suffrage should be a condition of such elections.
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Allied Governments to ensure that a free election and secret ballot is carried out in each liberated country by the supervision of the election in each country being undertaken by the Allied Powers with the least national interest.
  Mr. Law: It has recently been made clear by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that His Majesty's Government will exert their influence to ensure that elections on the broadest possible democratic basis shall be held at an early date in all liberated countries. We clearly cannot, however, prescribe to the Governments concerned the exact conditions in which such elections should be held.
  As regards the suggestion that the Allies might supervise such elections, I would recall the reply which my right hon. friend the Deputy Prime Minister gave on 21st December to the hon. Member for Bridgwater. His Majesty's Government would be prepared to assist in supervising elections if invited to do so by the Governments and peoples concerned, but they sincerely hope that such exceptional measures of intervention in the affairs of other States will not be called for.
  Mrs. Keir: In view of the important part taken by women in the resistance movements, does not my right hon. Friend think that they should have some

  2051
  say in the future government of their countries; and could not our Government make a statement on this question?
  Mr. Law: I think that that must be a matter for the Governments and peoples concerned.
  Miss Ward: Has Russia the same ideas as the British Government with regard to free elections for the liberated countries?
  Mr. Law: I can only speak for His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that questions of this kind will come with a better grace in this House, after we have had an election of our own?

  FRANCE (POST-WAR FRONTIERS)
  Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the official statement made by General de Gaulle in Paris on 25th January, 1945, that both the east and west banks of the Rhine must belong to France; and whether His Majesty's Government endorses that policy.
  Mr. Law: None of the reports of this Press Conference which I have seen attribute to General de Gaulle any statement that the east and west banks of the Rhine "must belong to France." He referred only to the military occupation of certain areas by French forces. As for the second part of the Question, His Majesty's Government endorse the statement, attributed to General de Gaulle in the same interview, that political decisions on the redrawing of frontiers must be decided later by all the Powers together.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Is there likely to be any security for France unless this traditional frontier is safe?

  GREECE

    Documents (Publication)
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish as a White Paper all the documents relative to events in Greece during the period November, 1944, to January, 1945.
    Mr. Law: His Majesty's Government have given this question careful consideration but do not feel that the present would be an opportune moment for publishing all the documents in their possession regarding this period.
    Mr. Lawson: May I ask two questions? The first is whether it is not essential, in order to have a true picture of the situation, that the documents dating from November, 1944, to January, 1945, should be published. The second is whether the right hon. Gentleman will include statements made by British troops who were taken prisoner by the regular E.A.M. forces and who reported favourably on their treatment and not confine it to statements made by those who were taken by the irregulars.
    Mr. Law: I have no doubt that, in due course, all the facts of this tragic business will come out. In the meantime, I am quite sure that it would be extremely inadvisable at the present time, from the point of view of securing a settlement between the contending factions in Greece, to add fuel to the flame by publishing a lot of statements which have been made in confidence, and which people never expected to be published.
    Sir Richard Acland: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask Mr. Leeper to supply further particulars of his first statement in the White Paper, about chaos and disorder in November, as it conflicts with all the statements made by Athens radio, and with the result of the investigations made by the then representatives of the Government?
    Mr. Law: I do not think that, at this time, any advantage would be served by raking over those embers. Our whole interest in this matter is to get a settlement in Greece. We seem to be on the way to a settlement. I have nothing to add to what I have said.

    Conference (M. Tsirimokos)
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the objection of the Greek Government to the inclusion of M. Tsirimokos, General Secretary of E.L.D., Union of Popular Democrats, in the E.A.M. delegation for the purpose of discussing conditions of agreement, has the approval of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Law: As my hon. Friend will be aware, M. Tsirimokos is taking part in the conference.
    Mr. Cocks: Does that answer mean that the Government are now abandoning the fiction that E.L.D. have broken away from E.A.M.?
    Mr. Law: I think it simply means that Mr. Tsirimokos is negotiating with the Greek Government at this time. I do not think that we need draw any conclusions from that fact.

    Press Correspondents (Interviews)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if British and American war correspondents in Athens are now permitted to interview spokesmen of E.A.M. and E.L.A.S.
    Mr. Law: It was decided that up to and during the period of negotiations correspondents should not be permitted to interview the delegates to the Conference. This decision was taken because it was felt that a series of statements to the Press by the delegates might well impede the course of negotiations or even prejudice their outcome. I hope that after the Conference it will be possible to make arrangements for a general Press conference at which full facilities will be given to Press correspondents to interview individual delegates.
    Mr. Driberg: Meanwhile, is it not the case that other British civilians, such as the T.U.C. delegates, have been allowed to interview E.A.M. and E.L.A.S. spokesmen? Since the Press correspondents are allowed to interview one side, the Plastiras side, would it not be advisable to allow them to give a complete picture?
    Mr. Law: I do not think the cases of the T.U.C. delegates and the Press correspondents are comparable. As to the general question, I think the House will appreciate that it would be extremely difficult to get a settlement of this very difficult problem if there was a sort of competition, both sides appealing to their respective publics back at home. I am sure that no good purpose would be served by allowing these interviews now. After the conference is over, I hope that it may be possible to grant such interviews.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Since when has a fair presentation of the case of both sides
    2054
    come to be regarded as competition? Why should my right hon. Friend assume that it would prejudice the negotiations if publicity were given to the E.A.M. side, while it is facilitated and exclusively given to the Plastiras side?
    Mr. Law: I did not say anything about fair presentation. What I was trying to convey to the House was that it did not really seem to be a very good idea, from the point of view of getting agreement, if delegates came hot from the disputes in the conference room, and gave heated interviews to the Press.
    Hon. Members: Only one side.
    Mr. McGovern: After all the propaganda that has been done by the Government against E.L.A.S., why should there be this special treatment for the other side? Is it not the case that the real reason for not allowing interviews is that they might conflict with what the Prime Minister said?
    Mr. Law: No, Sir, there is nothing whatever in the suggestion made by the hon. Member.
    Mr. McGovern: It is Churchill dictatorship, and nothing else.

    Arms Bearing (Sentences)
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take in view of the sentences passed by High Courts in Greece against men accused of carrying arms against the State.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the sentences imposed by a military court in Athens on persons accused of bearing arms against the State; and what steps he is taking to check this contravention of the assurance given by him that the act of bearing arms against the State would not be regarded as a crime in itself and would not be punished.
    Mr. Law: I understand that the Press reports on this particular case may not have given a full account of the proceedings of the court. His Majesty's Ambassador in Athens has been asked to furnish a full report, and, until this has been received, I should prefer to make no statement. I can assure the House that His

    2055
    Majesty's Government expect the Greek Government to honour the pledges which both we and they have given.
    Mr. McGovern: Is it not the case that a large number of political assassinations are going on in the name of legal justice, and that these are being carried out by both sides in all the released countries in Europe?

    ORIENTAL, SLAVONIC AND AFRICAN STUDIES (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY)
    Mrs. Cazalet Keirasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of our future political and commercial relations with the countries of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa, His Majesty's Government are contemplating any steps to improve the facilities at present available for learning about these countries.
    Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attaches considerable importance to this subject, and, after consultation with other members of the Cabinet, he has set up an Inter-Departmental Commission of Inquiry, whose task it will be to examine the facilities offered by universities and other educational institutions in Great Britain for the study of Oriental, Slavonic, East European and African languages and culture, to consider what advantage is being taken of these facilities and to formulate recommendations for their improvement. Sir Roger Lumley has consented to be Chairman of the Commission, which has already started work.

  ATLANTIC CHARTER (ENEMY TERRITORIES)
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that the principles of the Atlantic Charter, which stipulate there should be no transfer of territories without the consent of the people, do not, ipso facto, apply to enemy countries.
  Mr. Law: It has frequently been stated in the past that the policy of His Majesty's Government is based on the objectives broadly laid down in the Atlantic Charter and subscribed to by all the United
  2056
  Nations. His Majesty's Government do not, however, regard any provision of the Charter as meaning that the transfer of enemy territory can in no circumstances take place without the consent of its present inhabitants.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does not the present interpretation of the Atlantic Charter amount to sheer humbug?
  Mr. Law: No, Sir.
  Mr. Hynd: If the declaration concerning the transfer of territories does not apply to enemy territory, can the right hon. Gentleman inform us of any country to which it does apply?
  Mr. Law: I think the view of the Government on this point was made abundantly clear by the Prime Minister, when he explained to the House that the Allies would not be bound to enemy States at the moment of surrender by any obligation whatever.
  Mr. Stokes: If I put down a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, will he clear the matter up by telling us to which countries the Atlantic Charter does apply?
  Mr. Law: The hon. Member is capable of putting his own Question.

  U.N.R.R.A.

    Staff (British Subjects)
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to how many British subjects are on the pay-roll of U.N.R.R.A.; and how many draw salaries exceeding £500 a year.
    Mr. Law: I regret that complete figures are not available to me at present, since British subjects are recruited by offices of U.N.R.R.A. ouside the United Kingdom as well as by the European Regional Office of U.N.R.R.A. I understand, however, that a report on the personnel and establishment of the Administration is in preparation by the Director-General.
    Mr. Lindsay: The Foreign Secretary said on 20th December that that report would not be long delayed. Could the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when we shall receive it?
    Mr. Law: My hon. Friend will realise that it is not my responsibility, but I will look into the matter and see if it can be expedited.

    Executive Officers
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to who is the chief executive officer of U.N.R.R.A. in Europe; and for what duties in U.N.R.R.A. has the county clerk of Ayr county council now been offered a position.
    Mr. Law: I am informed that there is no post of Chief Executive Officer of U.N.R.R.A. in Europe. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, Deputy Director-General for Administration, is chairman of the Administrative Council, European Regional Office. I understand that the county clerk of Ayr county council has been offered an appointment as a principal officer in the European Regional Office; his duties would consist of dealing with personnel and organisational problems.
    Mr. Lindsay: In view of the vital importance of this international experiment, does not my right hon. Friend think that an executive head is really an important necessity for its effective working?
    Mr. Law: The constitution of U.N.R.R.A. was laid down by the Council of U.N.R.R.A. itself, and it is not within the power of His Majesty's Government to vary that constitution.

    Liaison Mission (France)
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affars if he has any information as to the function of the U.N.R.R.A. liaison mission in France; and how far U.N.R.R.A. bears responsibility for the provision of petroleum, motor transport and food in that country.
    Mr. Law: The French Provisional Government is a member of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, and there are naturally very many matters of common interest to the Administration and to the French Provisional Government which would concern the U.N.R.R.A. Liaison Mission in France. This applies especially to the services offered by U.N.R.R.A. in regard to Allied nationals displaced in Germany. I am sure that the Administration would be glad to provide more detailed informa-
    2058
    tion, if requested. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave him on 31st January. As I told my hon. Friend U.N.R.R.A. has not been asked by the French Provisional Government to deal with supply questions. U.N.R.R.A., therefore, has no responsibility for the provision of petroleum, motor transport or food in that country.
    Mr. Lindsay: Should it not be made quite clear that U.N.R.R.A. is not responsible for the deficiencies in the supply of food to the French at the present time?
    Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, I think it should be made clear, but I do not know how I can make it clearer than I have already done.
    Sir Percy Harris: Could the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any country in Europe where U.N.R.R.A. is functioning?
    Mr. Law: U.N.R.R.A. has been functioning in Greece, and I hope it will continue to function with increasing effect in that country. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, U.N.R.R.A. can only come into any country in Europe after the military period is over, and at the invitation of the military authority or the Government concerned.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what organisation is responsible for the provision of food for France, if U.N.R.R.A. is not? Has he realised that there is universal anxiety in this country that we should do our utmost to help France in this very difficult period?
    Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, I realise to the full the anxiety. The responsibility for providing imports to France is that of the French Provisional Government. They are making such arrangements as they can with the combined Allied authorities to discharge that responsibility.

  ROYAL AIR FORGE

    Transport Command (Executive Posts)
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Secretary of State for Air what percentage of the officers of the rank of squadron-leader and above in the R.A.F. Transport Command have experience of trans-

    2059
    portation problems by reason of previous service with shipping, railway or road organisations.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I regret that the information asked for could not be obtained without an undue expenditure of time and labour.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States Air Transport Command the high executive officers have much transport experience; and will he consider appointing in the high executive offices of the Royal Air Force Transport Command men with general transport experience?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir, there are such men there now.

    Education Officers
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Air which Government Departments asked for the services of the 62 R.A.F. education officers whom he has recently permitted to resign; whether their resignations were permitted after a recommendation of the appropriate man-power board in each case; and whether these officers are doing what they were permitted to resign to do in the national interest.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The release procedure applicable to the Armed Forces does not apply to these education officers who are civilians and have given notice of resignation in accordance with the terms of their contracts. Accordingly, it was unnecessary for their release to be asked for by other Government Departments or recommended by man-power boards. In fact, however, some of the resignations were supported by the Ministry of Education and others by local education authorities. I cannot answer for the employment of these officers if and when they leave the R.A.F. Educational Service, but, like other civilians, they are subject to the National Service arrangements administered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.

    Air-Commodore (Release)
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Air why Air-Commodore L. F. Heald, aged 47, has been permitted to return to civil life; which Government Department asked for him and what National Service is he now doing; and whether other barristers serving in the
    2060
    R.A.F. will be allowed to retire from the service if they so desire.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The special duties on which this officer has been employed have come to an end and since no alternative employment suitable to his acting or war substantive rank is available it has been decided, in accordance with the normal practice, that he should be allowed to relinquish his commission. His release has not been sought by a Government Department. As regards the last part of the Question, the release of officers for whom employment is available in the Royal Air Force cannot be considered except on extreme compassionate grounds or, on the application of a Government Department, for work of urgent national importance.
    Captain Duncan: Is this case in accordance with the War Cabinet's decision, which operates in the case of the Army and the other Fighting Services; and will the right hon. Gentleman review the arrangements under which the Air Force let officers like this out, whereas the Army cannot do so, because of the War Cabinet decision? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, because the Air Force can let people out, and the Army cannot, and this particularly affects small traders?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Any question about the Army procedure should, of course, be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. The question that has to be considered is whether there is employment available for the officer appropriate to his rank and experience. If there is, he will be retained in the Service. Let me make it clear that this officer was very willing to remain on, and serve in the Air Force if employment had been available to him; but it was not available, and, therefore, it was decided to accept his resignation.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that suitable employment was not available to this officer because he has no qualifications whatever for the rank he held?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir; he had admirable qualifications. He has given most devoted and able service during the whole of the war, and for some time before the war; but his experience was concerned solely with public relations, and there is no longer a post available for him.

    Air Accidents
    Mr. Edgar Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the public concern at the increasing losses in senior officers, members of R.A.F. crews, and individuals playing an important part in the war effort, through air accidents; and whether it is his intention to undertake the fullest inquiry into the causes.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I deeply regret loss of life through air accidents. Every accident is fully investigated, and prompt action taken where necessary. The Chief Inspector of Accidents is available for consultation, and in cases exhibiting unusual features he is associated with the investigation; if he thinks fit in any particular case, he may conduct an independent inquiry. A special Air Ministry Directorate is responsible for examining reports on accidents and bringing to the notice of the Service any remedial measures that may be required. Flying in war time involves certain hazards inseparable from war conditions, but the House will be glad to know that the accident rate of the Royal Air Force has been steadily falling for some time.
    Mr. Granville: Are the machines which are used on these flights sufficiently heavy to deal with bad weather, and are they equipped with radio? Who is responsible for the arrangements for these particular flights? Also, might I ask whether there is any more information which can be given to the House in regard to the machine missing in Italy recently?
    Sir A. Sinclair: In reply to the last part of the question, I regret to say that I have no further information, although I am in close touch with the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief about it. The machine has not yet been found. On the first point, no accidents have been specified in the question. If my hon. Friend will tell me to which accidents he refers, I will give him the answer about the aircraft.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the standard of maintenance of aircraft by ground crews has not deteriorated?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir; I think it is quite clear from the fact that the accident rate is going down that the standard of maintenance by the ground crews is very high.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is it possible for the Air Ministry to warn pilots that there is nothing to be ashamed of if they avoid a weather risk?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I can assure him that pilots are fully aware of that.
    Mr. Granville: Is radio equipment used on these machines, and are sufficiently heavy machines used to deal with bad weather?
    Sir A. Sinclair: In so far as it is possible to give an answer to so general a question, the answer is certainly, "Yes, Sir."
    Captain McEwen: Is it not, on the whole, a matter of surprise to my right hon. Friend that there have not been more accidents?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir; because I am fully aware of the immense efforts that are made to avoid accidents and to reduce the accident rate—efforts which have been successful in a substantial degree.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Will my right hon. Friend consider reverting to the peace-time practice of publishing information about accidents which occur, not in operations, and to give full publicity to those accidents now that the security consideration no longer exists?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The need for security is still very great.

    Belgian Personnel (Home Leave)
    Sir T. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will permit Belgian airmen now serving in the R.A.F. to spend their leave with their wives and families in Belgium.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The possibility of permitting Belgians serving in the Royal Air Force to spend leave in their home country is under consideration by the interested Departments. Meanwhile, applications from Belgian airmen to proceed to Belgium on compassionate grounds will be considered on their merits.
    Mr. Petherick: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this is a matter that might have been considered a long time ago, in view of the fact that Belgium has been largely liberated from Germany for some time, and that leave is allowed now to

    2063
    members of the British Army of Liberation in Belgium?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Perhaps it might have been. But the matter is being considered now.

    Explosion, Burton-on-Trent (Compensation)
    Mr. Grettonasked the Secretary of State for Air the basis upon which the injured and the dependants of those killed in the explosion at Burton-on-Trent, on 27th November, 1944, will be compensated.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Compensation will be paid on the basis of the awards which those concerned might reasonably expect in a successful action for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, the Law Reform Act, or at common law. Claimants have been invited to seek legal representation, either through their solicitors or through trade union machinery. All reasonable legal costs will be paid, in addition to settlements for compensation.

    Aerodrome Runways (Grass Seeds)
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Secretary of State for Air what mixture of grass seed has been sown in general on the mesh runways of aerodromes in South-Eastern England.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The mixture used was either one, or both, of two special mixtures to meet the requirements of this type of runway. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Smith: Is not couch grass sown on account of its binding qualities; and, if so, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that this land will take a long time to clear?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have the very best available advice on the mixtures we use. Perhaps he will look at the list which I am circulating.
    Following are the details:

    Mixture A.

    Perennial Rye Grass.

    Smooth-stalked Meadow Grass.

    Crested Dog's Tail.

    New Zealand Browntop.

    Timothy.

    Yorkshire Fog.

    2064

    Mixture B.

    Perennial Rye Grass.

    Fiorin.

    Cocksfoot.

    Wild White Clover (New Zealand).

    Timothy.

  POST OFFICE

    Postal and Money Orders (Eire)
    Professor Savoryasked the Postmaster-General how the total of £22,830,000 paid through postal and money orders to Eire during the years 1939–1944 is made up; and what were the sums paid in each of these years.
    The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the particulars:

    —

    Postal Orders.

    Money Orders.

    Total.

    £

    £

    £

    1939

    512,000

    484,000

    996,000

    1940

    377,000

    777,000

    1,154,000

    1941

    374,000

    1,824,000

    2,198,000

    1942

    449,000

    4,236,000

    4,685,000

    1943

    568,000

    6,166,000

    6,734,000

    1944

    612,000

    6,451,000

    7,063,000

    2,892,000

    19,938,000

    22,830,000

    American Forces, France (Mail Delays)
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the prolonged delay in the transport of mail from this country to the American armies serving in France, magazines and newspapers, such as "The Times," taking over three months; and can he give an asurance that deliveries will be expedited.
    Captain Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the Question is, Yes, Sir. But the matter is one for the United States authorities, who undertake the transmission of this correspondence between this country and the Continent.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there are cases in which "The Times" and other publications, and letters, have been sent regularly to American officers in France for the last three months and none has arrived? Is there anything he can do about it?
    Captain Crookshank: It is not my responsibility; it is a matter for the American authorities. I have no doubt they will take note of my hon. Friend's statement.

  HOUSING

    Bomb Damage Repairs
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Minister of Works (1) if he is aware that local authorities are seldom, if at all, granting licences to private builders to carry out essential war damage repairs; and what directions on this point have been issued by his Ministry;
    (2) if he is aware there are considerable numbers of small private builders spending nearly all their time applying for licences to carry out essential war damage repairs, which are seldom, if ever, granted by local authorities; and will he take steps to make full use of all such builders.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Bomb damage repairs is a type of work for which small builders are well suited, and they are being very extensively employed on this task. In areas in which the licensing limit has been reduced to £10, registered builders have been invited to apply for work on war damage repairs under a direct contract either with the local authority or with the Ministry of Works. In the London region, over 6,000 builders have entered into contracts of this kind. There is, however, a considerable amount of work which can best be done by private contract. This includes bomb damage repairs to isolated houses, demolitions and essential maintenance. In the last 2½ months local authorities in Greater London have granted 23,000 licences for this kind of work.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is the Minister aware that several councils in London are of opinion that they themselves should do these bomb damage repairs, and should have the builders working for them and not for the tenant or owner of the house; and is he also aware that other councils are of opinion that only builders who reside in a council's area should be permitted to do work in that area?
    Mr. Sandys: Broadly, without going into detail, the view of the Government is that it is more efficient to tackle this
    2066
    job as a whole, and not to encourage individual owners of property in various streets having their own jobs done privately. This makes the people alongside feel that their neighbours are having preferential treatment. However, there are many cases where a house is isolated, or where there is some other special reason why it should be repaired separately. In such cases licences are granted.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that, through difficulty in obtaining licences to carry out first-aid repairs, building materials are being looted from empty bomb-damaged houses which cannot be properly closed up without work being carried out for which no licence is granted; and will he, in consultation with the War Damage Commission, ensure that such loss will qualify for future cost of works payment.
    Mr. Sandys: I know of no specific cases where looting has occurred after a licence to repair the property has been refused. However, if my hon. and gallant Friend will send me particulars, I shall be glad to have inquiries made. As regards compensation for looting, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Rostron Duckworth) on 17th October last, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is the Minister aware that there have been many cases. May I put this point? When damage takes place, it is necessary to close up the buildings at once, and will he not consider allowing these immediate first-aid repairs to be carried out without licence?
    Mr. Sandys: First-aid repairs are carried out with remarkable rapidity. The repair squads are, in most cases, on the job within an hour, very often within half an hour, and the work is almost always completed in under three days and very often less.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Do not the owners and tenants themselves look after their own property as a rule?

    Requisitioned Houses (Release)
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Works whether steps are being taken to authorise the release of houses

    2067
    which were taken for national purposes in order that families may return to their homes as soon as possible.
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. Subject to the continuing needs of the war, we are endeavouring to release as many houses and flats as possible, particularly of the smaller type.
    Sir Irving Albery: Is the Minister aware that many of these houses are empty, that there is no caretaking of any kind, and that very considerable deterioration is taking place?
    Mr. Sandys: I know. That is one of the difficulties.

    Government Policy
    Mr. Frankelasked the Minister of Works (1) whether, in view of the newly announced Government policy on housing, he will make an early statement to the House;
    (2) what contracts have been entered into for building and construction of Portal type prefabricated houses; the names of the firms; and what loss is likely to be incurred by the changed Government policy.
    Mr. Sandys: I assume that these Questions refer to recent Government statements to the effect that we are aiming at changing over from temporary to permanent house building more quickly than had originally been anticipated. If this change-over proves practicable, it will ultimately result, not in any loss, but in a very substantial economy. The necessary technical studies and experimental work are being pressed forward. As soon as these are completed I will make a further statement to the House. In regard to the first two parts of Question No. 40, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) on 1st February, and to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) on 6th December, of which I am sending him copies.
    Mr. Frankel: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the changes announced by the Government, issuing a White Paper to the House as soon as possible?
    Mr. Sandys: I will consider the most appropriate way of informing the House of the Government's policy.

    Prefabricated Houses
    Mr. Frankelasked the Minister of Works what has been the cost of building the prototype of Portal type prefabricated houses; the cost of advertising them; and the cost of showing them to interested people and the public generally.
    Mr. Sandys: The experimental work, together with the construction and exhibition of prototypes and mock-ups of the pressed steel bungalow, has cost very approximately £80,000. No expenditure has been incurred in advertisement.
    Mr. Frankel: Is it not a fact that, in view of this important change, £80,000 has been absolutely wasted?
    Mr. Sandys: Not at all.
    Mr. Cocks: Could the Minister say what happened to the tools specially ordered by the Government for the construction of these houses?
    Mr. Sandys: They have not been moved.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS BUILDING (KITCHEN)
  Mr. Charles Whiteasked the Minister of Works the number of man hours used to provide his private dining room and kitchen in Room 423 at the Ministry of Works.
  Mr. Sandys: About 500.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the Minister assure us that the grub he gets from that kitchen is better than the grub we get here?
  Mr. Sandys: Since hon. Members have raised this somewhat domestic and personal issue, perhaps the House will allow me to explain, very briefly, exactly what work was done. It consisted of removing a radiator, fitting one sink, two electric points, a table and two shelves. In addition, owing to a mistake, some distempering work was done, contrary to instructions.
  Mr. Charles White: May I disclaim any personal motive in this matter, and ask the Minister if these 500 hours could not have been spent on the much more urgently important need in the East End of London?
  Mr. Sandys: May I say that the sole purpose of these very modest arrangements was to enable my staff and myself to work rather longer hours without interruption? I have no doubt that this will increase the output of work and efficiency of my office at a time when we are working under considerable pressure. I am perfectly satisfied that this small amount of work is fully justified in the public interest.
  Mr. Gallacher: Can the Minister tell us how it took 10 weeks to make "these modest arrangements"?
  Mr. Sandys: I must say that I was a little surprised myself, and I am inquiring into it. I am told that this figure includes about 100 hours of travelling and standing time, and that extra time was taken owing to the use of second-hand salvaged material.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (DECORATION)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Works whether he intends to accept the offer of the Royal Fine Art Commission in their letter to the Select Committee on Rebuilding, dated 19th October last, to give their views on the decorative details of the new Chamber.
  Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (TREATMENT)
  Mr. Purbrickasked the Prime Minister whether he will notify the Germans that unless our prisoners of war in their hands are properly fed and housed, we shall reduce the standard of conditions of living of the German prisoners of war in our hands to the same level.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. The obligations imposed by the Geneva Convention are that the food and housing conditions of prisoners of war should correspond with those of the depot troops of the detaining Power. It is the policy of all His Majesty's Governments to comply with these obligations.
  Mr. Purbrick: Are we to understand from that that it is not the policy of the Government to have these reprisals?
  Mr. Attlee: The policy of the Government is as I have stated.
  Mr. McGovern: Will my right hon. Friend realise that the people of this country will be against using the physical well-being of the prisoners for a battle between brutal Governments?

  GERMANY (ALLIED BOMBING POLICY)
  Mr. Purbrickasked the Prime Minister when shall we bomb the German cities of Chemnitz, Dresden, Dessau, Freiburg, Wurzburg, etc., which so far have had little or no experience in this connection.
  Mr. Attlee: It would not be possible for me to make any statement in regard to future operations.
  Mr. Purbrick: In view of the stereotyped replies that we get to questions of this sort, and the fact that anything of this nature, of course, would not affect the question of security, would it be possible for the Government to give us the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the committee which settles all these targets?
  Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: Could not the Government arrange for the hon. Member to go over and drop some himself?

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Honey
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Minister of Food what was the consumption of honey in the United Kingdom in the years 1938 and 1944, respectively.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): The estimated quantities are 8,000 tons in 1938; 6,000 tons in 1944. They include home produced and imported honey.
    Mr. Smith: Can the Minister say whether he is satisfied with the production of home-grown honey, and does he consider that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has been putting enough "pep" into home production?
    Colonel Llewellin: In reply to the first point, the answer is "No, Sir." I should

    2071
    like more honey, but it depends very largely on whether the bees can collect the honey in suitable weather.

    British Restaurants
    Colonel Greenwellasked the Minister of Food if it is with his approval that British Restaurants enter into competition with ordinary firms of outside caterers for the supply of refreshments at public functions; and if he is aware that this practice is greatly resented by private catering firms who are finding it difficult to carry on under present day conditions without this additional handicap.
    Colonel Llewellin: The function of British Restaurants is primarily that of providing meals for those whose work or business makes it necessary for them to take a meal away from their homes in localities where adequate catering facilities are not otherwise available. So long as these activities are not interfered with and charges are made on a commercial basis Local Authorities responsible for these restaurants are left free to decide whether to use these facilities for the purposes referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Colonel Greenwell: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend if he approves of this competition between independent catering firms and British Restaurants?
    Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister aware of the discontent of certain caterers through the dumping down of these restaurants in the vicinity of other competing restaurants, and of the serious grievance because British Restaurants can get ample supplies of food whereas caterers cannot?
    Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. The supplies, both to British Restaurants and to caterers, are based on the number of meals served.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will not the Minister state frankly that in the vast majority of cases where these public functions take place, local caterers can neither supply the labour and material nor are they interested in contracting at all, and that only British Restaurants can do the job?

    Pig Carcases (Price)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Food what price self-suppliers and
    2072
    caterers receive per pound for half of the carcase of a pig they are obliged by regulation to sell to his Ministry; and what is the price per pound paid to the ordinary feeder of pigs for pigs sold otherwise than under this regulation.
    Colonel Llewellin: The prices are the same for pigs falling within the same weight range, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT what these prices are for different weights of pigs.
    Mr. Turton: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend deny that, in the case of a pig, for every 20 score the Ministry of Food pay 3¾d. per pound less than the factory price?
    Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir, it depends on where the home producer of the pig sends his pig. If he sends it to a butcher he gets a lower price than if he sends it to the Ministry's wholesale agents, because we put in the meat subsidy between the two.
    Following is the statement:
    The current pig price schedule is as follows:

    Per score.

    Up to 5 score 4 lb. dead-weight

    21s. 0d.

    5 score 5 lb. to 6 score 10 lb. dead-weight

    23s. 0d.

    6 score 11 lb. to 12 score 0 lb. dead-weight

    24s. 0d.

    12 score 1 lb. to 13 score 0 lb. dead-weight

    22s. 6d.

    13 score 1 lb. to 14 score 0 lb. dead-weight

    20s. 0d.

    Over 14 score dead-weight

    17s. 0d.

    Frozen Fish
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Minister of Food how many tons of filleted fish were sent in recent days from cold stores in London to Milford Haven; and with what object.
    Colonel Llewellin: Between 20th and 26th January, 47 tons of frozen fish were consigned from London cold stores to Milford Haven to make up deficiencies in fish supplies in the area served by that port.
    Mr. Robertson: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the great fishing port of Milford Haven has carried on for at least a century without taking supplies from the great consuming centre of London; and will he take steps to prevent transfers of this kind, which are really unnecessary?
    Colonel Llewellin: This was quite exceptional and was due to the fact that we had not enough fish in the South Wales area, and our policy is to try to equalise supplies over the country as a whole.
    Mr. Robertson: If that is so why not send the fish to Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff and other Western towns instead of railing it 260 miles to Milford Haven and then half way back again?
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Minister of Food why the entire shipment of 1,000 tons of Newfoundland filleted cod and headless flat fish ex "Umtali" was sent from London Docks to Aberdeen, Hull and Grimsby.
    Colonel Llewellin: Because the frozen fish which formed only a quarter of the "Umtali's" cargo, was needed to make up deficiencies in fish supplies in the areas served by Aberdeen, Hull and Grimsby.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that Hull and Grimsby supply London and that already at least 25 tons of the consignment have come back to one London merchant whom I know and that in all probability on a population basis about half will come back to London and district? Is it not quite wrong for huge consignments of this kind to be sent up and down the country?
    Colonel Llewellin: We tried to get the best arrangement made for this ship to unload at two ports, in which case this would not have happened. As it is, however, in order to work in with our scheme of equal supply over the whole of the country, I am afraid that on this exceptional occasion, this fish had to go to the several destinations.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not a fact that a large number of ships could be made available from other ports and bring about an equal distribution if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was able to persuade the Admiralty to allow those ships to be properly repaired?
    Colonel Llewellin: That is a completely different question. This was a ship bringing in imported meat and frozen fish.
    Mr. Bevan: Is not what I say the fact and is not that the reason for inadequate distribution?
    Mr. Robertson: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give an assurance that this will not happen again?

    Ice-Cream (Distribution)
    Mr. Purbrickasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that many cities, such as Liverpool, manufacture ice-cream sufficient to meet all the requirements of their area, he will introduce a system of zoning, as he has done in many other instances, so as to save transport which would otherwise be necessary to carry the ice-cream from London and/or other centres.
    Colonel Llewellin: I hope to introduce a scheme for the utmost economy in distribution as soon as possible.

    Stocks (Condition)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Food if he has considered the representations made to him that food stored in an area, of which he has been informed, at 20 emergency feeding centres and at six other places and which has not been turned over for several months, is in danger of deteriorating; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Colonel Llewellin: I am hoping soon to withdraw the food stored at the Emergency Meal Centres and British Restaurants referred to but in the meanwhile it should not deteriorate if the storage arrangements remain satisfactory. The food in the other centres of which my hon. Friend has informed me is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security.
    Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. and gallant Frend see that there is no deterioration at any of these centres throughout the country, in view of the fact that this food is urgently needed, if not here, at least in liberated territories, and there are very large quantities of it?
    Colonel Llewellin: We are collecting in all the food at these outlying places as soon as we can. We have collected in a large number of these dispersed food reserves and it is our policy to release them as soon as possible.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to,—
Representation of the People Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the law relating to contributory negligence and for purposes connected therewith."—Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Bill [Lords].

LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) BILL [Lords]
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 22].
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.2 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I have, in the course of the last few years, been responsible for introducing into this House a good number of Bills. Many of them have been very long, many of them have been quite unintelligible and many of them have been most controversial. I think that I can say at least for this Bill, that it suffers from none of those three faults. In the first place, it is very short. In reducing it to three Clauses, I think I can claim that I have done it in only "one over par". It is, in the second place, intelligible and hon. Members will be interested to know that, although it was necessary to legislate by reference, because it entailed the amendment of an earlier Act, the draftsman, with great skill, has included in this Bill enough of the earlier Act to make the Amendments now proposed intelligible in themselves. Thirdly, I hope and believe that this Bill is uncontroversial, and whatever suggestions people may have to make, whatever improvements they may want, the principle underlying it is accepted in all parts of the House.
  That being so, my task of explaining the Bill is certainly an easy one and, at any rate, should be a short one. It is necessary for me to refer to the old Act, and the particular provisions of that Act to which this new Bill will apply. The Second Reading of the Colonial Welfare and Development Act of 1940 was taken in this House although not, of course, in this actual Chamber, on 21st May, 1940, at a time when the Germans were just about as far from St. Stephen's as the Russians now are from Berlin. I was not present myself at that Debate. I was at that time trying to re-learn, as a subaltern, those lessons of prompt obedience and proper humility which, despite the persistent efforts of this House, Cabinet Ministers are apt to forget. However I have recently had the opportunity of re-reading those Debates, and anyone who

  2093
  reads them must be struck by the little effect which the gravity of the situation outside had upon the deliberations of the house. The speeches one reads had all their old eloquence, all their old confidence and, indeed, all their old length.
  Certainly that Debate, which took place at such a grave moment in our history, when hon. Members might have been excused for having their minds full of other things, was a landmark in Colonial policy. It marked for the first time, a complete departure from the old doctrine of self-sufficiency—the doctrine that, although it must be wrong for this country to take money from the Colonies, equally, there was no necessity for this country to give money to the Colonies; and that every Colony must develop its own resources from its own resources. That was a doctrine which led to growing inequality between the standards in the various Colonies for, whereas a country which was already rich, by the use of those riches could further develop its own resources, a colony which was poor had not the means to take the only step which could in the future relieve that poverty. It is because of this Act which, though perhaps small in its scope, was revolutionary in its effect, that the name of my predecessor in office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald) will always have an honourable place in the history of Colonial administration.
  Now hon. Members who are interested in this subject—and it is, I think, a gratifying thing that the number of hon. Members who are interested in the subject of the Colonial Empire is continually growing—will remember the main provisions of the Act of 1940. The effect of it was to provide annually a sum of £5,000,000 for welfare and development and a sum of £500,000 for research annually over a period of 10 years from 1941 to 1951. Of course, one of the difficulties of the Bill was that that was an annual provision, and any of that £5,000,000 which was not spent in one year could not be carried over to the next but had to be returned to the Treasury—that bourne from which no traveller returns, at least as long as he has anything in his pocket.
  The House was warned at the time by my predecessor that war conditions made it unlikely that in the early stages of this 10-year period it would be possible to
  2094
  spend the full amount granted by the Act. I think anyone who had had any close touch with any of the Colonial territories in the last two years, must realise how true was that warning. He warned the House of the difficulties of supply, the difficulties of imported materials which, in many Colonies that have no mineral resources of their own, are essential preliminaries to any constructional scheme whatsoever. He warned them of the shortage of skilled personnel which would be needed either to supervise capital development or to maintain long term planning, and in some Colonies he warned them of an actual shortage of labour where the drains upon local manpower for military service or for essential production left no margin for new work. Those warnings were perfectly justified. In fact, in the early years of this period, the sums granted by Parliament were largely unused. Only £1,000,000 was was actually spent in the first three years, and only just over £2,500,000 in the first four years of the life of this scheme. I think it says much for the enthusiasm and the far-sightedness of hon. Members in this House that, even despite the practical difficulties which will prevent the full expenditure of the sum at the time, hon. Members from all sides during Colonial Debates that we have had in recent years have been urging the necessity, for the future, of an increase in the sum allotted under the 1940 Act.
  The theoretical advantage of an increase of that kind which was urged in those days has become to-day not a matter of theory but a practical necessity. Recently the tempo of expenditure under the 1940 Act has been immensely increased. I do not mean for one minute that those difficulties to which I have referred have disappeared; in fact, with the continuance of the war they tend, as hon. Members will realise, to increase, but the effect of three years persistent effort to overcome difficulties, to bring forward and put into execution schemes, slowly at first but increasing afterwards, are now beginning to have their result and in the year 1944–5, the financial year just ending, the total expenditure—including a Supplementary Estimate which I shall have to ask the House to pass—will be £3,000,000 or more in this year, than has been spent in the whole four years of the life of the Act. In an Estimate which I shall shortly present to the House for next year, I shall

  2095
  have to ask for within a few thousand pounds of the full sum permitted by the 1940 Act. It is clear, therefore, that the increase which will be made by this Act, has become now not a matter of theory, but a matter of practical necessity.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: How much of that was spent on research?
  Colonel Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member could raise that by a Question. I have the figures here but I could give them in the reply.
  With regard to the principal changes made by the Bill, the Second Reading of which I am now proposing, the first, and to my mind the most important change is that it abolishes this principle of annual accounting and the surrender to the Exchequer of any sum which has not been spent in the particular year. That principle has, of course, been disastrous in times of the shortages, to which I have referred, when the money could not be spent, because it has meant—or would have meant, if it had not been for this amending Act—that a great deal of that money which this House intended to be spent for the benefit of the Colonies, would never have been spent. It is not only disastrous in the particular circumstances of to-day, but it would be a severe handicap, even in more normal times, when there would be no difficulty in actually spending each year the money provided because this kind of annual accounting—this permission to spend an equal sum in each of the 10 years of a 10 year period—does not in fact coincide, as hon. Members know well, with the facts of any long-term planning. You do not in any long-term plan, in fact, spend an equal sum of money every year. You start slowly as the plan is developing, you work up to a climax and then, in the latter years, you tend to come down again to the original figure.
  The great benefit, therefore, of this new method of granting a capital sum over the whole 10 years, subject only to the limitation that no more than £17,500,000 may be spent in one year—a limitation introduced simply to prevent upsetting the equilibrium of our Budget here by including in one particular year perhaps half of the whole sum provided—is that it will enable us to spend the money according to the dictates of a properly
  2096
  worked out and adhered to long-term plan. The second, the main, change is that the sums made available under this Bill are rather more than double the sums made available under the Act of 1940. It would be rather more than double if comparing like with like, but owing to the abolition of the annual period, and the greater ease with which we shall be able to spend this money economically and efficiently, I think the increase really represents in practical value a good deal more than double. Thirdly, there is the extension of the term. The original term was from the end of March, 1941, to the end of March, 1951. The term now will run from 1946 to 1956. So much for the alterations made in Clause 1.
  Let me refer for a short time to a small but interesting point with which I have had to deal by Clause 2. Hon. Members will recollect that one of the conditions laid down in the original Act for the expenditure of these sums was that in the Colony where the money was to be expended reasonable facilities should be provided for the establishment and the working of trade unions. That instruction of the House has, of course, been loyally observed, but there is this one special case of the Aden Protectorate where it is quite impossible to carry out those instructions. In respect of that I have, therefore, to refer to the House again. This has nothing to do with Aden Colony.
  That is administered by His Majesty's Government, and certainly there exists upon the Statute Book the standard type of trade union legislation. This Clause refers not to the Colony but to the bulk of Protectorates which surround the Colony and which, for many years, have been in treaty relations, and no more than treaty relations, with His Majesty's Government. Among these small independent territories, all, of course, Arab and Mohammedan, there are one or two of considerable size (Lahej) in the west and Makalla in the East. In Makalla at any rate there is a form of legislative machinery but in the great mass of them, some of them not much more than a village, but all independant of each other, there is no legislative machinery whatsoever. The only written law which exists is the Sharia—the old Mohammedan law. There is no law-making machinery whatsoever, and His Majesty's Government, linked with these territories merely by a treaty which deals with their relationship

  2097
  with foreign Powers—or in some cases with the reception of advice—have no power whatsoever to legislate for them.
  Of course, there are no trade unions in those territories, nor are there ever likely to be, because there is no industry in which trade unionists would be employed. Their principal industries, at the moment, are agriculture—sometimes—and, I am sorry to say, a certain amount of internecine warfare almost always; and neither of those particular branches lends itself easily to the formation of a trade union. Therefore, this is very largely a theoretical point. It is certain that under the provisions of the Act as they stand not only could we not now give them any assistance but that the conditions of the Act are never likely to be fulfilled, and yet His Majesty's Government do think that limited assistance ought to be given to them. These territories have been going through a time of very great economic hardship. From some of them there was a great deal of emigration before the war to places such as Malaya or the Dutch East Indies, and the fall of those countries has brought them a very big economic loss. All over the area there has been, during the last year or two, a terrible drought, which fortunately has broken within the last few months, and these territories, backward always, have lately been in a state of great destitution. It is true that our link with them is small, that we could, as we are not responsible for their administration, disclaim any responsibility for their welfare, but I think that would be wrong. We ought to do what we can without in any way interfering with their own administration, without in any way sapping their own self-reliance, because in that terribly barren country that would be a disaster. We ought to give them what help we can with such things as water schemes, and also simple medical assistance, to enable them to make a start, at any rate, in developing a better standard of life. It is for that reason that I propose this change to the House because I believe that only so can we bring a certain much-needed relief to people who to-day are suffering a great deal of hardship.
  Those, I think, are the only comments I need make upon the actual provisions of the Bill, and I turn now to what I am sure will be the main argument about a Bill the fundamental reception of which I take for granted. The main argument
  2098
  I feel will be over the size of the sum of money which we make available, the £120,000,000 spread over this period of 10 years. The size of that sum may be criticised from two angles, one the more likely to-day the other perhaps more likely in the future. The question which is more likely to be advanced to-day is, Is it enough? The second, a question which someone standing in this place may well have to meet in future years, is, Is it too much? A time may come when hard-pressed taxpayers and hard-pressed electors here may begin to question the sums voted in this House even when they are of a magnitude which, in comparison with the sums in which we deal to-day, is as small as £120,000,000. They may want to have arguments advanced as to why that burden is placed upon them.
  Let me deal first with the question whether this sum is enough. We must keep two points in mind. First we have to consider the object of this fund. I want to make it plain that this fund is not, is never intended to be and never could be the sole and permanent support of all the social requirements of the whole of the Colonial Empire. If it were on that basis, those calculations with which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) sometimes favours us—with enthusiasm and, I am sure, with accuracy, although I must say I have never checked them—when he translates the sums voted for the Colonial Empire as a whole into the amounts spent upon the male portion of the inhabitants of the upper portions of Nigeria, would be quite a valid criticism. But, of course, on that basis one can make any sum of money ridiculous. If that were the basis, and if the sum that Parliament is asked to vote were meant by itself to sustain the whole of this social expenditure, one could easily make it appear niggardly and insufficient. If I were to-day introducing a Bill not to provide over the 10 years the sum of £120,000,000 but the sum of £3,000,000,000, the hon. Member for Dewsbury would still be entitled to complain that we were "fobbing off" the Colonies with a paltry sum of 1s. 10d. per head per week for the whole of their social services.
  Mr. Riley: It is true.
  Colonel Stanley: Of course, that is not the object. In the long run the social standards of a country must depend upon

  2099
  its own resources, must depend upon the skill and energy of its own people, and the wise and full use which they make of their internal wealth. It is not right and it is not healthy to attempt to maintain permanently out of the skill and efforts of our people the social standards of the Colonial territories. That, therefore, is not the object of this Bill. The object is to give the territories the help that they want and must have if they are to start for themselves the process of developing their own resources. It is not true to say that this sum is meant as capital expenditure, because it is possible to spend some of it not only on actual capital work but in contributions to the early maintenance of the works erected, for it to be in the nature of a pump primer to enable people to start their education and health services, to develop their communications and to deal with their water power in the confident belier that when they have been enabled to make that start it will lead to an increase of their own resources, and that out of their resources they will then be able to maintain a decent social standard.
  The second thing we have to remember is that the sum which the House is being asked to vote to-day is not the only source upon which the colony, or certainly many colonies, can draw for these purposes and is certainly not meant to replace those other sources. It is not in substitution for them but intended to assist them. During the course of the war many colonies have built up considerable balances of their own which in many cases have been lent to His Majesty's Government for the purposes of the war, free of interest. That is a source which they can use and which they must use for their own development. During the war the revenues of many colonies have increased and in nearly all the colonies the taxation machinery has been improved, with the result that a larger proportion of the resources are at the command of Government. In some of the colonies, in addition to these possibilities, there is a considerable possibility of the raising of internal loan capital for national expenditure of this kind. All these alternative means have to be taken into consideration.
  Finally, there is the question of private capital available both inside the territories and from outside. Frankly I welcome the provision of private capital to
  2100
  develop the economy and any particularly secondary industries of these territories. I believe it is only if we can get sufficient assistance from private capital that a full measure of development will be possible, because the resources of both the Colonial Governments and His Majesty's Government here will be fully allocated on what I might call the national development side. So we shall welcome the introduction of private capital. But to all those in this country or elsewhere who wish to, and think of investing after the war in productive work in the Colonies I want to make these few points.
  In the first place, I do not believe—and it certainly will not be the intention of the Administration to bring it about—that there will be an opening after the war for the "get rich quick" type of private investors, people who are prepared to face losses but, in return, expect staggering profits. But there will, I think, be opportunity for a reasonable dividend, and for reasonable security. In the second place, the private capitalist, if he invests in Colonial territories, has no right to, and cannot expect, any privileged position. He has a right to, and will expect, and, I hope, will get, a position of equity and fairness, but he has no right to ask for more than that. Thirdly, he will have to come into the territory as a partner, and not as a master. There can be no question again in the future of private enterprises acquiring, as in the past they sometimes did in some corners of the Colonial Empire, what was almost a dominant position, from which they attempted to threaten the authority of the Government itself.
  So much for the investment which we hope for from outside. I believe there will be a growing opportunity for private investment, from capital inside the territories. It is obviously desirable that the people of the territories themselves should be linked, through their capital contributions, with the industries of their own country. They have, undoubtedly, growing resources at their command for such purposes, but there are certain difficulties in the way at the moment of any large-scale private investment. The first is that the ordinary capitalist in many of the Colonial territories to-day expects a great deal too big a return on his available capital, and is apt to find that the only productive branch of industry which will give a return

  2101
  of that kind is the old-fashioned industry of money-lending. He will have to go through a period of education, so that he is prepared to accept a small return and a less risk on what may be considered to be the more reputable forms of industrial production. Another difficulty at the moment is that to a large extent he is lacking in managerial experience and capacity and, therefore, that he is not in a position at the moment to supply not only capital but direction of the new businesses which are set up. I hope that both these difficulties will pass, but we have to guard against the danger that while those difficulties exist, while local capital is not coming forward in sufficient quantity, all the holes will be filled up, that all industrial opportunities will be taken, and that when people become more investment-minded and more managerially fit they will find no place left for them.
  I think an interesting possibility for us to consider is that of Colonial Development Companies, perhaps run by the Colonial Governments, which will be able to provide capital and managerial experience, which will be able to assist the local investor and be able to enter into partnership with the investor from outside, not with the idea of itself going into industrial businesses and running those industries permanently, but with the idea of filling this gap, to give enterprise a start, and gradually to be able to pass over to the private investor in the Colony, both the capital burden and the managerial responsibility in the industries—the same sort of thing which is to be done by those Corporations to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently been referring in this House.
  It is with those considerations, the alternative Governmental sources and the resources of private capital in mind, that I have examined the sum which I shall ask the House to vote to-day. Of course, it would have been very easy for me simply to have doubled the number I first thought of, to have put up a proposition not for £120,000,000 but for £250,000,000 or £500,000,000, and thereby no doubt to have got a good deal of kudos. But we have to think of the other side of the picture. We have to think of the taxpayer of this country, and of the future of this country, because neither
  2102
  £50,000,000 nor £100,000,000 would really be a very good bargain for the Colonial Empire if it was accompanied by the bankruptcy of the Mother country. It is, therefore, the duty of anyone in my position not to ask for more from the taxpayer of this country and from this House, than he considers really necessary for the job which has to be done.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer met me on this point with very great fairness, but he did need to be convinced that I thought that this sum was really needed, and was required to do the job. Of course, it is very difficult to make an exact calculation, especially for a period of 10 years, but it is a good deal easier to make it now than it was for my predecessor to make it in 1940. During those five years we have collected a great deal more data. The work of the Development Commissioner in the West Indies, and certain long-term plans which are already beginning to come forward from other Colonies, do give one, to-day, some idea of the requirements which will fall upon us, and I feel that in recommending this sum of £120,000,000 to the House I am recommending a sum which will be sufficient for the purposes which the House has in mind, and which will not cast an unnecessary or extravagant burden on the taxpayer of this country. It is always in the hands of this or a subsequent Parliament, if they feel that any necessary changes can be made with the progress of the years, to decide that not only do the Colonies need a larger sum but that Great Britain can afford it.
  Perhaps I may say one word on the other side, as to the need for this sum and why we should be granting it at all. There are no direct benefits which the taxpayer of this country gets from the Colonial Empire. There is no contribution made by the Colonial Governments to the Treasury here, no relief from Colonial sources of the burdens of the home taxpayer, although it is the popular belief, as I discovered throughout the United States, that we draw, annually, enormous sums from the Colonies, and that it is because of that that our direct taxation to-day stands at such a low level. Nor, again, as against the popular belief there is there any closed door in the Colonial markets. You would think to hear some people talk about Imperial preference that the result of it had been

  2103
  to bang, bolt and bar the door of Colonial markets to anything except goods from Great Britain, and it causes considerable surprise when they are told that in the last year before the war only 24 per cent. of the imports into Colonial territories came from Great Britain, and that 76 per cent. came from the rest of the world, and that of Colonial produce only 35 per cent. came to this country while the rest of the world took 65 per cent. The other line which is always taken is about the enormous profits made to-day by private industry out of Colonial territories. It is true that there have been some good bargains, that some big profits have been made, and we hear about them. They are written about in the newspapers, and hon. Members ask Questions about them. But there have been bad bargains; a great deal of money has been lost, a great deal of capital has never been heard of again at all.
  Dr. Morgan: Tell us about some.
  Colonel Stanley: I know that £1,000,000 was spent on a railway in Bermuda, from which not one penny of dividend has ever been paid, and that practically all the capital has already been lost.
  Dr. Morgan: It is bad planning.
  Colonel Stanley: The hon. Member is on his own subject.
  Dr. Morgan: I wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give me a chance. I do not know what he means by that. If he can produce any evidence that any Members of this House have put before him plans equal to those I have put before him, I will bow my head and salaam.
  Colonel Stanley: The reward the hon. Member offers is so inviting, that I will certainly do my best to satisfy him. It is only fair to tell the House that Lord Hailey, a great expert on these matters, made a survey showing the returns which investors in this country had got from their investments in the Colonies during the past 50 years, and came to the conclusion that they are getting about as much to-day as if, instead of having invested in various enterprises in the Colonies, they had invested in gilt-edged securities in this country. It is, therefore,
  2104
  difficult to say that that represents a great degree of exploitation.
  If people say, "Why spend money at all, if you have no direct gain?" I would say that I believe that we in this country have a feeling of responsibility. These Colonies have been linked with us, many over a long period, some for a shorter period, but all through a period of great stress and strain, during which they have stood loyally by us. When I was in America, I had described to me by many people certain of the feelings of the people of the United States, among them what one person described as their particular virtue, a burning desire to help the under-privileged. That is a burning and, I am sure, sincere desire, but it seems to be a matter of coincidence that all those grievances which show most clearly, and the remedies pressed for most strongly, are always in the responsibility of somebody else. I do not believe that that feeling of desire to help the unfortunate elsewhere, is the monopoly of America. I believe it is possessed by our people, too; I believe there is a genuine desire among the people of this country to help, even at some sacrifice to themselves, people with whom they have been so long associated to a better standard of life.
  Further, there is the point of the strategic importance of the Colonies. I do not believe any of us would be here to-day in this Chamber, doing what we are doing, if it had not been for the Colonial Empire. It is not only their contribution in manpower and material resources. If we had not had the strategic position which the Colonial Empire supplies, if we had not had our convoy assembling point at Freetown or our Trans-African reinforcements routes for the Middle East, I do not believe this country would have survived the period during which we had to stand alone. I believe that just as in this war, so in peace time, it is the amalgamation of this country and the Colonial Empire which has been able to stand so firm. I believe that in the future that amalgamation can really contribute power and support to a world organisation, far greater in its utility than the contribution that could be made by the United Kingdom alone, and 35 separate Colonial territories.
  Finally, there is the question of economic advantage. I have told the House already of the position in the past.

  2105
  The whole House is committed to the doctrine of trusteeship and beyond trusteeship, partnership. That does not permit any of us to consider, or to advocate that the economic set-up of the Colonies should be dictated, not by what is good for the Colonies, but what would be good for us. The two things are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why something that is good for the Colonies, should not be good for us too, but surely we are not going the absurd length of saying we will refuse to do things which are good for the Colonies because they might also be of advantage to us. That was the line taken by one of the West Indian papers of rather extreme views on a recent statement that I made. It is a real reductio ad absurdum. In the Colonial Empire, we have millions of people at present on a low standard of life. If we can make even a comparatively small addition to their purchasing power there will be presented vast new markets which will be of great advantage to them and from which we now can draw our advantage.
  I have dealt in the past with the objects on which the money is to be expended and the machinery for planning. I do not want to go over it again to-day. There is however one new point to which I wish to refer and that is the recent appointment of Sir Frank Stockdale as Adviser on Development at the Colonial Office. Sir Frank Stockdale as Comptroller of Development in the West Indies, has done invaluable work, but I felt that in the new circumstances, whatever the needs of the West Indies, he has just that wisdom and experience that are exceptionally needed over here. I have made it plain that there must be no question of detailed planning done in this country. It is not the idea of the administration of the Act, to impose on the Colonies a new heaven pre-fabricated in Whitehall. In the first place, you cannot do that kind of detailed planning efficiently in this country. We cannot sit round a table here, and say if they are going to have 15 new schools in Jamaica, what are the exact sites on which to put them. Apart from any question of doing it efficiently, it is wrong to try to do it, because you have to allow the maximum opportunity for the people of the territories themselves to be associated with this planning, since it is their future that is being planned. It is their life
  2106
  that is affected and therefore it is they who must have the greater say.
  But there remain to us two different duties. One is the kind of mechanical supervision; to go into the various plans, to see that contracts have been properly drawn up, and that proper financial steps have been taken to get the right estimates, and to see that where technical advice is required that advice is taken. That can easily be done by an official committee. But there is a second point of supervision an all-over supervision which we must exercise. We have to see first, that there is a sound and proper division of the money that is available between the Colonies, that because one Colony comes forward earlier or can put its demand with more force or attraction, it is not getting at the expense of the others, more than the share it should be allowed. Even more important is to choose, in the plans put forward by each Colony, between the various objects, to see that a proper balance is kept between the development and the welfare side, between the demands of health or education, and between agriculture and industry. Finally there is the duty of seeing that the experience that we get from developments in one Colony, is available for the use and the profit of planners in all the other Colonies. That kind of supervision which is essential for the wise expenditure of this sum has to be exercised from this country, and it is to that that I am looking to Sir Frank Stockdale for invaluable help.
  I do not pretend that even when this Bill is passed, everything can be done at once. The conditions that have hampered us during the last 4 or 5 years are still there—if anything they are worse. If anything, it is more difficult to get imported materials from elsewhere now that the great source of supply in America is so hard pressed. The continual wastage of 5 years has left the pool of technical advice available even smaller than it was 5 years ago.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Technical advice in this country?
  Colonel Stanley: In this country or anywhere. It is no good thinking that even when the war comes to an end, some of these conditions will disappear quickly. To my mind the most serious of all, because it takes the longest to remedy, is the shortage of tried personnel, a shortage

  2107
  which I am finding in every branch of administration and technical knowledge. It is not possible with the shortages which we experience, even to maintain the ordinary standards of administration to which we have been accustomed, and to which we aspire, let alone to make those great improvements to which we look forward. I remember a year or two ago making a speech on the Estimates and devoting a great deal of it to the question of higher education in the Colonies. Some of my hon. Friends thought it was out of proportion. They thought that "first things should come first," and that higher education was not among the first things. It was just because of this appalling shortage which was coming then, that I laid insistence upon higher education in the Colonies; because even when the war ends, it will not be easy to find these people. The universities of this country are going to be overwhelmed with applications to train people who will be needed here. It will not be easy to find room for the enormous number of technically-trained people, who will be required in the Colonies to carry out the various schemes which we have in mind, and for that reason the early setting up of a decent standard of higher education in the Colonial territories, is an absolute necessity for the proper development of the territories themselves, and for the proper implementation of the sums which, I hope, Parliament is now going to give
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Has any action been taken on the Eliot and Irvine reports?
  Colonel Stanley: Neither has reported. I am hoping that, when the chairman of the Eliot Commission returns from other lands which he has been investigating I shall soon get his report, and the Irvine report on the university system.
  Dr. Morgan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about the shortage of technicians. Does he mean technicians on the old lines, European trained, or the new aspect of the problem, from the point of view of the training of local individuals who might have the aptitude to become excellent technicians if they were not excluded by the old policy from being able to get the necessary training?
  Colonel Stanley: I am talking of the shortage of people who are now trained or
  2108
  who can be trained in the near future from any source. Very special provisions have been made under war difficulties to give what training is possible to people from the Colonies.
  Mr. Lindsay: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give any sort of date when he expects to receive the Eliot report?
  Colonel Stanley: I am afraid not. It depends on the return of the chairman from Russia.
  There is nothing more that I can say in commending the Bill to the House, I think the imagination of anyone who has had any connection with the Colonies, in whatever form, must have been fired by the problem, by the immense amount that there is to do, and by the immense importance of how we do it—if we do it ill, what there is to lose and if we do it well, what there is to gain. Nothing less than the affection, loyalty and mutual support of over 60,000,000 people will depend on the decisions that we take and the acts that we do over the next ten years. None of us can expect to see the task accomplished by ourselves or even perhaps in our time. All we can ask is that we shall be given the chance of laying a few bricks, and that those few bricks shall be a secure foundation on which others can build. I believe that in passing this Bill, the House of Commons will be building on a sure foundation. I believe that when the goal we have in mind has been reached, people may look back on this Bill and its predecessors as landmarks on the road.
  12.58 p.m.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In common with other Members, I have listened with the greatest interest to the statement that has just been made by the Colonial Secretary. I could have wished that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) had been able to be here to follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and, from his great fund of knowledge, deal adequately with this Bill. Unfortunately, he is away on a mission abroad and I have, at short notice, to take his place.
  I welcome the Bill, I welcome the increase of the money, and the general expansion to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred. I think

  2109
  I can express, in a sentence, the change that has taken place in our outlook in the last few years—it is the realisation of the fact that we cannot run an Empire on the cheap. There have been several stages in the attitude of the Mother Country to the Colonies. The first was that in which it was supposed that a Colony would be a kind of milch cow for the public Exchequer at home. That idea was rather seriously disturbed a good long time ago when the people of what is now the United States had a different theory from us at home, as to the relationship between what was then called a Colony, and the Mother Country. The second stage was the one to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, when he said that we were to be a trustee of the Colonies and that, while not taking money from them for our own Exchequer, we would be expected to pay none out. That was a time when, as a subsidiary advantage of Colonies, they were looked upon as an emigration centre, for free men and, at the same time, a dumping ground for the less desirable elements in our population. In the 19th century the position was exploited by a large number of people who in some cases for good motives, and in some cases for indifferent ones, devoted capital to these countries and succeeded, for a time at any rate, in drawing a considerable income from them.
  Now we have reached the third stage, when we recognise that we have to pay out of our Exchequer money in order to develop our Colonies. That stage is a very important one, and I do not quarrel with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his description of the indirect benefits that we get from our Colonial Empire. I agree with him that the public Exchequer cannot look for direct relief of taxation, but that we have to spend money and that we shall gain, and are already gaining, immense benefits from the Empire in indirect ways. There is one point with regard to that that I think needs to be made. Concurrently with this change of view, it is only in the last 20 years or so that we have woken up to the fact that in matters of labour, the Colonies have been dealt with in conformity with ideas that dated back before the middle of the 19th century. When some of my hon. Friends came to look into the state of the labour legislation and what was going on in the Colonies
  2110
  after the first quarter of this century had gone by, they found that the Colonies had remained in the same position as we were in, in this country, nearly 100 years before. We are not having a general Debate on Colonial policy on this Bill, but certain aspects of that matter enter into the subject matter proper of the Bill, and before I sit down I shall take an opportunity of saying one or two words on them.
  I welcome the Bill, as I say, and I do not quarrel with the main argument that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman developed in the latter part of his speech about the uses of the money. Such criticism as I put forward will be more, I hope, in the nature of constructive suggestions than fault-finding, either with the terms of the Bill, or with what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said in its defence. There are two salient matters upon which the House needs assurance. The first is the machinery, and the second is the use of the money. With regard to the machinery, there is, I think, among us all, a widespread satisfaction at and admiration for the work of Sir Frank Stockdale. In his coming to this country to take a still more important position, we recognise not only merit appreciated, but the greater opportunities which the very wise head and heart of Sir Frank have of being utilised to the best advantage.
  What I want to insist on is that the method adopted by Sir Frank Stockdale in the West Indies shall not only be allowed to go on there under other individuals, but that similar machinery shall come into existence for other parts of the Empire. There are the West African colonies. I know that Lord Swinton was entrusted with a commission there, and that he carried it through, up to a certain extent well, but, of course, he had not got the machinery which Sir Frank Stockdale had. We have to deal not only with one West African Colony but with several, and they all want individual treatment. Then we have the East African Colonies and other parts of the Empire, which certainly need careful, meticulous and individual attention.
  I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is considering now what will be the position of Malaya when it is wrested from the Japanese. I hope that he will not allow it to get too much under

  2111
  the control of private enterprise, but that he will hold up the end of the Colonial Office in dealing with that very important part of the world, which will, we hope, within a measurable space of time, be recovered for the Empire. The West Indies have been the subject matter of special attention. Special attention has been given to another part of the Empire recently, to which I shall make a little longer reference later on. I refer to Mauritius. It is right that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should pay attention to these parts of the world, but I should like to ask why that extra attention was paid. It was paid because there were revolts in those countries which reached serious proportions. It is perfectly right that we should investigate a revolt—
  Colonel Stanley: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not use the word "revolt." If he looks at the facts of the Mauritius situation, he will find that it was a riot on one sugar estate, and he will realise that "revolt" is a word that might be misconceived.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I accept the correction. I should not have used the word "revolt," but "riotous behaviour" or some such phrase. The word "revolt" conveys the idea that there was a wish to throw off the British yoke, but that was not my meaning, and I accept the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's desire for a different word. The point I am making is that it is right the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should send out a commission when trouble arises, but it is still more important that he should try to satisfy grievances before they come to the point of disturbance and trouble. A good employer does not wait to improve the conditions of his staff until there is overt disaffection. He realises that the conditions are not what they should be, and he gets to work in good time and sees that they are put right. That has not been the case hitherto with regard to many of the labour questions and the standards of living generally throughout the Colonies.
  The second point to which I want to draw attention is the forms in which the money is to be expended. I hope that great care will be taken to see that the money is really utilised for valuable development, and is not allowed merely to go down the drain in sporadic enterprises
  2112
  which, however desirable they may appear at the moment, do not contribute lasting benefit to the Colonies. Then there is the question of time, and this is important in peace as well as in war. I should like to feel more assured than I am that there is no waste of time, between the laying of the egg by the special advisers of the Government, and the hatching out of the egg in the shape of definite decision and implementation by the Colonial Office. I should like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman two questions with regard to that. Is there, between the special advisers, such as Sir Frank Stockdale and his staff, and the permanent officials in the Colonies, that complete accord in all cases which there should be? Have there been occasions, and if so are they numerous, in which the permanent local officials of the Colonial Office have held down and delayed the presentation to the Colonial Office of schemes of development which have been put forward? I refer to the schemes of the Stockdale Commission and various schemes that have been put forward in the West Indies and elsewhere. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman assure us that the local officials of the Colonial Office will not delay and prevent some of the proposals being brought to his attention for early implementation?
  As to the length of time, can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give any idea of the average length of time between the formulation of a scheme and its realisation? Perhaps this is too vague a question, but it shows the sort of point I am trying to get across. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head and it may be impossible to answer the question, but can we be assured that there is no unnecessary delay, because time is the essence of these things? It is no use proposing a scheme which may be excellent in 1945 if it is to be 1947 or 1948 before work begins to be done on it.
  The third question in relation to this matter is: Can we be assured that the local people are adequately consulted before schemes are crystallised into an unchangeable form? I do think that the opinion of the local population—I do not mean the man in the street, I mean the people who are in a position to know—is important, and their advice should be taken, so that there will be no excuse after the settlement for their saying, "Oh, well, this scheme was put down on us from

  2113
  above, we knew nothing about it, and we do not know whether it may or may not be good; it is not our concern and we are not really interested." I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will make sure that in the future, to a greater extent than in the past, the local people will be brought into the picture at a sufficiently early stage.
  I come to a point which has arisen before. It is one on which the Colonial Secretary has already made promises and, I think, to some extent, has achieved fulfilment. That is the strengthening of the local institutions. The small departure from practice with regard to the trade unions which is announced to-day—as I understand, it is not really a departure, but simply a case of bringing into the picture of the Colonies, a country which is not really a Colony in the ordinary sense of the word—the fact that he has made that statement to-day shows the work that is being done in the implementation of his original promises, and very valuable work I am sure it is. It is of supreme importance to our methods of life that the trade union element in all parts of the British Empire should be strengthened. To-day, we are witnessing a new departure in world history, in the coming together of trade unionists from all over the world, to take part in an international conference. Perhaps there are Members who have not liked trade unions in the past, but I think there are few in the House to-day who really have their knife in them. We have come thoroughly to realise the immense value to this country and to other countries throughout the world of the trade union movement. I am very glad that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has found it possible to give the assurances introduced in statutory form, in days gone by, and I hope he will extend them, and see that their value is carried out in the future.
  Then there is the matter of local government in these Colonies. I only mention that because I think it also is a factor which needs to be fully safeguarded. Lastly, the Minister has spoken in favour of co-operation, and of the co-operative movement in these Colonies, and he has made one or two answers in the course of the last year on that point. I hope he will keep that fully in mind, and I hope he will pay particular attention to what is being done in that direction.
  2114
  I now want to call attention to a somewhat different aspect of this matter. It is quite true, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and I myself have said, that the British taxpayer cannot look to be reimbursed directly for any money he spends but, of course, it would be quite wrong to assume that wealth is all flowing in one direction, from this country to the Colonies. These Colonies—some of them in particular—have great sources of wealth and in the course of their development, money is flowing, if not to the taxpayer, to other persons in this country; though perhaps not to the extent which some people outside the British Empire imagine to be true. What are the great sources of wealth? The land, the mines and the secondary industries which are beginning to be developed in these countries. I am not here to put a party point of view to-day, but at the same time I do feel most strongly that if the land of these Colonies is to be adequately developed, the Colonial Office and the British Empire must hold those lands, and not alienate them by concessions of the extensive character which have been carried out in the days gone by. I think, in saying what he did, that the Minister himself went some little way towards recognising that fact.
  Then we come to the mines, which, after all, are one of the biggest sources of wealth of the Colonies. Again, I do not want merely to pursue a party line, but all parts of this House have taken the view—and it has been embodied in the programme of the Government and in an Act which is on the Statute Book, put forward by the Government—that so far as the ownership of the minerals themselves is concerned, they must be in the hands of the nation, even in this country. There, at any rate, we are on common ground, and I would like to impress on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the importance in all our Colonies of the ownership of the minerals, the mining royalties, being entirely in the hands of the Government. Unless that be done, I think we shall fritter away a great source of Colonial wealth. I would wish to go further. I would wish that the mining operations also should be publicly owned but I cannot now ask the House to go all the way that I would like to go. I recognise that there have been concessions given in times gone by, and the Government might feel that, in certain Colonies,

  2115
  they are not prepared to go as far as I would wish.
  Even so, there are questions which seem to me to merit special attention, attention in the interests of the well-being of the Colonies and, therefore, ultimately, of the Empire. There must be a much more strict control of the conditions under which the people of these countries are allowed to work. We cannot condone the low standard of living, of health and all the great evils which, wherever we have been called upon to ask for a special report, have come out in individual cases. That is the human side. Then when you come to taxation there is evidence to show that many of these mining companies have got off with much lower taxation than is really adequate in view of the circumstances. I think if a mining company is to be allowed to withdraw permanent wealth from the Colonies, a very substantial part of it, at any rate, should go into taxation for the Imperial benefit.
  I come now to one or two points in particular. I wish to say a word about Mauritius. As I said at the beginning, I realise that this Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill is not an opportunity for a general discussion on conditions in the Colonies. But I would point out that what has been going on in Mauritius typifies some of the evils which we have not yet eradicated from our Colonial Empire. The report of the Commission which was sent out, I think, in 1943 and reported in 1944—
  Colonel Stanley: Not sent out, but a local inquiry.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Well, a local inquiry—pointed out that wages are deplorably low, and that the cost-of-living allowance lags woefully behind the rise in the cost of living. The gap which existed a few years ago between the outlook of the employers and the employed, so far from being rectified, has worsened since 1937. The result has been that there has been grave dissatisfaction, amounting in some cases actually to riot. This single case bears out the contention that I have made that the Colonial Office has got to be rapid, when grievances are brought to its attention, in attempting to get them rectified before they work out in riot and disorder.
  That brings us to this point. Has the Colonial Office really got on the spot an
  2116
  adequate staff to deal with internal conditions and to make proper recommendations in regard to the use of the money in this Bill? I see the Colonial Secretary smiles, for he himself said in the course of his speech that it is exceedingly difficult to get them. If he recognises the difficulty, I hope he will press at any rate for a certain number of the staff that he will require in the years that are to follow. We are not in this Bill looking only on the year 1945; we are looking ten years ahead. There are people in the British Empire, some in this country, some in outlying parts, men and women who could be of very great use to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in the years to come. We ought to be finding them now, or at any rate soon after the war comes to an end, and use them for developing these resources, not only in the individual places where individual attention will be required, but here in the Colonial Office at home, so that schemes will not run away into the sand, before they are put into complete operation.
  There is one final point on which I would like more information. It relates to the Colonial troops that have served in the war. When the war is over, they will be going home. I would like to know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to make sure, in connection with this development money, that when they get back after rendering great service to the Empire they are not forgotten. In days gone by, in this country our brave men in the Army and our sailors were very great heroes while a war lasted, but when the war came to an end they dragged out unhappy lives as unwanted men, unrecognised and unhonoured by their country. To-day we are hoping, with some confidence I think, that that will not be the case with regard to our British troops after this war. We want to be assured also that that will not be the case with regard to those fine fellows from the Colonies who have so loyally supported us.
  A Question which was on the Paper to-day in the name of the hon. Member for Swindon (Sir W. Wakefield) and which was not reached, relates to the rehabilitation of these men. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give us the answer to that Question when he replies. I really want him to go a little further, and to tell us that, through the medium

  2117
  of this money or by some other source, the human resources from the Colonial Empire which have proved so helpful during the war will be remembered and treated with the respect to which they are entitled when the war is over.
  I end these few remarks, as I began, by welcoming the Bill, which I hope will receive a unanimous Second Reading, and by congratulating the right hon. and gallant Gentleman upon this opportunity of doing something to promote the economic interests of our Colonial Empire, so that it really may be not merely a jewel in the British Crown, but a lasting monument to the good sense and justice of the British people.
  1.33 p.m.
  Mr. de Rothschild: My first words must be to echo the last words of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, namely, to congratulate the Minister upon bringing forward the Bill, which I hope will have the unanimous support of the House. The Minister has just returned from one of his periodic trips, and he has at once seized the opportunity to put before us this interesting Measure. I heartily congratulate him upon the manner in which he is taking his fences, in true Liverpool fashion, of which he might really be proud.
  Soon after I first came to this House, about 16 years ago, the first Colonial Development Bill was brought in by Mr. Lunn, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. Our outlook in many matters has changed a good deal since then. In fact, a complete change has taken place, and nowhere has it been more in evidence than in the Colonial field. The Act of 1929 was conceived specifically with the idea of development only, and that upon a very small scale. Only £1,000,000 a year was voted. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not allude to it to-day. It was the beginning of a series of Development Bills, of which we have a further instalment to-day. The first Bill was introduced largely in connection with our own unemployment problem, and was aimed mainly at stimulating Colonial development in order to find work for the idle hands in this country. This purpose was definitely brought out by the Ministerial statement made at the time.
  It was referred to by contrast when, in 1940, the present right hon. Gentle-
  2118
  man the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir M. MacDonald) introduced his own Measure, 11 years later. During those 11 years, the idea of trusteeship had definitely grown up in this country, and so the primary concern of the 1940 Act was really the Colonies themselves. In that Act, responsibility was recognised for the development of Colonial territories, of course, and also—and this was a novel feature—for the well-being of the Colonial people. It included welfare as well as development in its purposes. That Measure increased five-fold the amount which would be spent every year. In spite of the war, many schemes, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us, have already been started under the Bill, and under his own personal impulse in the last year or so more have been started than in the preceding year. Of course, in all that work we are prepared to support him. The Minister who was responsible for the 1940 Act recognised that economic schemes were the most important, because they aimed at helping the Colonies to stand on their own feet. This is true even to-day. In his speech at the time, the Minister said that some of the schemes could be maintained by funds provided by his Measure. I have not seen any report as to how far this has been done, but the Minister to-day did allude to it. It would be interesting to know how many schemes, and what schemes, are being so maintained at the present time, and to what extent money that has been voted is used for that purpose. If much is being done on those lines, the fund will become a pelican, feeding its young on its own blood, which might be suitable enough for a pelican, but not for a fund such as the one in which we are interested at the present time.
  Another five years have gone by since the 1940 Act, and in that time our ideas have undergone a further change. To-day we think in terms of larger units. We have all become planners of future prosperity, as is usually the case when one is wallowing in adversity. The plans are all on a large scale. The Minister has taken advantage of this public attitude and public spirit, and we see it reflected in the Bill that he is bringing forward to-day. Curiously enough, in the 16 years that have passed since the first Colonial Development Act was put on the Statute Book, the increase of public money which

  2119
  may be spent yearly has been just over 16-fold. It is a striking chapter in the history of this matter, but that is not the most impressive change. There is a difference of real importance between this Bill and its predecessors, and that difference is not laid down in the Bill itself. It has been put before us and explained by the Minister. It might have been inferred, even before he had spoken, from the creation of the new post in the Colonial Office, that of Adviser on Development Planning. This appointment indicates that there is to be a central plan for the Empire as a whole, and that schemes will be scrutinised at the centre in the light not only of their value to each individual Colony, but of their value to the Empire as a whole. Large-scale planning is certainly the order of the day, and the Minister's conception of an Empire plan is in harmony with the times.
  I congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on his choice of Sir Frank Stockdale as adviser. It is a choice that is particularly interesting to me. I learned to appreciate Sir Frank Stockdale's work when I had the pleasure of sitting with him on the Colonial Marketing Board, in the days when Lord Harlech was Colonial Secretary. I would like to say further that Sir Frank Stockdale happens to be a native of Wisbech, which is the largest town in my own constituency. His family have for long taken a great interest in the improvement of farming, and Wisbechians have followed Sir Frank Stockdale's career with interest. They will now no doubt also follow it with pride.
  There is no doubt that the object of our Colonial development schemes must be the well-being of the Colonies concerned, but the reactions of other parts of the Empire must never be lost sight of. Some schemes, such as those relating to subsistence agriculture, soil conservation and the improvement of water supplies, will provoke no reaction, but schemes which involve an expansion of production are in a different category altogether. Here the question of equating production and consumption will undoubtedly arise. This matter goes beyond the boundaries of the British Empire and impinges upon the vast question of regionalism The British Empire is a very large unit and a balanced scheme of
  2120
  production and consumption would be very valuable. It would prevent the wrong kind of competition, which results in gluts and brings no real prosperity. The question of wartime industries will also need particular attention, whether they are industries which have sprung up since the war in order to satisfy temporary needs brought about by the war, or to provide commodities formerly obtained from territories now in enemy hands. Those industries will present particular and special problems, since in many cases they are turning out inferior articles at great cost.
  But the equation of production and consumption must not lead to restricted production. On the contrary, there must be every effort to stimulate both production and consumption at the same time. The future of the Colonies depends upon the widest possible increase of production and consumption and upon the intensive development of Colonial resources, in their own interests, first, and then in the interests of the rest of the world. At present too many local resources are neglected. Professor Huxley has given examples of this neglect which he came upon in his journeys in Africa. The sleepers on the railways are made of imported iron instead of being made of local timber; cement is imported whereas it could be perfectly well made locally; fishermen's nets also are imported from outside instead of being made from local fibres, and so on. The use of local materials should be encouraged. There will still remain vast quantities of goods which will need to be imported into the Colonies—enough to keep our exporters busy and to help to provide work for the men and women of this country and other parts of the world.
  It is not only the material resources which have been neglected; human beings have also been neglected, those human beings within whose territories that wealth at which we are aiming exists, and by whom this wealth must be developed. It is, no doubt, well known that the efficiency of the average African is less than half that of the average European owing to the effect of chronic diseases. Yet do not let us forget that the African has proved himself capable of reaching a very high standard of efficiency. This has been well demonstrated by the native members of the Forces, of whom the previous speaker has, justly,

  2121
  spoken so highly. To the men of the Colonial Empire we cannot fail to be grateful. These men have improved tremendously in physique and stamina under proper health and feeding conditions. It is essential that when these men return to civil life they, and the other men and women who share their existence, should find conditions as favourable as those provided for them in the Army—proper health services, sanitation, water supply. The tse-tse fly must be wiped out, as is being done; hookworm and bilharzia must be abolished. These things must go, and when they do we need not pat ourselves on the back for our philanthropy. If the resources of the Colonies are to be developed it can only be done by healthy and efficient people, who will thus benefit themselves, this country and the rest of the world.
  But let our welfare schemes show a sense of proportion. I believe that some of the natives of the West Indies grow a thick, horny crust on their feet through walking, from their earliest days, on the sharpest shingles and the sharpest rocks in the world. This horny growth is a natural protection, more efficient than leather and hide. They may well make boots less necessary to the West Indian than a protein addition to his diet. Let us therefore give him protein before we burden him with boots, which would probably prove to be very ineffective on the sharp shingle and rocks of his country. In the same way, do not let us run for the welfare officer if we chance to meet a native woman in the wilds of West Africa, stark naked except for a pair of spectacles. Let us help the people of the Colonies wisely, and fit them to develop their riches and to send their surplus abroad to the ends of the earth. Let us make their raw materials accessible in the spirit of the Atlantic Charter and thus provide an answer to the still burning Colonial question.
  This Bill was undoubtedly inspired by the vision of a fully developed Colonial Empire, an Empire pouring its good things from a full cornucopia, and sending them to the homes of those who need them in all parts of the world. A sum of £120,000,000 cannot translate this vision into fact. It can only prepare the ground, it can only open up the paths to be followed by commercial enterprise. An essential task in this connection is a
  2122
  survey of Colonial resources. This survey should be undertaken by the Colonial Office as soon as possible. Provision might well be made for it in this Bill under the heading of research. The two research councils which have been set up have undoubtedly made excellent beginnings, but the funds at their disposal have not increased proportionately with the funds for other purposes, and I venture to bring this to the attention of the Ministry.
  In order to achieve the purpose of this Bill, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, capital from all quarters must be associated with its work. I was glad to hear him give an encouragement to private enterprise, to the traders, to the exporters, to the planters. Matters may, possibly, have to be made a little more attractive to them than is the case now. I agree that there should be no preference, no special privilege of any kind given to traders, to private enterprise, to find its way into our Colonial Empire, but there are many questions regarding which an adjustment of taxation is necessary. This needs looking into carefully. In fact, in some cases, remission of taxation in such schemes as those of public utilities, strongly asked for by Colonial Governments, might well prove cheaper in the long run for the Exchequer than the line of subsidies which is being taken at present.
  I was very pleased to hear that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman envisaged the idea of the creation of a development company. I did not quite grasp whether he meant a development company which would act for the whole of the Colonial Empire, or a number of development companies acting in the various Colonies themselves. I like the idea of a development company, on the lines of the Finance Corporations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently described in this House, with the idea of furthering the development of industry in this country.
  It may very well be, however, that these proposals put forward by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be enough. May I say here that I heard with interest the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) putting forward in this House, when we debated the question of helping the export trade of this country, the idea that a State trading corporation

  2123
  should be set up in this country on behalf of the Government, which would co-operate with private enterprise to help our industries. I suggest that this idea might well be probed and studied in regard to the Colonial Empire. A vast undertaking of that kind, subsidised, helped, founded by the Government under the aegis of the Colonial Office, with the wealth of advice which is at the disposal of the Colonial Office itself, with all the knowledge of the Colonial governors and the Colonial administrations to help it, centralising in London the direction of this vast enterprise, helping to improve the standard of living of the 60,000,000 people in the Colonies, is one which cannot fail to prove attractive. It is one which I think is well worth studying. It would undoubtedly be a novel departure, but I think it is conceivable that some great organisation of that kind should be set up in which private enterprise, financial corporations and the Government—the Exchequer itself—can co-operate, in order to develop harmoniously a Colonial Empire of which we can really be proud.
  1.57 p.m.
  Mr. De Chair: I join with the last two speakers from the Liberal and Labour benches in hoping that the House will give this Bill a unanimous Second Reading. It is a hopeful augury for the future of the Colonial Empire that its affairs stand here above the controversies of party. The Secretary of State described the Treasury as "a bourne from which no traveller returns," or from which no traveller returns with any money in his pocket. He is to be congratulated on being the first Secretary of State to return from that bourne with some money in his pocket, even if he has not succeeded yet in taking the shirt off the Chancellor of the Exchequer's back. I think the House listened to him to-day with particular pleasure, because he is a traveller returned from the Colonial Empire. He darts about the Empire like some tropical humming bird, sucking the honey-dew from one scented flower after another, before returning to this House, and making another dart out to the Colonial Empire.
  He referred to the fact that at the beginning of the war he had tried, in the Army, to return again to the arts of prompt obedience and proper humility.
  2124
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who is at the moment representing him here, will consider the suggestions put before him during this Debate with that spirit of prompt obedience and proper humility. In particular, I would like to draw his attention to a subject which was ventilated for the first time recently in a letter to "The Times" by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), who happens to be in Paris at the moment, and so cannot take part in this Debate. My hon. and gallant Friend drew attention to the fact that if we were to secure the most intelligent use of these moneys which are now to be granted under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, some reorganisation of the administration of government in the Colonies themselves will be needed, to bring them up to date so that they can handle these sums intelligently and expeditiously. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) praised the work of Sir Frank Stockdale in the West Indies, and hoped that his example would be followed in other areas of the Colonial Empire. The appointment of Sir Frank Stockdale did, in fact, indicate that there was something in the nature of a deficiency in the Colonial Governments of the area to which he was sent.
  I think the difficulty lies in the fact that the machinery of government in the Colonies was designed for a much simpler age than the present. All matters requiring decision have to go before the single individual called in the Colonies the Colonial Secretary. He is the adviser to the Governor, who is the sole channel of communication with the Secretary of State in this country. The result has been that the Colonial Secretary has become a bottleneck. All these matters requiring consideration, and the problems that will arise, requiring the expenditure of vast sums, under the present administration, have to go for decision to a single individual, the Colonial Secretary in the Colony. The result is that Colonial Secretaries all over the Empire are complaining that they are overworked, that they have no time to think; they are frequently working 16 hours a day, and are still unable to get through the immense number of problems that are laid before them for decision.

  2125
  Some years ago these Colonial Secretaries were relieved of the responsibility for advising the Governors on financial matters. Previously, there had been the office of Colonial Treasurer. The Colonial Treasurer was not necessarily an expert on financial affairs; so that up to then the situation with regard to financial administration had been rather a case of the blind leading the blind, as neither the Colonial Secretary nor the Governor had any particular experience of financial matters. Therefore, some responsibility was delegated to financial advisers, who had the right of bypassing the Colonial Secretary in advising the Governor on the preparation of budgets and other financial matters.
  I think it is along those lines of delegating responsibility to new officials, who do not, at present, exist, that we can secure the prompt and efficient planning which is required. At the moment the various departments of Colonial administration in the Colonies, such as the Veterinary Department, the Department of Forestry, the Departments of Agriculture, Roads, Rail, Telegraphs, and all such matters, are dealt with in the main by technical heads of departments, who have not the training or the minds for taking broad decisions and giving leadership. Consequently, they come before the Colonial Secretary with their problems, and clutter up his plate with an impossible burden, which he cannot digest. The suggestion which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight was that the Government should set up in the Colonies something analogous to Cabinet Ministers in this country: officials who would come between the technical heads of departments and the Colonial Secretaries, who would be able to take broad administrative decisions, comparable to Cabinet Ministers in this country, who are frequently laymen, and thus avoid this tremendous congestion of responsibility on the shoulders of the Colonial Secretaries. It would be advantageous if kindred subjects were grouped together. For instance, one man could be responsible for all communications, roads, telegraphs, river transport, air transport, rail transport, and so on. You would have another group of subjects under the heading of welfare: education, health, and so on. Then you would have probably a third group, covering the general sub-
  2126
  ject of the land, such as forestry, veterinary, land, mines, and so on.
  The Colonial Service at the moment is short of the type of individual who could take on those broad responsibilities. The Secretary of State himself referred in his speech to the shortage of personnel at present. We all realise his difficulty, but this Bill looks towards a 10-year period, and it may be that the larger sums will be spent during the latter part of that period. We must look to the future recruitment of the Colonial Service. My right hon. and gallant Friend referred to the fact that there would be a continuous demand in this country for able people to undertake the job of reconstruction, but most brilliant young men coming from the universities look to other Services for spectacular advancement. They go to the Foreign Service in particular, because there they see down a vista of glittering advancement the capitals of Europe: Paris, Rome, and so on; and it may be asked, how are Sierra Leone and Kingston in Jamaica to compete with these glittering capitals? If it can be established that there is a field for young men in quite advanced administrative posts in the Empire—
  Dr. Morgan: Why not recruit young men in the Colonies themselves?
  Mr. De Chair: I agree that it is our aim to bring in young men in the Colonies into the administration of the Colonies. The change that I am suggesting would facilitate the appointment of such young men, when the time comes for the Colonies themselves to take control; but, in the meantime, there should be a field, which does not exist now, for young men who enter the Colonial Service. If they could get responsible positions, in what I describe as these grouped posts, at an early age, those stifled ambitions in this country—where, as we know, to be young is a crime which only time can expiate—would find an outlet in the Colonial Empire. However, we realise that that will have to await post-war conditions. I hope that as soon as possible the Colonial Secretary will introduce the system of individual reports from the Colonies. Those who have studied the affairs of the mandated territories, where the administration, although under the control of the Colonial Office, was subject to scrutiny by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, will realise that an enormous

  2127
  stimulus was given by the fact that an annual report had to be prepared. If a railways administrator in a Colony has to review the progress of the Colony in the last 12 months, and he has to put down, "Miles of track laid, nil; number of locomotives replaced, nil; number of goods wagons added, two; number of passenger coaches added, one"; he begins to see the effect that that will have on the House of Commons when the report is laid in the Library. I hope that, as soon as possible, we shall get a system of individual reports from these Colonies, and I believe that that will create a speed-up, and give a new incentive to them in the application of this Bill.
  The Secretary of State referred to the opportunities which would open up in the Colonial Empire after this war for the development of British capital, and the field which would be provided for commercial enterprise. He hoped that capitalists would not expect in future to get very large profits from speculative enterprise, but would be satisfied with smaller profits and more stable returns. I do not know if he was thinking of the old insignia of the Roman Empire, "S.P.Q.R.," which one schoolboy described as meaning "Small profits, quick returns." But it is desirable that investment in the Colonies after the war should take the place of that investment which at one time people expected from other parts of the world. My right hon. and gallant Friend did not give any indication of whether his office is providing anything like a commercial intelligence service. If exporters in this country are to get their goods to those parts of the Empire where there is a demand for them, they must have quick and sound information available as to where the potential demand is. My right hon. and gallant Friend revealed that before the war only 24 per cent. of the imports into the Empire came from this country. I believe that the inhabitants of the Colonies always prefer to have British exports, if the facilities are available, but it is the article on the spot at the moment which gets the purchaser. The Japanese were quicker than ourselves to realise the potentialities of our Colonial Empire. For instance, the Japanese flooded large parts of our Colonial Empire with cheap and shoddy bicycles. These bicycles looked very
  2128
  attractive, but the people saw through it in time. The people of Kano, in Nigeria, for instance, are accustomed to treat a bicycle as we in this country treat an omnibus. They loaded a large family on to a bicycle with a large black mother on the handle-bars and her family on different parts of the vehicle, and the bicycle quickly crumpled up; whereas the Raleigh bicycle, made in this country, stood up to this sort of thing, carrying into darkest Africa a name associated in this country with Elizabethan adventure in the jungles of the Orinoco.
  I hope that after the war we shall have an Empire Exhibition here in London. Hyde Park would be the right place, while it is still torn up; here in what the Prime Minister has described as "the heart of mighty London," while the scars which London has suffered during the war are still visible, and while visitors are coming from all over the world to see the part that London has played. The Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, in one of his rare public utterances, said that we would have an International Fair. We do not want an International Fair; we want an Empire Exhibition, so that the world may see what the Empire has to offer, and so that the members of the Empire may gather together, to exchange ideas, to sift those ideas and the information which has become available as a result of the great strides in invention during the war, and to apply those inventions to peaceful trade after the war.
  The Secretary of State said that the money we are spending under this Bill, although it brings no obvious monetary gain to this country, will certainly not be wasted money. He has succeeded in convincing the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we have a Colonial Empire, and that it requires money. He has yet to convince the public that this island, the United Kingdom, by itself is nothing. This island is but the head which supports the Crown; the hands and feet are far away. We have left the land-locked harbours of a "Little Englandism" fifty years behind us. We are out in the blast and foam of the storm. We have to navigate through the wake of a typhoon and steer clear of a waterspout on our left, which threatens to deluge a Continent. This is no weather to be out in a fleet of fishing smacks; these are elements which require a battleship or a

  2129
  liner. At the beginning of this century Joseph Chamberlain urged this country to "think Imperially," but we have passed the power of platitudes to protect us. If we are to survive, we have got to act Imperially.
  2.15 p.m.
  Dr. Morgan: I think the very enlightened speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, coming from the political source from which it did come, was a delight to a hard and crusted democrat, especially after the disappointing and unenlightened speeches we heard before. I was very disappointed in the speech of the Secretary of State. I know that all hon. Members have been flinging him bouquets. I have been watching the Minister since he first took office. I thought at one time that he was going to make one of the finest Colonial Secretaries this country has seen. I have been studying him now for four years in this House at close quarters, in conversation and in Debate, and I have made up my mind that he is going to make one of the most disappointing Colonial Secretaries this country has ever had. I think he is going to fail in this post, as he failed in his previous offices. And why? Because, I think, he is not tending to get down to a grasp of the problem, and is much too keen on preventing Members of Parliament from getting accurate information about the work which he and his Department are doing.
  The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to the want of information about Colonial affairs. What my hon. Friend said was, word for word, what a business man has been saying in "The Crown Colonist"—that the business man who wants to get information simply cannot get it, because there is no standard report, and no reason is given why there should not be. As an example, take this query:
  "Why should Jamaica have a population of 296 to the square mile, while British Guiana has only four to the square mile?"
  Why is not British Guiana developed? What is the reason? Why should not the business man know? There may be an adequate reason. The Colonial Secretary throws bouquets out to some of his officers. It is quite right to praise officers, but Sir Frank Stockdale has been thrown so many bouquets that I think he must be smothered by them. The whole of this trouble about welfare, development and
  2130
  finance comes about because of the hash we have made of our Colonial Empire in the past. Not only are some of these Colonies neglected and distressed areas, but they are starved areas, not only literally, but financially, culturally, educationally and in every possible way. I happen to know some of these Colonies. I spent my life in one of them, and was born and bred there. I know the Colonies to which I am referring—the West Indies. They afford a microcosm of the conditions which exist in our Colonies. Why will you not give the West Indies federation? Each island must have a system of its own, its own shipping and its own airships and so on, instead of all being federated, as they have been asking for years. Each island cannot afford to pay on its own for radio, education, finance, taxation and agriculture, services, etc.
  Have not all these Colonies men well-trained, doomed to disappointment? When the Colonial Office appoint officers under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, whom do they appoint? Do they appoint anybody in the West Indies who could fill the appointment? No. Sir Frank Stockdale was appointed by the Colonial Office; now they have appointed a successor to him. What is the reason why West Indians do not receive these appointments? Are there no West Indians capable of doing these jobs? What about Mr. Norman Manley, a brilliant lawyer in Jamaica—a fine man and a Rhodes scholar, a man of sterling value and integrity, with a great knowledge of political and economic affairs and public experience, and pro-British? [Interruption.] Oh, yes, I want to scotch that suggestion if it comes out to-day. The question was raised here by a private Member, who suggested that Mr. Manley was not pro-British. He is pro-British, but he is also pro-Jamaica, as he has a right to be. I am pro-British, and I do not think my loyalty is in doubt, but I am also pro-Granada and pro-West Indies. There are plenty of good men in the West Indies, and doctors with the best degrees in our universities, men of all colours from white to the very darkest negro, men with fine brains who have won scholarships and prizes in our universities, but who, when they go back, have to accept a lower post than the European who is less qualified and less able to do the medical officer's job. It is time that we developed an educational system

  2131
  which will give opportunities to the local indigenous product who shows by what he has done already that he is fit to hold these appointments. Why should we not appoint medical men from the West Indies with experience of local conditions and tropical diseases, as well as West Indian psychology, which is very important? Why should they not be appointed as medical officers to the Comptroller's staff under the West Indian development scheme? Why should a retired Colonial, a European professor, pensioned from Ceylon, be appointed? Why should a retired officer on pension be given this appointment? There is a reason for all this. At the back of it is the fact that the Colonial Secretary is afraid to trust Members of Parliament with knowledge or democratic local men with positions. We cannot get even ordinary information about conditions in the Colonies in compact form.
  Squadron-Leader Donner: May I remind my hon. Friend that there is a department in the Colonial Office set up specially for the purpose of enabling any hon. Member of this House to get any information he desires, and that if an hon. Member wants information he has only to go across the road?
  Dr. Morgan: It is extremely kind of the hon. and gallant Member. He should teach his grandmother to suck eggs. [Interruption.] I am using a very common expression.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: My hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out to the hon. Member where he can get the information. That is a cutting remark.
  Dr. Morgan: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better stick to naval affairs.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: That is an unnecessary remark.
  Dr. Morgan: I am not going to give way to rude remarks. Hon. Members are getting angry just because they do not like what I am saying. The information is available if you take the trouble to dig it out. I have spent a lot of time in the Library, but there is absolutely no place where the business man can go and get this information. Why should it take a week, a fortnight or a month to get it? I did not mean that the information was not
  2132
  available. Of course, it is available, if you like to go to Nigeria, or to Basutoland to get it, or to the Royal Empire Society in Northumberland Avenue. Of course, the knowledge is there; I am not pretending that there is none available, but the facts have not been given to the general public, and to hon. Members, in such a way as would make them generally available.
  The Colonial Secretary has an advisory committee dealing with social welfare questions, and there is a sub-committee dealing with prisons. None of the reports are readily available to hon. Members. Why have they not been incorporated in a comprehensive report? I want to go back to the question of appointments. This money is being spent on a very good purpose, and I am not against it, but I am against the machinery by which it is being made available. No opportunity is being given to the West Indies to federate among themselves, in a way in which if in doubt we can attach any reservations we like.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Member cannot tell the House that all the West Indian islands are asking for federation. That is not true, as the hon. Member must know. There is great dispute about it.
  Dr. Morgan: How does the hon. Member know there is great dispute?
  Mr. Stewart: I saw it.
  Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member passed through like a bird of passage. He stayed there three days. I was there 16 years, and I have been back since. My hon. Friend having been there for three days pretends to know all about it. The thing is impossible; you cannot do it. If the Colonial Secretary will do what I wanted him to do at a meeting of the Empire Parliamentary delegation upstairs, at which you were present—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): Perhaps the hon. Member would not mind addressing the Chair. I was not present there.
  Dr. Morgan: I only wish you had been, Sir, because you would have seen the improbability of some of the information given to the House to-day. I asked the Colonial Secretary to try a plebiscite to see if the common people wanted federation. I want to give an instance of an

  2133
  appointment being made by the Colonial Office recently, and I do so on behalf of my trade union secretary who sent me a letter. Let me read part of the letter:
  "The post was offered as a joint appointment of superintendent and matron at a hospital in Tanganyika. The post was obtained through the Crown Agents for the Colonies who had interviewed them and informed them that they would be engaged in a new mental hospital as pioneers in extremely important work. On reaching the new hospital, they found to their amazement that the place had been in existence, as such, for more than 10 years and that no vacancy existed for the appointment of superintendent and matron, and that these posts were already filled. Naturally, they refused to commence duty on the grounds of breach of contract and were, subsequently, on several occasions, offered inferior posts, which they rightly turned down."
  This is a case of Europeans being appointed here by the Crown Agents for the Colonies to a post which did not exist.
  "They eventually returned to Dar-es-Salaam where they are even now almost destitute. They are constantly told, when making repeated applications for repatriation, that there are no vacancies available, in spite of the fact that a liner left Mombasa for this country with over 100 empty berths."
  I am not blaming the Colonial Secretary for this. This is something which the Colonial Government asked the Colonial Office to do and the Colonial Office, following the usual procedure, referred the matter to the Crown Agents and this is the result. The Colonial Secretary in a letter to me said that the contracts were not properly "vetted." This money is not being used to give local people the chance of getting the right jobs and fitting themselves by training, but Europeans are being appointed. And when Europeans are appointed they are treated sometimes in this way. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) took me to task by pretending that information was available, and saying that it could be obtained by any Member of the House.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Quite right.
  Dr. Morgan: I want it to be made available to the public. Let me quote from "The West India Committee Circular"—which is not a democratic paper but represents the view of the landowners and planters—on the housing conditions in St. Vincent. It says:
  "The housing survey, more or less confined to working class dwellings in Kingstown, was completed during the year"—
  2134
  That is, in 1941—
  "The survey disclosed that the great majority of working-class people live in rooms in tenement houses. These are mostly two-storied buildings made of wood and stone, and divided up into about eight to 23 rooms. Despite the very poor accommodation provided, the rooms are in great demand, and fetch between 2s. 6d. and 10s. a month, with 6s. as the average rental. Amongst outstanding defects reported are absence of water supply on 70 per cent. of the premises inspected; no bath or washstand on 81 per cent. and no kitchen accommodation on 35 per cent. Want of sufficient openings for ventilation. A relatively large number of the houses were either unfit for human habitation or 'worn out'."
  This was an official report by the Senior Medical Officer of the Island of St. Vincent. These are the conditions about which the hon. and gallant Member tells me that I can go to the Colonial Office, or the Library, and get the information. Why should hon. Members, busy as they are with various things, have to go to these places for information? The information should be ready and available in appropriate documents.
  Let me come back to the machinery by which this thing is being done, not only with regard to the appointments but with regard to the way the grant is being made. The Secretary of State for the Colonies appoints certain men as advisers to the West Indian Colonial Development Fund. He appoints an agriculture adviser to the Comptroller, who is also an Inspector-General of Agriculture for the West Indies—and the adviser is in an anomalous position. He is like Mahomet's coffin—suspended between heaven and earth. No one knows to whom he is responsible but presumably he is responsible finally to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He is only attached to the office of the Department not as an officer to the Comptroller, but only as adviser, an extraordinary position. For example, the education officer goes out to a mixed population and to different islands, some of which have a preponderating majority of Catholics, and others a preponderance of Protestants. In St. Lucia, where 82 per cent. of the population are Catholics, he is going to impose State schools and the Catholics there, as would the Welsh local educationalists in regard to the establishment of single-area schools in Wales, kick up a row. The State schools there are no great success. Every denomination — Protestants, Catholics, all of them—accepts

  2135
  State grants. There is no cry of "Rome on the rates." Things have been working nicely so far except that in these poor Colonies the schools are very bad and have no playgrounds.
  I submit that I am in Order in referring to this because money for these schools is coming out of this Fund. It is British taxpayers' money which is being spent, and rightly. Some of these schools have no sanitation at all—one lavatory for three or four hundred pupils—and there are seldom playing fields. I know that we have the same sort of conditions here, but our people have the vote and some have homes which are decent; there it is poverty and degradation at the lowest. We want to raise these people. Men who are lucky and financially able go to the universities and get the highest degrees in Britain but they are not appointed to positions, and the lowest among the people have not the facilities to enable them to rise. Are we giving them a real chance to do something? I am not blaming this House or the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, but the continuance of degrading Crown Colony government, which we have had in the past, in not allowing the local people to have a proper say in their own government. It is not that the local people have not been asking for it.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Are there not local people on the councils taking part in the administration?
  Dr. Morgan: Of course there are.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I thought the hon. Member said that there were not any, and that he was complaining to the House how bad it was that the local people could not take part in local administration.
  Dr. Morgan: I am sorry that my lack of lucidity prevented my remarks from penetrating the brain of the hon. and gallant Member. Let me put it this way. In many cases the legislative councils consist of some elected members, but the bulk of the people have not the vote; they are practically voteless. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions is so alive, spiritually and mentally, that he—the model of lucidity—never digresses at all. He must be a very perfect example of our coming statesmen.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hops that the hon. Member will keep to the Bill.
  Dr. Morgan: I was tempted by an aside of the Under-Secretary and his laughter. I prefer to be human; I do not pretend to be a snob, and I am not a snob.
  It is not only with regard to the West Indies, but with regard to mineral resources and land development in Africa that I want information. What has been done with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Land Development in the West Indies? What has been done with regard to the training scheme? That is a point to which the Minister has not given an answer yet after having kept the document in his Department for two years. Then, I would ask a question with regard to the exploitation of St. Kitts. The Secretary of State says that he cannot stop the exploitation of St. Kitts. There are sharks in the City who can make a shilling share apparently worth 40s., with a market price of 51s. They own the factory and a railway round the island, and the workers cannot get a rise in the wages of 1s. a day. The Colonial Secretary has written to tell me that he is trying to devise machinery by which they can get a rise in wages. There is also the question of the unification of the Medical Service and the Civil Service in the West Indies. What has been done with regard to the Whitley Councils so that there can be negotiations and arbitration? So far, though recommended by the Commission, nothing has been done apparently. Labour advisers were appointed but it is nearly five years since the Commission reported and so far we have not had any information from the Colonial Office.
  I hope that the Colonial Secretary, who is as sensitive as I am sometimes, will not feel that I am criticising him too much. I know that other Members will disagree with me, but he is not going the right way about it. In regard to the general welfare scheme particularly in the West Indies, he has appointed a Federal Welfare body advising and grant granting over insular Governments not elected on universal sufferage. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that local people should have local control. He made a speech in November last in which he referred to officers—with young active brains—who were to be appointed. He did not propose to appoint any people at the end of a career. He was obviously referring to someone. I would remind him that some "old" men

  2137
  are young and some men at 22 are quite senile. It is not necessarily a matter of age but a matter of outlook, judgment and knowledge. We are asking for information and that the local people in the Colonies who have the right mentality, knowledge and cerebral capacity should do the work. We ask the Colonial Secretary to give them the opportunity of developing the scheme themselves.
  What has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman done with regard to the question of co-operative societies? How can he give full play to private enterprise and its development without its counterpart? There are opportunities in the Colonies for the co-operative movement both on the consumer side and the production side. What has been done? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have formed this development company that is to finance the mineral resources and the products of the Colonies. What has he done towards consulting the co-operative movement in Great Britain, both on the production and consumer sides? Why has he not asked them to come in, and form a special co-operative committee in order to advise on schemes of co-operation in the West Indies? Has any public relations officer been appointed in any of the Colonies? These people do not want to be exploited. All they want is to have their standard of living raised to a point which will give them some comfort and to know that the mental and cultural opportunities for which they have been asking for over a century, if not more, are to be given to them.
  2.46 p.m.
  Colonel Sandeman Allen: I venture to address the House this afternoon because I happen to have had the good fortune to see quite recently some of the schemes which have been outlined. The point I wish to stress most firmly is the necessity for a great improvement in health. That, of course, ties up with education. I have been in East Africa and in West Africa, and one of the saddest things there is the very high proportion of venereal disease. That calls, first, for education and, secondly, for a great extension of the health services. I trust that both these will be given. I say education because, until the mental outlook is altered, the medical outlook will not be able to make those strides which it should make. I could
  2138
  quote some very sad cases, but I do not propose to do so; I do not think it is necessary.
  I was most interested in the proposals outlined for East Africa. The main thing that struck me was that they were rather inclined to be for Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda as separate entities and not for East Africa as a whole. I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will make it clear that these have to be co-ordinated for the whole of East Africa. The people of Tanganyika and Uganda are very much afraid that they may be overridden by Kenya, and they do not want to be under Kenya in any way—they want to be co-partners. While that fear will be difficult to eradicate, it is one of the most important things to be tackled in any future programme for East Africa. Another fear is that the roads were being made subject to the needs of the railways, and that the expansion of the roads which, I presume, comes under this Colonial Development Fund, will be greatly retarded by the influence of the railways, which do not want the roads in any sort of competition. The East Africa Chamber of Commerce, and others, all stressed very strongly the need for better roads throughout the whole of the Colonies.
  I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that there were offers of British capital, though to a limited extent. However I consider that too much is taken out of Africa. I speak especially about Africa because, on that, I can stand a certain amount of cross-examination. Too much is being taken out of Africa and not enough left to help the nation. A lot of the return on the minerals taken out of mother earth in Africa, should go back in the form of improvement of the lives of the natives. I think that is most important, and one of the underlying principles on which we should work in the future.
  I was most interested to see the rehabilitation centre at Nairobi, and more than interested to find that West Africa had sent people across to learn all they could. Hon. Members would be extremely interested to see the valuable work going on in this centre, which I visited. There I saw the rehabilitation of men who had been wrecked on the roads and who had met with accidents in one way or another. It was not just soldiers who were having this treatment. I saw old men and women, young men

  2139
  and youths having this scientific method of rehabilitation, getting back the use of limbs which had been damaged by some accident, either at work or in the jungle. It is an amazingly good show, and I think the Government there deserve the congratulations of this House.
  The Colonial Secretary also mentioned the shortage of technical, staff in the Colonial Service overseas. I would like to point out that the shortage of technical staff is not confined to officials, it is also very strong in industry. The industry and trade of our Colonies are suffering very severely now owing to the war. Young men brought out there have gone into the Services, and the older men are carrying on as best they can. However there are limits to the time that any man can carry on in a tropical climate short of leave. Many men I know have had to take their leave in South Africa, and have not been home to see their relatives since the beginning of the war. The strain is becoming very heavy on them and there are no young men at present in the offices of those companies, which are a link between this country and the Colonies, to carry on. Something has to be done to release a future recruitment for these offices in the very near future. I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend realises that we cannot go on in the tropics for ever on the present lines.
  The housing programme is being tackled in East Africa and in other places. It was extremely interesting to see the new houses that are being built in East Africa. Although I was in Lagos and on the Gold Coast and in Freetown less than a month ago, I have not seen all the schemes that are in process there, but I have talked to those who proposed these schemes and have seen some of the plans. They seem to me to be extremely satisfactory. I will tell the House what I saw and what I hope this fund will assist in developing in the future—the housing scheme outside Nairobi. I expect my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Sir W. Wakefield) saw this scheme, and I hope he agrees with me that the improvement in the lay-out and lines of those buildings is enormous. They seem to have evolved a very satisfactory type of house for the native and one with which he seems to be satisfied, and which I thought was most practical for the purpose. It is all very well to say that anything will do—
  2140
  a palm leaf or a banana leaf—in the tropics, but there is an enormous rainfall at certain times in the year, from which people have to be protected.
  The main things on which I want to see this money spent to start with are health and education. Until we have a healthy population, until the figures for venereal disease, which are appalling, are considerably lower than they are at the present moment, we shall never get a population which is really able—it is not a question of being willing—to carry on. We can only get a virile and healthy population with education and improved medical services. As far as malaria is concerned, enormous strides have been made since the war broke out. The anti-malarial precautions taught to the natives in the Army have had a good effect. I have had the honour of commanding nearly 12,000 Africans at various times during this war. I am extremely fond of the African native, and can say what a fine fellow he is. The drainage schemes and anti-malarial precautions which are dinned into him, may have some effect in the future. In any case malaria is not as serious for the native as it is for the European, but it causes debility and tiredness and has a tremendous effect upon him. All these things combined have the effect of a physically lethargic population, and that means mental lethargy as well. We shall never get real progress until the health standard is good, and therefore I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to put health and education at the very top of the programme and see that we concentrate mainly upon these two things.
  2.56 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I would like to congratulate my right hon. and gallant Friend on this Bill. He has pointed out the enormous advance which this Bill contains over any other proposals ever brought before this House. The Act of 1940 was a start, but I think this Bill will lay a very sure foundation on which the future development and prosperity of the peoples of the Colonial Empire may well be built. One of its great advantages is that no longer will any unspent balance of the allocated money for a given year be returned to the bottomless pit of the Treasury. It must be remembered, however, as was pointed out by my right hon. and gallant Friend, that the sum of money which it

  2141
  is proposed to utilise in this Bill is really a supplementary sum to enable the Colonies which are not able to afford it out of their own resources, to develop and increase their education, welfare, health and other services. It is a Bill to enable the Colonies to develop their own resources themselves. At the same time there are Colonies which have for some time spent large sums of money out of their own resources for this particular work. This sum in the Bill is not one which has to be spent continuously, so that this country would always be responsible for the development of social conditions, and so on, of the inhabitants of the Colonial Empire, but is a means of educating them, to enable the resources of any particular Colony to be gone into by experts to determine what the soil is capable of producing, what mineral wealth they may have, and teaching the people of the Colony itself how to utilise that knowledge. Education is the foundation of the successful development of the Colonial Empire.
  Of course it will be necessary to have a very long-term policy. Post-war planning committees are being set up in every Colony to deal with health and other social services, but they are all based on a very broad expansion of education. That is essential, for there is an immense amount of illiteracy and lack of knowledge generally, and unless we can educate the people to the point where they can make full use of what we are doing for them, we are merely wasting our time. The appointment of educational personnel, social and welfare organisers, and the building of a large number of schools is essential for this work. My right hon. and gallant Friend has drawn attention to the difficulty of getting the proper teachers. No doubt that is perfectly true, and I hope that on that account he will not be satisfied with a lower standard than the one which it is necessary to have; we must have the very best we can get in order to get the best results. My right hon. and gallant Friend said, "Why spend so much of the taxpayers' money in developing the Colonies?" There are no more loyal and devoted subjects of this country than the people in our Colonial Empire. In good times and bad they have never varied; they have always played up to the Mother Country. They did so in the last war, and have done so more than ever in this war, and if for no
  2142
  other reason than that, we should do everything possible for the improvement of their welfare and their development.
  But, quite apart from that, as the Minister pointed out, the Colonies are the greatest possible asset to this country from the point of view of defence. The Colonial Empire is the greatest factor for security that we have, and I hope that we shall take full advantage of that position. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, when he raised the status of the Colonial Office from a very low position to a position of the very highest importance, by asking that he might be appointed as Colonial Secretary, demanded communications—roads, railways, harbours, cables. Communications are absolutely essential if we are to bring about the real development of the Colonial Empire. Much has been done in the last 40 years in that direction, but much still remains to be done. At the present time the eyes of the world are not on sea and land communications, so much as on air communications. We have, in the Colonial Empire, immense possibilities for the development of aerial communications and aerial ports—seaborne and land machines. Aircraft must be used not only for communication purposes, but also to carry trade from this country to the Colonies and from them to all parts of the world. I hope the Colonial Secretary will, therefore, see that large sums of money are spent on the development of airports and air communications in the Colonial Empire.
  There is no doubt that in the past the Empire has been very much neglected. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), who said he had spent 17 years in the West Indies, painted a very gloomy picture of the conditions which he said he knew quite well. One may excuse him for his earnestness in pleading his cause, and putting before the Minister all the various things which he thought were wrong in the West Indies. I would remind him that this Bill has been brought in for the purpose of doing away with those conditions, and improving the welfare of the inhabitants of the West Indies in addition to those in the remainder of the Empire. I hope this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be put into operation with the greatest possible speed because the welfare of our Colonial Empire is of immense importance. I hope that imports and exports between this country and the Colonial Empire will in

  2143
  future be considerably increased over the figures given by the Colonial Secretary because such an increase would be a tremendous advantage not only to the Empire but to this country as well.
  3.6 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Like other Members who have spoken to-day, I welcome this Measure. I am one of those—there may be others in the House—who can remember the first Measure of this kind, which was introduced as far back as 1929. Within a few weeks of the Election held in that year the then Lord Privy Seal, not in order to help the Colonies, but in order to try and find a solution of the unemployment problem in this country, introduced the first Colonial Development Bill, in the late spring of 1929. Compared with this Bill that was a very modest Measure. Very little, in fact, came of it. But I think we can look back and say that, modest though it was, it did make a beginning with a series of Measures passed by this House which have had or will have a great effect in various Colonial territories.
  I am not quite clear from the wording of the Bill whether the £120,000,000 asked for is an inclusive sum or whether it is exclusive of the £1,000,000 per year which is provided for research and inquiry. I am rather inclined to think that although in the 1940 Bill the £500,000 and the £5,000,000—making a total of £5,500,000—were separate, the £120,000,000 named in this Bill is an inclusive amount. The Minister was good enough to indicate in his speech why the Amendment set forth in Clause 2, which deals with the Aden Protectorate, was necessary. I think I should be in Order if I made one of two inquiries with reference to the Section in the 1940 Act to which this Amendment refers and which deals with the wages paid to those employed on schemes, and which
  "must be such as are recognised by employers and trade unions in the areas where the works are to be executed."
  It is not clear to me what is meant in that Act by "trade unions." Does it mean that they are actually European trade unions, or trade unions which may, and perhaps do, take in natives, in, for example, African territories? As my right hon. and gallant Friend knows very well, some difficulties have arisen in certain
  2144
  African territories. I speak of them because I happen to know a little of what has gone on there. Although the trade unions are led, in the main, by public-spirited and extremely able men, the rank and file are not as enlightened as many of us in this House would like them to be, and it has happened that instead of natives being helped by the existence of the trade union they have found them a bar to their advancement.
  I would, therefore, like an assurance from the Minister that the Governor of the Colony concerned will, if necessary, be able to go over the head of any trade union which prevents the employment or advancement of natives who could usefully be employed in works for which money under this Bill is provided. I and other hon. Members have recently been in East Africa. There we met people who told us that it was difficult to erect houses for natives, because the white trade unions, very naturally desiring to protect their own standards and craft, refused to allow natives to work on houses, even for themselves. In one locality we found that a trade union had been more public-spirited and more forward looking. There houses had been built by natives, under European supervision, at from £50 to £65 per pair, which could be let at a modest rental well within the means of the natives to pay. At least one fine housing estate has been erected, and I would like to feel that the Government here, with the help of those in territories concerned, will see that the welfare of the natives who are at present outside the trade unions will be protected as far as possible.
  The Minister has said—and I think very properly—that this country could not go on for ever finding money to assist the Colonies. That is quite true. The taxpayers of this country welcome this Bill; they are, I think, very anxious to assist the Colonies to get on to their feet. They realise that these territories, covering 3,000,000 square miles and involving a population of 60,000,000, are of great importance. You get, in nearly all of them, a very small white and a very large black population. It is obvious that the white settlers cannot find all the money which is essential to develop their areas, and that the black population, though numerous, is much too poor to make up the difference which is necessary.

  2145
  Therefore, it is essential that this House should come to the assistance of the Colonies concerned and help them. But that cannot go on for ever. This money when spent, therefore, must be spent in a proper and wise way and put to the best possible use. It means, it seems to me—this is implicit in all that has been said to-day; it clearly underlay almost everything that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said—that this money, when spent, must be spent on things which offer a good and proper return—I do not mean a return in the sense of a commercial profit to individuals or groups of individuals but a return in the building up of the Colony or territories concerned. We must assist them to get on to their feet and help them to establish themselves in a proper fashion.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman who preceded me spoke of the housing and welfare schemes that he has seen at Nairobi. We also saw them and were very much impressed by what we saw. A great deal of good is being done already throughout Africa, certainly in the territories we visited, which interested us extremely. These and other schemes should be given increased help.
  There are, it seems to me, three main lines of advance. The first is that, if these territories are to be set on their feet, much more attention must be paid to making the native first of all a healthy animal, secondly, to raise his economic status and to give him more purchasing power than he has had in the past, and thirdly, he must be educated in order that he may realise just what his place should be in a modern civilised society. I should like to say how much I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair). We met a fairly large number of administrative officers in the areas that we visited and we were impressed by their sense of public duty and their attachment to anything that increased the welfare of the native population. They work hard to try to educate the natives, on dietetics, the folly of cutting down their trees, kraal-hygiene and many other things. Yet very few, if any, of them have any power to enforce the teaching that they are trying to inculcate and it seemed almost as if they were wasting their lives trying to do these things.
  It occurred to us that more should be done from Whitehall to strengthen the
  2146
  hands of the administrative officials, from the Governor downwards, by the imposition of some sort of sanction, if necessary. Looking back over the Measures which have preceded this—that of 1940 was the major one—one is struck by the fact that full advantage has not been taken in the past of the facilities provided. I know that from 1929 onwards we lived through fairly restricted times financially and that since 1940 we have been engaged in the greatest war the world has seen. It is likely that in the years during which this new Act will function the world will again be passing through a very restricted financial period but I hope, in spite of that, that the Bill will be used to the full, that the territories covered by it will be urged to use the facilities that it offers.
  3.21 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: This is such a large subject that I must be content to speak about only a very small portion of the territory involved. I want to concentrate entirely upon Africa, and I should like to narrow it down still further. The Secretary of State has spoken of the encouragement of private enterprise. So long as Tanganyika is a mandated territory the people there who have money to invest, and those here who would like to develop the territory, are reluctant to invest their money, and I hope it will very soon become a British Colony. Another subject that I should like to mention is the Congo Basin Treaty. Again and again, I have heard complaints from Lancashire textile manufacturers. I had always thought that, although it did not do them any good, at any rate the inhabitants of these territories were very grateful for it but, to my surprise, when I stayed in the house of the mayor of Angola, the first topic that he raised with me was the evils of the Congo Basin Treaty. I never met a resident in all the places I visited who was in favour of it. I was told that the only countries to which it did any good were Germany and Japan. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be so solicitous of their trade in the future.
  I was particularly asked to bring to the notice of the Secretary of State a case of sweated European labour. I refer to the junior officers of the Northern Rhodesia Police. I hope, when he is looking around his files, that he will see what pay they get and also what sort of

  2147
  houses they live in. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also spoke of exports. The South African papers this week reported a speech in which I said that Africa was gasping for British goods. A man I do not know wrote to me from Northern Rhodesia, "The finest exports you could send to us are educated English women. They are the people we want to bring up loyal sons and daughters to help this country." He also told me that the average time a lady who came out as a nursing sister remained unmarried was less than 12 months.
  I want to concentrate entirely on the health of the East African Empire. I travelled home in the same cabin with the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) and I could never get to sleep at night without thinking of the horrible things he told me of the evils of malaria, dysentery, blackwater fever, etc. It may not be possible to have a pan-Africa at present, but there are some ways in which we might go ahead, and bring these countries together. One is medical research. Dr. Bilharz, of Cairo, discovered the dreadful disease bilharzia. It is found on the banks of the Nile and right down into Southern Rhodesia. I was told that European children, even near Salisbury, are infected with this disease, which debilitates the patients, makes them unfit for work and eventually probably kills them off. I do not think there is a single record in the whole of Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland of the number of people who suffer from it or the incidence of this disease. One doctor told me it was 80 per cent. of the people. The only way he discovered them was when anyone went into hospital with a broken arm or leg, and 99 times out of 100 they suffered from bilharzia. They know the cure for it: as to prevention, the larvae only live for 24 hours in water. If we could stop the human pollution of all the rivers, lakes and ponds for 24 hours the disease would be stamped out, but, no matter how energetic the Secretary of State is, he could hardly stop that pollution for 24 hours. I could not help comparing the regulations and the laws in Africa with those of India, where I resided for some 25 years. I have been an assistant in a tea garden which was on the black list, that is, too many of the inhabitants of the estate died, and one had to report every month how many
  2148
  births and deaths there were. There was inspection by the police officer and by the Civil Service, and they insisted upon disease being stamped out. As a result of the measures that were taken the numbers of births were four or five times the deaths. That was all due to the laws being ruthlessly enforced.
  In Africa few orders are made and there seems no power to enforce medical regulations that may be for the good of the people. Look at the outcry there was in this House when 300,000 people died in Bengal, where they have self-government now. It is, of course, a new idea that self-government is better than good government. Far more than 300,000 people die in Africa every year from preventable disease, and I suggest that one of the first things upon which money should be spent is research. It need not be borne only by the British Colonies, but should extend from Egypt right into South Africa. There seems no power of compulsion in force now in East Africa. The agricultural officers have been lecturing until the cows come home about soil erosion and what has been actually done? Nothing at all. When we went down to the valley in Nyasaland and met two agricultural officers in their car, I asked them what power they had to enforce the prevention of soil erosion. They said, "None at all; we have been lecturing to them and telling them about these things, but we have no powers to compel them to carry out our advice."
  There is soil erosion in Kenya, too. When I went to the acting Governor of Kenya and told him that I should like to see some soil erosion, he said he would send me out to Captain Wilson, who is a big farmer, 60 miles from Nairobi, and that he would send one of the Government agricultural officers with me so that I did not hear only one side of the story. We drove to Captain Wilson's farm and walked up a hill to a fence. On one side on Captain Wilson's land the grass was knee deep, on the other side there was no grass. The land was as bare as the back of my hand. That was a native reserve. The place was over-grazed, and there was a considerable amount of soil erosion. I hope the Secretary of State will tell me something different, because no one will be better pleased than myself when he is able to come to the House and say that he has cured soil erosion in

  2149
  Kenya. These Africans have freedom, and the result of their freedom is that they are passionately devoted to the British Constitution and the Crown. By their efforts in the Middle East, Burma and Assam they have considerably helped us in this fight for freedom, and we owe a debt to them and this Bill to-day is an instalment.
  The Secretary of State has mentioned private enterprise and the need for helping it. One hon. Member who lived in Granada in the West Indies criticised some private enterprise. I do not know enough about the West Indies to argue with him, but I know what I saw in Northern Rhodesia. Take the copper belt and the mines right in the middle of the jungle. They have set up a place with main drainage, water supply and good houses, and it is as good a place to live in as any I have seen. They got Sir Malcolm Watson out from the Tropical School of Medicine to advise them on malaria. The result is that there is practically no incidence of malaria in the place, although they are living in an extremely malarial district. There was also a small town belonging to Turner & Newall, who run an asbestos mine. I do not know any of the directors or their names, and none of my family have had shares in that company. If any British enterprise deserves a pat on the back it is that firm. It is said that married men do not live longer than single men, it only seems longer, but the doctor at Turner & Newall's place in Northern Rhodesia told me that the incidence of disease among married men was 50 per cent. lower than among single men. And they are encouraging families by building good houses.
  The Dominion of South Africa has a great deal to do with health in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, because the single men emigrate to the mines in South Africa in great numbers. They have a wonderful medical service in the mines and they are extraordinarily careful about the diet of their workers. They give the men a balanced diet. In Kenya there are some tribes that live only upon milk, blood and flesh. In other places they live on nothing but bananas. In no place did I see any natives who have a balanced diet of their own. When they go to the mines they have to have the meat, vegetables and mealies all mixed up care-
  2150
  fully so that they cannot pick the vegetables out and put them on one side. They have to eat what is put before them. They can have as many helpings as they like, and the result is that they put on one or two stone in a year or 18 months. When they go back to Nyasaland they are immediately infected again by the horrible bilharzia, and they get thinner and more unfit for work. It is all very well to say that the Colonies should depend on the energy, skill and enterprise of the natives, but some of the tropical diseases will have to be stamped out before these poor people have the energy to work as they should.
  I hope that there will be better education and that some of this money will be spent on it. It is curious to find parents saying in some places in Africa, "What is the good of educating the girls, for there is no money in that?" They send their boys to school, but do not bother very much about sending the girls. A bit further South, in places like Basutoland, they send the girls to school but not the boys, because the boys are used as cattle herds from a very early age. Generally speaking, however, there is a lack of education for the women. I was told a sad story about two natives who came to London and took good degrees as doctors. They went back to their Colony and got good Government positions. Unfortunately, within five years they had taken to drink, and, although they were warned by the Governor two or three times, they had to be discharged, although they were clever doctors. They had married women who were not educated and they had nobody to talk to in their homes. The result was absolute boredom and they took to drink. That, among other reasons, is one reason why we should look after the education of the African girls.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will not forget the missions. In some places we went to a religious war was going on between the Roman Catholics, the Church of England, Scottish Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists over their particular spheres of influence. To me they were all Christians and were all doing good work. I remember one Scottish lady who had lived out there for 20 years. She was alone and was spending her time teaching children up to 12 and giving her life to them. She taught them how to grow crops, how to prevent diseases and the dangers of being bitten by the mosquito. She also taught the women to take the

  2151
  children off their backs and put them into cots. She was, in fact, giving her life wholeheartedly to teaching the people hygiene and Christianity. She complained that even the little money that she required could not be obtained. I understand that the Budget of Nyasaland is only about £500,000 a year; in Northern Rhodesia, since the copper boom, it has gone up to about £3,000,000.
  I hope that money will first be spent upon medical research, and I do not see why all the countries of Africa cannot join together, which would make for economy and efficiency. In India we have what is called a subordinate medical service. They are not fully trained doctors—it is only a four-year course—but with such a service you get quantity if you do not get quality at once. I suggest that something on those lines would save very many lives in Africa. Films on hygiene in the villages are also required. The people live a dull life in the villages, and if we could send out films on hygiene and other things, and lecturers also, it would be money well spent and I am sure the shows would be popular. I wonder whether at a place like the capital of Nyasaland, Zomba or Blantyre or in Northern Rhodesia at Livingstone and Lusaka, it would be possible to put a ring five or ten miles away from the towns and stamp out bilharzia. Within a hundred yards of Government House I think you will find people suffering from the disease. We now have a young, energetic Colonial Secretary who is full of courage, and I am sure we are going to have great things from him. Conditions are, of course, much better than when Dr. Livingstone died on 1st May, 1873. Only 100 yards from here we can read on his tomb:
  "May Heaven's rich blessings come down on everyone, American, English or Turk, who will help to heal this open sore of the world"
  Much has been done by British administration since then, and I hope that, when the centenary of Livingstone's death comes round in 1973, he will not turn in his grave, but will lie contented that this open sore of the world has been healed.
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Riley: I want to join in presenting some kind of bouquet to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the
  2152
  Bill which is now before the House, and I do so with great sincerity, because I have always taken some interest in Colonial questions. I think he is to be congratulated on the success of his persuasive efforts in getting his colleagues in the Government to authorise him to submit this programme of Colonial development. But whilst welcoming this substantial addition to the amount of money which is to be available, what I am concerned about is to approach the new development from the point of view that unless there is effective machinery which can utilise adequately and efficiently this new Parliamentary policy of spending the money, it is no use providing the money at all. I would like to call attention to the fact that this Bill, following on the Acts of 1940 and the earlier one of 1929, is only another stage in the new policy which the Imperial Parliament agreed to develop in connection with our Colonial dependencies.
  Several remarks have been made in speeches to-day warning us that we must not be too open handed in the provision of finance for our Colonial dependencies and peoples, because, after all, the Colonial people themselves must be largely responsible for their own economic conditions and for their own future. I do not quarrel entirely with that, but I do ask Members to remember that this money is being provided by the British Parliament for our Colonial fellow subjects for whom we have accepted responsibility, for whom after a long series of years we have undertaken to act first as trustees for their welfare and in later years on the basis of common partnership. That has been our relationship to the Colonial peoples, and as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) has pointed out it only began in 1929, some 15 years ago. In the White Paper on Colonial policy issued in 1940 it was admitted, quite frankly, that up to 1929, even almost to 1940, the attitude of our Imperial Parliament to the Colonial dependencies was that they must stand upon their own feet, that they must live on their own resources and be responsible entirely for their own maintenance and for their own progress. That policy has been abandoned and we have now accepted our obligation, as the Imperial Parliament, to be partners with our Colonial fellow subjects in a policy, which we accept, of their right, as subjects of this Empire, to go forward to

  2153
  standards of living more or less comparable to those which we demand and accept for ourselves.
  That is the point of view from which I wish to approach the policy lying behind the Bill. It is not disputed that, by and large, over the whole field of our 50 Colonial territories with their 60,000,000 inhabitants, there is a degree of poverty, of ill-health, of low standards of living which none of us for a moment would tolerate in our own country. We have for generations been demanding for our own people the right to go forward from stage to stage in a rising standard of living. That, as I understand it, is what we now accept with regard to our Colonial peoples, and I hope we accept it frankly and without equivocation. Moreover, after the first war of 1914–18 we were parties in the Covenant of the League of Nations, in so far as we accepted mandated territories as a Colonial Power, to recognising our obligation to act as trustees for the well-being of the Colonial peoples in the territories over which we have control.
  So I ask Members not to take the narrow view that we should not do more than we are really compelled to. I agree that we should not nurse them but that we should really assist them. My main point, as I have already mentioned, is that it is no use having Bills like the one before us and the two that preceded it to provide money for these objects unless that money is adequately and efficiently spent, and therefore the point to which I wish to address my remarks is whether after all, in the light of our experience in the last 15 years and particularly in the last four or five years, we have developed in our Colonial administration the machinery adequate to meet the new points of view, the new policies which we have accepted as a basis of our Colonial administration.
  What has occurred in these 15 years, in this policy of Colonial development and welfare? In the Act of 1929 there was provision for spending £1,000,000 a year. That Act ran till 1940. At the end of those 11 years we had spent about £8,500,000, and there was still £2,500,000 unspent. In the new Act of 1940 we lifted the £1,000,000 a year provided under the Act of 1929 to £5,000,000, plus £500 for purposes of research. That Act will have been running for five years in
  2154
  June of this year. Parliament authorised the Government to provide under that Act a maximum of £5,000,000 annually for purposes of Colonial development, so there has been available in the five years the sum of £25,000,000. We have actually spent in those five years not the £25,000,000 available, but only £2,860,000. I had a Question on the Paper this morning, and the answer has given me the figure. I know the reply which has been given on previous occasions to the question why the sum available has not been spent. It is very largely because we have never created the proper machinery under which the expenditure could usefully have been made. I accept the reply up to a point, which is that the war has caused a universal lack of man-power and materials throughout the world. There is a certain measure of truth in that statement, but the reply does not apply to the years between 1929 and 1940, when the first Act was in operation, and at the end of which period £2,500,000 still had not been spent.
  While there is a great deal to be said for the influence of the difficulties of war conditions, none the less new machinery should have been created to implement the new policy on which we had embarked. There might then have been a different story to tell. I am fortified in that argument by the fact that the one region in which we have developed a certain amount of more or less adequate machinery for the administration of grants under the Development Act is the West Indies. In 1940, we established the Stockdale Commission there. Sir Frank Stockdale was controller of the Commission, with an adequate staff of experts, and they surveyed the West Indies from end to end in their three or four years. They have developed schemes and have spent—and this is the important point—out of the total of £2,860,000 which has been spent under the Act, no less than £1,800,000. In other words, we spent, by means of the organised machinery under Sir Frank Stockdale, with its staff properly supplied with experts, twice as much on 2,600,000 people as we had spent in the same time on the 50,000,000 people in our great African Colonies. That bears out the argument which I am presenting, which is that if we are to see the money which the Bill provides usefully expended to achieve its purposes, there must be the machinery under which the work

  2155
  can be done. It is not only a question of money but of making the machine whereby the money can be used effectively.
  I had the opportunity in the Debate on this question in July of last year of referring to this same point. I would remind the Secretary of State that the argument which I then used did not find any response from him; but we had a response in well-informed Colonial circles outside this House. I have in my hand a copy of the trade journal of the British Empire Producers' Organisation for October, 1944. In that issue the editor devotes almost a page of notes to this idea of improved machinery for the administration of our Colonial responsibility. Perhaps I might be allowed to quote a few words from it:
  "Mr. Riley asked for the institution of a Colonial Development Authority entirely under Government tdministration and with Government finance … He certainly voiced the opinion of all who have studied Colonial organisation and management in the field. … In fact, everyone who matters agrees with Mr. Riley, except the Secretary of State and the Colonial Office."
  Colonel Stanley: I would like to ask the hon. Member whether he is going to accept the point of view of this journal on other matters as well as its agreement with his own speech.
  Mr. Riley: I am giving this unbiased testimony of a non-Labour organ about the necessity of reforming the Colonial machinery. It continues:
  "It is abundantly and mournfully clear that modern Colonial development on the financial and material side is beyond the capacity of even the best Civil Service in the world."
  There is a page or two of comment of that kind, in all of which there is unqualified support for the argument which I then used, and which I now use, and unqualified condemnation of the Secretary of State in his attitude towards proposals of this kind. I therefore wish to invite both the House and the Secretary of State to take another look at this idea of whether something is not called for by way of a change in the sphere of administration, if this policy, which we are developing and extending from £5,000,000 to £12,000,000 a year to a total of £120,000,000, is to be effective and do, in anything like a reasonable measure of time, a pressing job bearing on the social conditions of 60,000,000 of our fellow
  2156
  subjects, on their standard of living and the economic possibilities of raising that standard and of increasing their purchasing power.
  I do not wish to say silly or hard things about the Colonial Office and the expert gentlemen whom the Secretary of State has at his disposal in the elaboration of his very laudable and well-intended schemes of reform. I have never any question in my mind as to the intentions of the Secretary of State about these matters; it is only a question of whether he has really grasped the fact that the machinery he has is not up to the job. Men in the Colonial Office who, as I have said before, were educated at Eton or Harrow, or at the universities, and who learned Greek, Hebrew, etc., are in charge of the economic developments which are involved in this Measure. It reminds me of a story I heard of a man who has become a very high official in the Colonial Office. He was met by a friend of mine when he was out in the East. My friend asked him whether he was acquainted with languages. He replied, "No, I learned Hebrew. I took Jewish theology at the university. That is my only language qualification." As I say, I do not wish to say silly or unnecessary things about the Colonial Office. The point is whether the type of men on whom the Secretary of State has to rely as officials at the Colonial Office are the right type, in the times in which we are living, to handle these plans of economic construction, which have been urgently called for in setting our own Colonial house in order.
  I would remind the Secretary of State that in other countries changes of machinery have taken place when the occasion has required it. I would only call attention to something which I think he saw in his recent visit to the West of America, the Tennessee Valley Scheme, which was organised, not by officials, but by experts specially appointed for their qualifications for the job. In order that I might assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am not tied to any particular form of Colonial authority, or Colonial board, which has often been advocated by Members on this side of the House, and by members of the Conservative Party, I would ask whether he thinks a Colonial authority, composed of specially qualified persons, with experience and qualifications, gathered together

  2157
  to do a specific job, and given a measure of executive authority, but working under the direction of himself and responsible to him, would not be a much better way of getting on with the job for which this Bill is designed. I do not want to go into any details, but I think it is a way in which great strides might be made.
  The Secretary of State has referred to-day to the appointment of Sir Frank Stockdale as chief adviser, as I understand it, in Colonial development planning. That is alright, but why should not Sir Frank Stockdale be in charge of a special Department of the Colonial administration if necessary? If the Secretary of State does not wish to see what I call a Colonial authority set up, why not have a special Department of the Colonial Office charged with carrying out the responsibilities in connection with development schemes provided for under this Bill, and composed of men with economic and business experience, who would devote their time, under his direction, of course, to seeing that the whole Colonial field was served? I know the Secretary of State works at present through the local Colonial Government bodies and his advisory committees, but I think that a very great stride could be made if, attached to the Colonial Office, there was an expert body of men, whose time was devoted to the question of surveying the needs and the possibilities in connection with our work of Colonial development.
  That is the main point I wish to make to the House to-day and to put to the Secretary of State. In conclusion, I hope the Secretary of State, with this new authority which Parliament has given him, to spend during the next 10 years £120,000,000, or an average of £12,000,000 a year, on work which we accept as being necessary, will realise the great opportunity that lies before him, and seriously consider, in view of the responsibilities of the future, whether some real, effective change of machinery might not develop alongside the new powers of this Bill. There is the opportunity. The Secretary of State will not be here for ever. Secretaries of State come and go.
  Some years ago we had a succession of seven Secretaries of State for the Colonies in seven years. The present Secretary of State has been devoting himself to the office for some years now, doing very arduous work, in a very public-spirited way, to bring home to us in this
  2158
  Imperial Parliament our duty to our Colonial Empire. He has also been travelling and seeing the Colonies at first hand. I hope that, as a result of this Debate, he will look again at the possibility of some reform of the Colonial machinery.
  4.16 p.m.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Having sat through almost all of this Debate, I have been struck, as I imagine other Members have been, by two outstanding features of it. The first is that we should solemnly be proposing an expenditure of this very large sum—in terms of pre-war expenditure almost unprecedented—for this purpose, at a moment when the war is by no means won—it may go on for quite a time—and when we have many great responsibilities on our shoulders; at a moment, too, when we are committing ourselves to almost incalculable expenditure after the war. It seems a very striking manifestation of the British sense of responsibility for its Colonial Empire. I think we should take some credit for that. It will not be possible for any critic of the Empire, either within the Empire or outside, to say after this that we are neglectful of our duties, or that our attitude towards the less-developed peoples of the Empire is acquisitive.
  The second feature that I observed is this. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) accused the Secretary of State of not wishing Members of Parliament to have facts; but since my right hon. and gallant Friend has taken office more Members of Parliament have been offered facilities to visit the Empire than in any previous period of two or three years. I have seen during this Debate more Members who have visited the Empire in the previous 18 months or so than perhaps were ever assembled for an Empire Debate in this House before. The arrangements of course were made by the Empire Parliamentary Association, and very well made, but my right hon. and gallant Friend created the facilities, and I think he deserves the credit. As my right hon. and gallant Friend said, what the House and the country are concerned with are, first, the objects of this expenditure, and, second, the methods by which it is going to be used. I have spoken before in these Debates about these objects, and I do not want to repeat what I have said, except to say

  2159
  that this great sum of money, spent over the years, must be spent mainly upon capital projects rather than upon what might be called recurrent annual expenditure in the Colonies. If this money were used, for example, merely to meet the growing upkeep cost of education, it would be wasted, but if it is used mainly for the development of capital projects, educational, economic, and others, which in themselves will yield a return in years to come, so that the Colony becomes independent, self-reliant, and self-supporting, the money will have been well spent. I support the Bill on that understanding. The goal of Great Britain in all matters relating to the Colonies is self-government for each of them. We are committed to that. But self-government necessitates the countries becoming economically self-supporting. If we tie round their necks vast weights of annually-growing debt to this country, they cannot ever become independent. Independence and self-reliance go together.
  I want to deal with the second point which my right hon. and gallant Friend raised, namely, the methods of expending these sums. What are the methods employed in the Colonial Office itself, and what are the methods employed, or the methods which ought to be employed, in the Colonies? My right hon. and gallant Friend has told us what Sir Frank Stockdale's functions are, and what the functions of the Colonial Office are. He said they are to provide an all-over supervision: to see that moneys provided by Parliament are fairly divided between the various Colonies, that there is a proper balance between the plans from the various Colonies, and, above all, that the Colonies each get the advantage of the experience gained by the Colonial Office in other parts of the world. That is admirable. If Sir Frank Stockdale is able to do that kind of thing we shall all benefit from it. But is there any hope of that function being performed while my right hon. and gallant Friend persists in having as his machine at the Colonial Office a series of unrelated ad hoc advisory committees, when opinion in all parts of this House and of the Colonial Empire is moving irresistibly to the conclusion that one co-ordinating, strengthening body is the proper answer?
  When I proposed in the last Debate that there should be a Colonial Advisory
  2160
  Council, with powers, my right hon. and gallant Friend, very properly, replied that he wanted more details about what was intended. I am ready to give those details now. My hon. Friends here and I have been studying this matter for a long time. We have had the advice of very experienced Colonial administrators, whose names I can give if necessary. This is the view we have come to. A Colonial Advisory Council should be set up by Parliament, and its functions defined in an Act of Parliament. All major issues in relation to the Colonies should be referred to the Council, and, in addition to advising the Secretary of State on such matters, the Council should have power itself to initiate inquiries and to make reports. The Council should be constituted in this way. There should be a standing membership not exceeding 10 or 12 in number, which, I suggest, should include some Members of Parliament, representing all the great parties, with a view to securing agreement upon Colonial policy—long-term plans which Parliament is likely to sustain throughout the years. It is essential that in this matter Parliament should speak with one voice. It would be a calamity if this business of Colonial administration became the subject of party wrangling. It is not so now, and it can always be maintained as a matter of agreement if my right hon. and gallant Friend will agree to the appointment of such a body, with Members of all the great parties upon it. I would include at least one senior Colonial administrator, who should be appointed for two or three years during his active career, so that the Council may be properly advised. I can give my right hon. and gallant Friend other details if he desires to have them.
  That is what I feel is wanted here in the Colonial Office, but what about over there, where the work is being done? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) spoke of the good work done by the Stockdale Commission, and I might add that I saw that for myself, but that work, as my right hon. Friend himself and this House laid it down, can only be really effective if we co-operate with the other great Powers equally interested in that part of the world. So Sir Frank Stockdale's Commission became a sort of Allied Commission over there, and that sort of regional council has proved of the

  2161
  greatest possible value. I would ask that that system of regional consultative councils, containing representatives not only of ourselves and the Colonies but of all the Powers with colonial interests in that neighbourhood, should be adopted, and that the principle should be extended not only to the Caribbean, but to Africa, the Far East and wherever seems necessary.
  There is no doubt that, after this war, we shall encounter a good deal of criticism from certain other Powers because we happen to be a great Colonial Empire with great possessions and interests. There will be envy expressed and criticism made on the grounds that we are taking a nationalistic rather than an international view. We must meet that criticism, and we can meet it in advance if we declare that we are ready to establish in other parts of the world that particular system we have established in the Caribbean, and that we invite other great Colonial Powers to join with us in the creation of regional advisory councils wherever justified.
  I pass for a moment to the matter to which I referred at the beginning—the desirability of making these Colonies economically self-supporting. I agree entirely with what has been said about the need for improved social conditions, education and housing. I have told the House before that I was ashamed by the social conditions which I saw in the West Indies—ashamed and rather shocked—and anything we can do would not be too much to put these conditions right, but, given all that, it will remain true that, at the same time and with the same determination, we must aim at making these Colonies economically self-supporting. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) wanted all this to be done to make the Colonies self-supporting but without profit. How is this to be done? Whether it is a private enterprise profit or a Government profit, there must be a profit, and I would encourage that profit. Until we have had a thorough geological survey of the Colonial Empire, we cannot get far. I found, in British Guiana, that there was well-informed opinion, from the Governor to his engineers, that there lies in British Guiana a vast untouched field of mineral wealth, but nobody knows about it. It needs a geological survey, which must be done first.
  2162
  Will the Minister also bear in mind this further point? In the figures which he gave us of the imports from Great Britain before the war, these represented only 24 per cent. of the total Colonial imports, which I found rather staggering. I saw something of the position in the West Indies when I was there. American commercial agents are there now and are very busy and active. We have some agents there too, but they are not getting anything to do. The contacts have been broken. I do not say that every one of these islands, or Governments, wants a commercial attaché or agent attached to it, yet how is it going to be possible for our traders here to enter this Colonial market, so vast in extent, unless we have the very highest technical and commercial advice over there in the Colonies, seeking orders, making market surveys, returning their information to London, and guiding our traders on what they should do? I would like to be assured that the Minister is taking action in this matter. Personally, I feel that, unless we are able to attack the export problem in the same way in which we attacked war production, by mass production methods, by organising, in some co-ordinated way, the export trade of this country, we are not going to succeed but will fall down in the race with America and other countries. If that action is taken, it must be accompanied by the creation of a proper selling organisation abroad, and it should begin in our own Colonies.
  Professor Gruffydd: Does my hon. Friend mean official agents, or private enterprise agents?
  Mr. Stewart: No, private agents.
  Professor Gruffydd: I thought the hon. Member suggested official organisations, not private ones.
  Mr. Stewart: No, what I had in mind was that there should be attached to the staff of each Governor a highly qualified Commercial Counsellor. It may well be that we shall have in addition to frame some organisation here, with its counterpart over there, but some link is absolutely vital. This is how I look upon this matter. Our goal, in Colonial administration, as I have said, is self-government for our Colonies and Protectorates, and we must continue

  2163
  striving to that end, but until that goal is reached let us make it abundantly clear that there can be no question whatever of any change in British sovereignty over that Colonial territory, and that any question of a sharing of responsibility by the creation of any international body with executive powers must be put out of our minds before we start to consider it. These Colonies were only developed in the past by a single administration in this country. It has not been so good in days gone by, but it has been better lately, and I think the Colonies have been the better for our disinterested administration. Our responsibility is a very heavy one, and we must never give it up, and, therefore, I ask the Minister to consider issuing a White Paper as soon as possible setting out the general policy of this Government towards the Colonies, and, particularly, the principles upon which those Colonies are to be administered. I think that should be done and should form the basis of any other action the right hon. and gallant Gentleman takes, and I think there would be no more suitable job for this new Colonial Advisory Council than producing the first draft of that White Paper for presentation to the Government.
  4.33 p.m.
  Mr. John Dugdale: I am glad the Secretary of State is in his place because, as one who has not always handed out bouquets to him, I take pleasure in joining with those hon. Members who have already given a welcome to the introduction of this admirable Bill. I think the House may itself claim some little credit for it, because those hon. Members who have attended Colonial Debates have pressed for further grants. I would only quote an extract from one speech by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who, when speaking representing this party, in the Debate on the Address, said:
  "We recognise that these projects will involve money for their development, and that at a time when we ourselves may find it difficult to make ends meet; but it is essential, in our opinion, that these sacrifices should be made. It will be an investment that will yield rich returns, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 212.]
  It is typical of the sentiments expressed by Members on all sides here, but, while we may be grateful to ourselves for the pressure we have put on the Colonial Secretary, if it had not been for the
  2164
  Colonial Secretary himself—if we had had a bad Colonial Secretary—however much pressure we had brought upon him, these reforms would not have been brought about. So I wish to add my tribute to those which have been paid to him for his bravery in visiting the Chancellor of the Exchequer and producing a scheme such as this and winning the victory.
  The 1940 Act was a beginning in development work. It had one great defect. Unspent balances were returned to the Treasury, and this Bill does not completely remedy that. In this Bill there is a limit of £17,500,000 maximum in any one year. There may be occasions when we might want to exceed that amount. I do not say that it would happen very often, but would it not be possible that the Treasury, on occasions when the Secretary of State himself came to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked that that limit might be exceeded, might be allowed to grant permission for the excess? That would happen very often, but in some very big scheme of development even the sum mentioned in the Bill might be exceeded, and there might be a desire to exceed it. I hope that there will be a loophole, even though the Treasury no doubt will sit on guard over it, so that on certain occasions it may be possible to exceed that sum if the money has been unspent in previous years.
  The Bill is a great advance but without going into detailed figures, about which the right hon. Gentleman twitted the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), I would give him these few simple ones. Under these proposals we are going to spend £12,000,000 a year on Colonial Welfare and Development and I would compare that with the expenditure on one of our own services. During 1943 no less than £60,000,000 was spent on education by the people of this country, and rightly spent, and there are in this country approximately the same number as, or indeed rather less people than, there are in the whole Colonial Empire. We spent on the service of education £60,000,000 in this country, and we are proposing to spend £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 a year on all development and welfare in the Colonies. I admit at once that the Colonies themselves will be providing money, but so indeed will local authorities in this country. One might in fairness compare the national expenditure of the Exchequer on educa-

  2165
  tion with the annual grant made to the Colonies and the sums raised here by local authorities with the sums which will be raised in the Colonies. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about other sources and I hope that when he replies he may give some further information about these other sources.
  There was one point in the Minister's speech which caused me some concern and that was his reference to the development company. Whatever form of development company is proposed to be set up, I hope it will in no way resemble the form of development company proposed to be set up in this country which appears to have entire freedom to do exactly as it wants with no control by the Government but for which the Chancellor is apparently answerable from time to time in this House. I hope if a company is set up in the Colonies it will not resemble that but will be a development company for which the Secretary of State himself will be responsible.
  We shall find much to do with the money in the Colonies. I have taken the trouble to extract a few figures showing the kind of development which is going on there now and that which is going on in what I might call the Soviet Commonwealth.
  In Turkmenistan, which is part of the Soviet Commonwealth, occupied by races very different from the majority of the people of Moscow, there were, in 1937, 481 doctors, and in Northern Rhodesia the number of doctors was only 20, and the number of orderlies, who might for this purpose be considered as doctors, 150, making in all 170. Passing to child welfare work, in Turkmenistan there were something like 6,000 creches for children, and at the time of the Pym Report, which is admittedly a little out of date, there was practically no maternity or child welfare work at all in Northern Rhodesia. Finally the number of medical aid posts was over 1,000 in Turkmenistan and in Northern Rhodesia it was 70. I only mention those figures to show how far we have to go to catch up with even an outlying province of Russia let alone to carry out the development we expect our Colonies to have in the future.
  I fully realise what the Bill means by way of sacrifice. It is all very well for us to stand up here and say that
  2166
  £1,000,000 should be spent here and another £1,000,000 there. There are people sitting beside firesides in this country, many of whom have very small incomes, are heavily taxed and have not the slightest idea where certain Colonies are. They are likely to say, "Why should this money be spent on these Colonies when we have our needs here?" I hope that this sacrifice will be fully explained, particularly to the people of America, and that when American people tell us what we ought to do in our Colonial Empire, we shall tell them we are spending these sums of money at the sacrifice of our own people.
  I would like to say a word of comment on the admirable speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair). He dealt with the question of administration and said how very difficult it was to induce anyone to join the Colonial Service when all we had to give was Lagos as compared with Paris, which is in the gift of the Foreign Office. There are two things we can give and the first of them is pay. If the job of officials in the Colonial Service is more arduous and less interesting than that of those in the Foreign Office, it should be raised accordingly. Secondly, we can give them more responsibility. Whatever responsibility a diplomat may have, it is of a very different kind from the actual responsibility of running a particular service in our Colonies. In that sense our Colonial administrators may be said to have more responsibility than officials representing us in the capitals of Europe and elsewhere.
  I welcome this Bill with four provisos. The first is that the money must be spent. We all know what happened during the last few years. We had a Bill which provided for a small expenditure but even that sum has not been expended owing to the war. I hope that nothing will prevent the £12,500,000 a year being spent. The second proviso is that it shall be spent economically, that the full value of the expenditure will go to the Colonies and that there will be no rake-off. We must not give contracts to firms who make very big profits. There must be strict limitation of profits on all con tracts as a result of this Bill. Thirdly, I hope the money will be spent with firms who pay fair wages and who give good conditions to their workers.

  2167
  I quite realise the problem of Aden and appreciate the difficulty, and would only say in passing that it emphasises the very great difficulties in which we are put, not only in Aden but in such places as the native States in India where we have general responsibility, and the world thinks we are wholly responsible, but where, in fact, we are able to do very little. I hope that although he will not be able actually to provide for the establishment of trade unions in these districts in Aden, he will watch over the interests of the workers there, and, if I may say so, himself take the place of the trade union—
  Colonel Stanley: If I might interrupt my hon. Friend, I would like to make it plain that, even in regard to the Aden Protectorate, we do not repeal the other proviso of the original Act with regard to fair wages. That we do maintain.
  Mr. Dugdale: I am glad the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made that quite clear. Fourthly, I would say that I hope the money will be spent fairly; in other words, that it will not be spent on particular interests; that it will not be spent, for instance, on building a railway or a road up to some special factory or some special farm occupied by some very important person. I do not suggest that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself would sanction such an expenditure, but it is important that we should see that the money is spent fairly. If I might give a rather more general example, if it is proposed to spend money, shall we say, on the provision of drainage and lighting in a town, I hope that it will be over the whole town and not only over the European section of it. With those provisos, with all of which I am sure my right hon. and gallant Friend will himself agree, I welcome the Bill. It is a good Bill. It is a badly needed Bill, and I hope that it will mark the start of a great new development throughout our Colonial Empire.
  4.48 p.m.
  Major Keatinge: I am glad to have the chance of speaking on this Bill, and I welcome the much-needed development which these additional sums of money will bring about. The points I want to make are with special relation to the African Colonies, some of which I know, not from any pass-
  2168
  ing acquaintance, nor have I seen them from any exalted height, but I can claim the knowledge of eight years' residence, much of it in quite remote and undeveloped places.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and other hon. Members have spoken to-day about the future of the African Army which we have recruited in quite considerable numbers. I believe that one of the most important factors in any post-war development, such as is envisaged under this Bill, will be the influence of the many thousands of Africans who are now with the Forces, and whom we have recruited during these last five years, and not only of them, but of the very large numbers of others who have been engaged for years past upon the construction of camps, aerodromes, and so on under quite different conditions from anything they have ever known before. The war influence on these African Colonies, as everywhere else, has been great. The war has made a great impact upon undeveloped people, and can become a big force for good or for bad, according to the way in which we use it.
  We have been in some of these Colonies for 100 years or more and in others much less, and during that time we have, here and there, built cities and made very considerable changes, but in other places we have barely scratched the surface of a thousand years of tribal life, and the tribal influence is very strong even at the present time. In West Africa, for example, with all its resources, many people are barely out of the Stone Age of development. Large numbers are diseased, underfed, and without any background of learning or culture whatever. It is from such people, among others, that many thousands have been recruited during these last few years, and units formed. Anyone who has served with them and learned to admire the grand qualities which they have shown, has seen also something of the problems met by people who are quite illiterate, without any real knowledge or grasp of European organisation, who learn to live the life of Army routine and quite often are in specialist employment. Those people learn to work wireless sets, and predictors, and other equipment they cannot really comprehend, through a language medium that they barely understand. Others learn to drive vehicles perhaps not previously seen, in boots not previously worn.

  2169
  These things are being done, and these difficult problems are being mastered. We shall see after the war a very large number of Africans going home, who are trained or part-trained artisans, with a sense of discipline, with a knowledge of English, and educated, in the broad sense, by travel. Now they will be going home, in some cases, to distant villages and remote districts, and to the old tribal life, but seeing it with very different eyes. In other cases, they will not go back but will drift instead into the towns, and big centres of population, turning their backs on the old life and turning to a new one which we, somehow or other, have to shape for them.
  The problem of these demobilised soldiers cannot, of course, be treated as something separate and apart from the general life of these Colonies. The two things are very closely wrapped up with each other. It does, however, present quite a number of dangers and difficulties which we have to foresee. It would be wishful thinking to suppose that the influence of these returning soldiers will be uniformly good. On the other hand, it presents quite a number of opportunities which I hope we shall not overlook. I hope that the Colonies and the Protectorates, in submitting schemes under the provisions of this Bill, will take into full account the knowledge which these soldiers have already acquired, because it is really considerable. There is this about it too, that the instruction they have had has been for purely military ends; it is not designed to equip anyone for civilian employment, and the majority will be only part-trained for trades in civil life. If opportunities do not exist to complete that instruction, a great opportunity will be lost which may not come again for a long time.
  There are to-day in West and East Africa a large number of Army training centres that have done first-class work and really achieved surprising results in training for war. I believe, given the resources and the staff, that equally good results can be obtained in training for the years of peace that lie ahead. These centres do need to be maintained so that those who have already had a fair amount of training and who have, above all, acquired the habit of learning, can complete what they have started and master a craft which will enable them to practise after the war as
  2170
  masons, carpenters, mechanics, and so on, for the good of their own country as well as themselves.
  There is another point bearing on these things, which is fundamental to the development of East and West African Colonies, namely, the question of languages. I think anyone going out to the Colonies in an official capacity should learn the African language that is most needed. In learning to speak a language, one also learns to understand the people who speak it. But I do not think the matter ends there. There is a very large number of languages and dialects, often in the same district, and that gives rise, not only to problems of administration but, because of it, whole towns and communities are cut off from each other, and there is no real understanding of the world outside. Anyone with first-hand experience of these things must realise the muddle, confusion and suspicion that are caused. I hope very much that these languages will survive in their pure form, together with all that is best in tribal life, and that some literature will evolve. But times are changing very fast, and it is because the scope of these things is so limited, that a great many Africans have already had to start learning a second language, such as Swahili and Hausa.
  I think there is little doubt that to get a real understanding and grasp of present-day life the medium of English is best, and I hope we shall push on with it. It is a vital part of Empire training to-day, and whether we improve it as a whole or not it is the means by which many Africans will climb to a higher position and a fuller understanding of life. I do not know whether there is any other part of the world, where the field for development is so great as it is in the East and West African Colonies. Roads and railways are waiting to be built; land is awaiting cultivation, businesses are waiting to be started—and I hope they will be under the provisions of this Bill. Some of the poorer Colonies seem to have stood still for a very long time past, apart from bursts of war-time activity. With so many claims, and so much waiting to be done, it will not be easy to settle where to make a start, but I would like to emphasise the overriding importance of one thing to these African Colonies, namely, the drive against disease. I believe that it must be made a foundation for any future progress, especially in West Africa, where the large

  2171
  proportion of the people suffer from parasites and chronic disease of one sort or another. It has been made clear that it is our purpose to encourage self-government and local responsibility, but without a certain standard of health there is no will or effort to learn. There is no energy to cultivate land, and no real desire to progress. Instead, there is a stagnation that is far too widespread. I have seen plenty of it myself. It is a kind of dead weight that cannot be moved.
  I would like to make a short reference to three territories that lie close to, but are not a part of, the Union of South Africa which, I hope, will come in for their full share of development under the provisions of this Bill. They are Swaziland, Basutoland, and Bechuanaland. The position of these territories comes up from time to time, and will again in the future, mainly because they are bound by close economic ties to South Africa. Fears are expressed that they may perhaps be handed over to a Government unsympathetic to their interests, which will do but little for their development. I believe, however, that our main concern is to see those countries go ahead, and I feel that we should examine what we ourselves have already achieved and can achieve in the future. To date we have not done very much, and the passing of this Bill will allow a great deal more to be done.
  I would like, in conclusion, to put a view that prevails in many Empire countries. It is this: that we here, in discussing all these matters, as we do from time to time, in broad terms, are far too often out of touch with all the facts and realities of the conditions of life and the climate in some of these Colonies. I know it is hard enough for anyone on the spot to take a broad and detached view of these problems, but it is even more difficult for those at a distance to grasp their real nature. It is for that reason that I welcome the recent visits made abroad by my right hon. and gallant Friend and other Members of this House—visits, which, I hope very much, will continue and increase in the future.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. Bartle Bull: I will not follow the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Major Keatinge), but I would like to say something in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for West
  2172
  Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) said about this Bill being of serious import to our people. With that, I fully and entirely agree. I also agree that the fullest advantage must be derived from it, and that the additional burden which it entails upon our people should be fully appreciated abroad.
  I want to be brief, and I will confine myself to the question of small vegetable gardens and the vale system in the West Indies. My only excuse for doing so is that I spent seven years in the West Indies, working on a sugar plantation, and I know a little about some of the questions that are involved in this Bill. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) mentioned something about Hebrew, but I did not quite follow him. I did not learn any Hebrew in the desert nor in the West Indies, though I learnt a number of other words and expressions. I appreciate the difficulty which exists in a one-crop country, whether the crop is sugar or whatever it may be. What I have to say about small vegetable gardens, and the vale system, also affects the health of the people who work on these plantations. As far as my experience goes, no matter how much one may try to help them, the negro population are improvident.
  A white man, of course, cannot work against a negro, any more than a Japanese can work against a Chinaman. The standards are quite different. A man working on a sugar plantation has a very small plot of land, perhaps half an acre, and the thing is to try to teach him to grow vegetables, and I beg the Government to do that. If he buys them from a store in tins it costs infinitely more than if he just plants the seeds and grows them. He could also grow citrus fruit. Potatoes are all right because there are fire guards to prevent fire spreading from one cane field to another, so that he can always get potatoes. As to the vale system, very often a worker is not paid cash, but is given a vale, a note of paper, which he can take to a store and exchange it for anything he wants, though he may be restricted to one or two individual stores.
  Colonel Stanley: Is that in the British West Indies?
  Mr. Bull: In Cuba. A lot of the labour there was from Jamaica and Haiti. If the conditions had been better in Jamaica

  2173
  than in Cuba, they would not have come to Cuba. I know from my own experience that these two points are perfectly sound.
  5.10 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: We must all agree that this has been a very remarkable day in the history of the country. We are voting an enormous sum of money for the benefit of the Empire and not a single dissentient voice has been raised. I feel sure that that is symptomatic of the feeling throughout the country that we are determined that, whatever neglect we have shown in the past to the Empire, we are not going to allow neglect to continue in the future. The Secretary of State said there would be various complaints about the Bill, one that it was too much money to give—that would come later—and another that it was not enough—a mere drop in the ocean—which would come now. I have not heard very many complaints that it was not enough. I think the general consensus of opinion is that it is a very fair amount to start with. So much depends on whether it is spent wisely. It is here that the regionalisation councils, particularly in Africa, will have a beneficial effect. There are many bugbears and difficulties in the various Colonies and Protectorates, such as disease, malnutrition and the universal backwardness of agriculture, and the regional councils will be able to advise the Colonial Office as to the best way in which the money can be spent to remedy those evils. Obviously, it would not be economical to have an agricultural research centre for each and every Colony. The Colonies will get together, and decide which is the best place to have an agricultural centre for the training of experts.
  All this is not an end in itself. It is really a foundation upon which we may be able to build something truly great in the years ahead. The benefits that we shall gain will be very great indeed, provided the Government do their best to encourage private enterprise to take advantage of it. We hope we shall shortly have a native population which will be stronger and more ready to work and able to take its place amongst the great working people of the world, because they will be a fit, strong and healthy type of individual. I was one of a dele-
  2174
  gation to Central Africa, and we found that Nyasaland was crying out for development. Unfortunately that development has not in the past been encouraged by the Colonial Office. Some development has taken place, but not nearly as much as there might have been. I am in entire agreement with the general policy of the Colonial Office towards the natives. We found that it is not necessarily true to say that white interests do not coincide with native interests, and we were certain that a sprinkling of white settlers among the natives was beneficial.
  We visited a certain region called the Vipya Plateau in the North of Nyasaland. It is a fine upland, well suited for white development. It has water and is less than 50 miles from Lake Nyasa and transport could take place to the railhead at the South of the lake. We were told that some tests had been made of the grass and it was found to be poisonous. We were not satisfied, however, that the tests had been properly made. In any case, such a conclusion should not necessarily exclude all possibility of putting this right in the future. We talked in the capital of the province with many of the chiefs, and expressly put it to them whether they would like to see a certain amount of white settlement in their area. They all agreed that they would, provided that native interests were safeguarded. They said that, wherever there was a white farmer, there would be an opportunity for employment for their own people and that they could learn better agricultural methods from the white man. At present, their great difficulty is to keep their people at home, because there is not sufficient for them to do and they migrate in large numbers to the mines. I would like to see the principle of a certain amount of settlement, in such territories as Nyasaland, accepted by the Colonial Office.
  The question of Northern Rhodesia and what advantage it can get from this Bill is rather difficult, as, indeed, is the whole situation in that Colony. Other hon. Members have dealt with the Copper Belt, and I will confine myself to one or two remarks about the settlers who live on the railway belt, in the main in the Fort Jameson area. They are not numerous, only 200 or 300 at the most. They are very unhappy about their position and whether their tenure is good or not. They would much welcome some declaration by the Colonial Office that their position was safe

  2175
  and that they need not worry about their tenure.
  I would like to say a few words about Tanganyika, which was visited by part of the delegation. The local people and the Colonial Office people had one point they wanted to drive home. It has been mentioned in this Debate and it ought to be mentioned again. That is the question of the mandate. I agree that if Tanganyika is to prosper, the mandate ought either to be abolished completely, or drastically altered. The effect of it has been to restrict development. Nobody wants to invest capital on long term because they do not know what the future will be. There is always lurking in the background the question of the return of the Colony to Germany. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) mentioned the Congo Basin Treaty. I can endorse every word he said about it. I did not meet anybody who did not wish heartily to see the back of it. It holds up trade and development almost as much as anything in the area. There is one other point in connection with the estates in Tanganyika which are in the hands of the custodian of enemy property. An attempt was made to sell them by auction to anybody who would buy them, and they were sold at ruinous prices. Certain gentlemen who were anxious to turn a quick penny bought them up, and the estates eventually found their way back into the hands of their former German owners. We must be careful to avoid that after this war. Every encouragement should be given to British settlers to buy the land and, provided the rights of the natives are respected, that is the best thing that could happen.
  Time does not allow me to speak of Mauritius, and I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will prevail on the Leader of the House to give us at least half a day in order to discuss the report. It is something of which we have not very great occasion to be proud, and the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on what is to be done in the future. I have had a unique opportunity in this war of visiting and living in a great deal of the Empire. I have visited every Colony in Africa, except British Somaliland, which is not worth going to, anyway. I am satisfied that a great deal has been done, and that a great deal is left to be done. I would conclude by paying
  2176
  a tribute to the high sense of duty which the Colonial civil servant, on the spot, shows. I am sure that he is a model to the world of which this nation may be justly proud. I would also like to congratulate my right hon. and gallant Friend. I know that he has the whole House and the country behind him, and we wish him every blessing in his new venture.
  5.23 p.m.
  Colonel Stanley: I hope that hon. Members will not think it impertinent of me if I say what a high standard this Debate has reached. It certainly is true to say that we have in the House a large number of Members who have had opportunities, even though they may have been short ones, of seeing some of these places for themselves, and who, although not pretending to know in a short time all their history or how to solve all their problems, have, at any rate, a mental picture to conjure up which adds reality and interest to the Debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) started by apologising for the fact that he was substituting for the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). No one in the House thought there was any reason for him to apologise, because he made an admirable speech on a subject, the economic development of the Empire, in which he has previously shown a considerable interest. With a great part of his speech I entirely agree. I agree with him that, in the spending of this money, it is essential to see that it is spent upon valuable development and not on sporadic enterprises, unco-ordinated and leading to nothing. For that reason, when the House has granted this authority, we shall be able to look 10 years ahead, and I am anxious to get from all the Colonies, not rigid detailed plans covering the day-to-day expenditure over the whole of those 10 years, but an overall plan which will enable us to see how they are going to spend this money, and to see what the picture will look like at the end of 10 years when the money is spent.
  I agree too with him that it is essential that, as far as possible, the local people should be consulted about this matter. I emphasise that point because there does seem to be a certain fallacy creeping into some of the suggestions made by other hon. Members who talk about Tennessee

  2177
  Valley Authorities, or of councils with executive powers sitting in London and who are to decide these things themselves. That is not the idea of this Bill. It is not only that the local people have to be consulted but that, to an increasing extent, an extent that many people forget, nothing can be done in these Colonies without the approval of the local legislature. It is idle to talk as if we were back in the days 50 years ago, when, if bodies of that kind, however competent, sitting here in London, once decided a thing, it was inevitably and automatically ensured that it would be carried out in the Colonies. You cannot do it, and if you could do it I should not want to do it because I do not think it is the way to treat planning which is so intimately mixed up with the lives of these people.
  There is only one point on this machinery with which I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, and that is when he said that he wanted to see the Stockdale organisation reproduced in other parts of the Colonial Empire. The form of the Stockdale organisation was selected for a particular reason. It was that in the West Indies a large number of territories, small most of them in extent and most of them poor, did not have at their service the same high degree of technical knowledge that you would find in a large Colony such as Nigeria or other African Colonies. It was, therefore, necessary to give to them this particular set-up of high-class technical advice.
  That position does not reproduce itself, say, in West Africa. It would be hard to find anywhere outside those Colonies people with the same technical knowledge of tropical medicine, colonial education and subjects of that kind who had higher qualifications than, if indeed they had qualifications as high as, the people who, in those Colonies, are responsible for those subjects. Therefore, in those areas the problem is a different one. It is much more the problem of directing and co-ordinating development between the Colonies, seeing that there is no overlapping, or seeing that there is due economy, by siting in one a service which may be made available for the lot.
  I am sure that the House will understand that, so many speeches containing so many interesting points having been made, it is impossible for me to do more than to pick out one or two of the more important points made by the various
  2178
  speakers. That does not mean, however, that I have not listened with great interest to those that have been made and that I shall not find them extremely useful. There is only one other point made by the right hon. Gentleman to which I want to refer, because I think it is a point of immense importance, which was reinforced in the very thoughtful speeches of my hon. and gallant Friends the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Major Keatinge) and the Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen). It is the question of the returning Colonial soldiers. No problem is more important, or fraught with greater consequences for the future of these Colonial territories. I agree entirely with the emphasis that has been put upon the subject. It is not, the right hon. Gentleman will agree, only a part of this Colonial Welfare and Development Act but is part too of the general administration of our territories, and I think the Colonial administrations are fully aware of the need first of all for such things as rehabilitation centres and the continued training to which hon. Members have referred. Those steps are necessary to fit the returning soldier not for his old civilian life but for something that may offer a better prospect than his old civilian life. That is one part.
  The second is, when you are planning your schemes under the Colonial Welfare and Development Act, always to have in mind, and in your plans first of all, the possibility of employment for those people during the interim period, and secondly the permanent settlement of them in the future. I have impressed these points upon all Colonial Governors wherever I have gone in these tours that I am having. It is one of the first subjects I discuss with them and I can assure the House that they are fully alive to the immense importance of this subject. Plans in most places are well advanced.
  Mr. John Dugdale: Is there any guarantee that those who have any work to return to, will return to it in the equivalent position, as is provided for in the Tomlinson Act?
  Colonel Stanley: No, I do not think there is anything of that kind. I will certainly take that point up but I doubt whether an Act of that kind is applicable to the much more shifing conditions of Colonial employment. Now perhaps I can come to the speech of the hon. Mem-

  2179
  ber for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild). Coming as he did almost straight from the intellectual atmosphere of his party conference, he proclaimed that we are all planners now. He gave me a moment of great anxiety, I must say, when he started to talk about an expected stream of production and consumption inside the British Empire. I began to think to myself: "Is this Free Trade or Empire Free Trade? Has the hon. Gentleman fallen into a slight error due to a similarity of names and thought that his leader was Beaverbrook and not Beveridge?"
  Mr. de Rothschild: I do not wish in any way to restrict the interchange to the British Empire. My hope was that the direction of planning would be taken in hand by the British Empire and by the Colonial Office, at the head of which my right hon. and gallant Friend stands.
  Colonel Stanley: My suspicions were obviously unfounded. The hon. Gentleman made a great point of the necessity for a survey of Colonial resources, and the point was echoed in other speeches. I entirely agree with him. One of the first things we have to do, as soon after the war as possible, is to have a proper comprehensive geological survey of the Colonial Empire as a whole. Plans for it are already well advanced. Hon. Members will understand that the necessary personnel and machinery are not now available, but it is obviously a case where the various Colonial territories have to be helped, and where a considerable amount of work should be done centrally and helped from a central fund.
  I am sorry that I had to be out of the House for a brief period during which, I am told, a most interesting speech was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair). The main question which he raised was the same as was raised in the letter to "The Times" by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald), the question of the whole machinery of Colonial government under the stress and strain of the wholly new burdens which have been put upon it by the development of government activities. What a Colonial Government has to tackle now, is wholly different from what it was expected to do only 30 years ago, and for which the machinery of
  2180
  administration was then devised. The difficulty is, of course, that the problem which my hon. Friend put forward is one on the existence of which everybody agrees. It is when you come to the solution, that great difficulty is found.
  There are two things that one has to remember in proposing any solution. The first is that it is, to my mind, even worse to make a bottle-neck of the Governor than it is to make a bottle-neck of the Chief Secretary. It means that more and more paper work is put upon the Governor, thereby keeping from him freedom to tour and see for himself, for other people to see him and have the chance of expressing their views to him. That would be an extremely bad thing. The other thing is that it is no good, certainly at the moment, looking for a solution in the direction of making more and more appointments. My difficulty is to find anything like the number of people to fill the appointments which we have now got and it would be quite impossible to do any reorganising of Colonial administration at the moment which meant the addition of a large number of important new posts. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter of extreme importance. I do not believe it will ever be found that there is one over-all solution applicable to every Colony. The method of working will no doubt have to be different according to the size, and the problems and the conditions of various Colonies. It is a matter I am now taking up with Colonial Governors, in order to get the problem thought out and ideas exchanged, and, I hope, improvements made.
  I am sorry, too, that I missed the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), because I gather that in it he expressed, as reported to me, I must say with slightly gleeful malice, the regret that I had fallen from the high esteem in which he once held me, to a low position in his eyes. I should have heard that statement with a great deal of sorrow, tempered only by the fact that I was unconscious that I ever did occupy a high place in his estimation, and I never had an idea that there were any lower depths, to which to fall than those I had already reached. The hon. Gentleman, with whom I frequently disagree, does speak, I know, with a sincere desire to help the conditions of the Colonial people. He devoted a good

  2181
  deal of his time to-day to the question of appointments of local people to Colonial jobs. The hon. Gentleman can always find particular jobs which are still filled by Europeans, but I challenge him to say whether during the course of his lifetime, since he was a boy in the West Indies, there has not been a progressive growth of the posts in the West Indies being filled by people born and bred in the West Indies, and whether to-day there are not infinitely fewer Colonial Service people, whether in the administrative or technical branches, who came from this country, than was the case 20 or 30 years ago. I will not go further than that because I have not looked up the hon. Gentleman's age, and I do not wish to step on his toes.
  It is, of course, our policy and a policy which is being carried out, to improve the chances for the people in the Colonies themselves, to get more and more of them into the Colonial Service. There is no disparity between the statement that we are doing it now, and shall be doing it after the war at a much-increased tempo, and saying at the same time that, when the war ends—and here I agree entirely with one hon. Gentleman who spoke—we shall need a great number of people from our own country, from our own Services and from the Dominions, to fill the great number of technical and administrative jobs which will be necessitated by the sort of development work we are going to do. The great criterion in the appointment of more and more people from the Colonies, to posts in the Colonial Service, is the question of training and fitting them for the job. That brings me back to the point I mentioned in my opening speech, the immense importance of facilities for higher education in the Colonies. It is only when that is done, when the bright boy, wherever he is, can have a chance, if he shows the ability, of having the best possible training for fitting him for the most difficult technical job, that full use can be made of the ability and natural talent of the people in the Colonies.
  Dr. Morgan: When he gets that, you do not appoint him.
  Colonel Stanley: The hon. Member always makes these rather frivolous interjections.
  Dr. Morgan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman always says that. Because he
  2182
  cannot answer the case he says I make trivial observations.
  Colonel Stanley: I put against the very general statement the hon. Member makes the other general statement which he will find it equally difficult to answer, that for 20 or 30 years there has been a progressive increase in the numbers of Colonial people filling posts in the Colonies.
  Dr. Morgan: I can answer that. There has been an improvement—
  Colonel Stanley: The hon. Member said there had been an improvement? Then we all agree.
  Dr. Morgan: Thanks for the courtesy, as usual.
  Colonel Stanley: The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) entered into, I will not say a contest, but took one side of an argument against several other hon. Members. He sought to put education first in the necessities under these development plans. The other hon. Members put health first. It is, in a way, an academic argument, because I do not think we can get anywhere without both. It is extremely difficult to say which comes first in an integrated plan. It is the aim of the supervision of the over-all Colonial plans in this country to see, not where schools are to be put, or what size a hospital is to be, but rather in seeing that the plan gives proper emphasis to all these various objects—that a fair deal is being given both to education and health.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), who is not, I think, now in his place, asked whether the £120,000,000 was inclusive or exclusive of the sum to be spent upon research. It is inclusive of the sum to be spent on research, which comes out of this Measure, subject to the limitation that not more that £1,000,000 shall be spent on research in the course of a year.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does the geological survey come under the heading of research, or under something else?
  Colonel Stanley: It will probably come under research. It might be partly under research and partly under something else.
  There was one other point the hon. Member raised, a point which was followed up by another hon. Member. After a very welcome tribute to the members

  2183
  of the Colonial Service, he complained that they had no power to enforce, that they were advisers preaching, trying to convert, but without any power. Hon. Members will realise that that is a matter for the Colonial Governments, and a matter concerning which I must rely upon them. Whether the easiest way to get people to take the natural precautions necessary to do away with some of these preventible diseases, is to advise them, to encourage them, to explain matters to them, or whether it is by passing orders, forcing them to do what is necessary, is a matter on which I must depend on the advice of the people on the spot. They have the power of passing the necessary ordinances, to give legislative sanction to these various precautions, and it is for them to suggest whether they want to take them. They will, I am sure, be reinforced by the expression of opinion in the House to-day.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) made a very interesting speech, in the course of which he referred to a previous speech in which I had disagreed with him. He claimed complete victory in the contest between us, because of the support that he has received from a paper called the "Empire Producer"—a most respectable paper, a paper in whose company I should very much like to be seen, but not, I confess, a paper in whose company I expected to find the hon. Member.
  Mr. Riley: I did not seek their company.
  Colonel Stanley: Supported as it is, by almost every planters' association, by almost every sugar manufacturers' association, it contains all that is highest in Colonial capitalism. I can only ask that the hon. Member will attach as much importance as he did to their praise of his speech, to other views which they may in future express on Colonial policy. If so, I am sure that he will gain very great benefit. I must point out that the whole difficulty of his idea of this development corporation, this "Tennessee Valley Authority," completely overlooks, as I have said before and as perhaps some of the people who agreed with him would like to overlook, the political aspect. We are developing in these countries self-government in varying degrees, and it is not for us to sit here and decide the broad lines their develop-
  2184
  ment is going to take, or to pass over their heads something which, after a time, is going to remain a permanent burden upon them.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale), who, if I may say so, made an admirable speech, made a point with regard to the limit of £17,500,000 in the Bill. I quite see the Treasury's point in having a limit of this kind. It would be wrong if they who have to look forward to the budget of this country should suddenly find it upset by the inclusion, in any one year, of a wholly disproportionate amount of this ten years' expenditure. But I went into this matter very carefully, and I cannot see any possibility of any one year in which we ought to want to spend more than £17,500,000. If ever such a situation arose, and we wanted to spend such a disproportionate amount of the provision for the whole ten years, it would be only as a result of extremely bad planning, because the whole idea of this provision for a ten-year plan, is that the money should be spread out economically over the period. I do not think that there should be any possibility of this limit giving any trouble. If it does, it is only right that the Colonial Secretary of the day should have to come to the House to explain the reasons, and get the House to absolve him from this provision.
  With regard to the hon. Member's question about the development companies, there was not much time to-day as hon. Members had so many other important points to raise but on another occasion hon. Members may wish to develop any ideas that this may bring to their minds. What I had in mind was development companies that would be the responsibility of the Colonial Governments. It could only be that because they would have to be financed, partly at any rate, with money provided under this Act. Finally, I welcome very much the hon. Member's reference to the Colonial Service. I think that after the war, when things settle down, we shall have to review their conditions of service and see that they have not only treatment which is commensurate with the responsibilities they take on, but treatment which will attract the very best. As I say, I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk who said that the Foreign Office had their Paris, while all that the Colonial Service had was Lagos but if the hon.

  2185
  Member for West Bromwich thinks that because of that difference, the Foreign Service was able to get better recruits before the war, or a higher standard than the Colonial Service, I cannot agree. I think that there are a great many men to whom Lagos, with all its difficulties and unpleasantness, but with its responsibilities, appeals. The life of an administrative officer out in the bush, with his responsibilities, appeals far more to some people than the life of a third or fourth secretary, in some European capital.
  Mr. John Dugdale: I did not say that there was a lower standard in the Colonial Service than in the Foreign Service.
  Colonel Stanley: No, but the hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend's remark which made me fear for a moment that he might have fallen into this lamentable error. I have referred to the most interesting speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who has had great experience of these areas and who stressed again, with many suggestions, the problem of the returning soldier. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) I need refer to only briefly. Despite the verbal triumph he scored over me, I still maintain that the conditions to which he referred, and of which he had experience in Cuba, were peculiar to Cuba.
  Mr. Bull: No, I did not get into trouble in Cuba itself.
  Colonel Stanley: But the Truck Act has been in operation in British territory for many years and it seems to me that the practices of which my hon. Friend spoke would have been an obvious and direct contravention of the Truck Act. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) had some interesting things to say about his advisory council scheme. I am always ready to listen to suggestions about machinery, and I have, in the course of two or three years made a good many alterations in the machinery, but I must point out the difficulties of some of the suggestions that were made. I am afraid I missed the actual passage in his speech, but I have a note of it. He wants an advisory committee to which everything of importance in the Colonial Empire is to be referred. I find it very difficult to think of any advisory committee of a reasonable size which will be able to give me really good advice on
  2186
  every important matter which arises in every part of the Colonial Empire.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I said major issues.
  Colonel Stanley: The thing is too big; it is too difficult. I believe that there is no alternative to the system I have now of separate advisory committees for the various technical subjects so that we do not throw a programme which covers health, agriculture, veterinary services and fishing and so on at half a dozen people and say, "Advise me on it." No six people, no eight people, no twelve people will really be experts on all those subjects. Those who can advise you are experts on education, agriculture or upon some other technical object, such as postal services or something of that kind, to whom any problems can be referred. It is not that because I do not seek advice or because I have not a great many advisers now, that I reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. It is because I believe that, in this functional provision of advice, rather than in this over-all committee, lies the best chance of getting the best advice on these difficult subjects.
  Finally, I pass to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris), which, I am afraid, had to be rather heavily cut. My hon. and gallant Friend, had he had more time, would no doubt have developed more fully the question of the development of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. There was, however, one specific question which lie asked me which I did not quite understand. My hon. and gallant Friend said that certain settlers in Northern Rhodesia were anxious about the future of their land, which suggested that they had some doubts about their tenure.
  Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: I think I had better say that what they seemed to be afraid of was that the whole of Northern Rhodesia might be declared a Protectorate and that they might lose their freeholds.
  Colonel Stanley: I am afraid I do not quite understand. It is already a Protectorate, and in any case the declaration of a Protectorate would not affect at all the tenure of their land. I think they can be content that those who have got freehold tenure are not going to be dispossessed of it. My hon. and gallant Friend's main point was with regard to

  2187
  opportunities, particularly in Nyasaland, for further development. I want to see further development. I quite agree with him, and I do not think for one moment that the interests of the white settler, and those of the coloured native, are necessarily opposed, although I think possible competition between them has got to be very carefully watched.
  I want the possibility of large-scale agricultural development to be examined. No doubt it will be by the new Development Commissioner, who has just been busy dealing with both Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, but we want to look at these things very carefully. It is no good saying, "Here is some land that is not being used; let us develop it." You must make certain, when you put people there, what things they are to grow, and, when they grow them, whether they are to be able to sell them. Are they to grow the same things as other people grow elsewhere, perhaps in easier conditions and with a more suitable climate and better soil? Nothing is more fatal than to develop an area for uneconomic production, and then either have to see these unfortunate people lose their all, because of the advice and encouragement you have given them, or be committed for ever to carrying what, from the start, was an uneconomic proposition. Therefore, I suggest that all these possibilities of future development have to be investigated very carefully, from the point of view of their future economic utility, what is going to be produced and whether that produce is going to be sold and used.
  I have endeavoured to deal as fully as possible with the many interesting points that have been raised. I can only conclude by thanking the House for the reception of this Bill, and by reiterating the hope which all speakers have expressed that, through its operation, real benefit will in future be brought to the Colonial Empire.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the Minister say a word about the future of the Mandated Territories?
  Colonel Stanley: No, Sir, I really cannot. I am dealing with the Second Reading of the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill. In no circumstances could that have any effect whatever upon the whole political question of the Mandate. I imagine that were I to
  2188
  attempt to deal with the subject Mr. Deputy-Speaker would immediately rule me out of Order.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Major A. S. L. Young.]
  Committee upon Tuesday next.

  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amounts payable out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of schemes under Section one of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, and to extend the period during which certain of such schemes may continue in force, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys so provided of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session substituting, for the limits imposed by the said Act of 1940 on sums to be paid out of such moneys for the purposes of such schemes, the following limits, namely,—

  (a) as respects any such schemes, seventeen million five hundred thousand pounds in any financial year, and one hundred and twenty million pounds in the period of ten years ending with the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six;

  (b) as respects schemes for promoting research or inquiry, one million pounds in any financial year,

  and extending to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, the time during which such schemes, other than schemes for promoting research or inquiry, may continue in force."—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Colonel Stanley.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday next.

  MILITARY SERVICE (COUNTY COUNCIL OFFICIAL)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major A.S.L. Young.]
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Lipson: I desire to raise the question of the refusal of the Minister of Health to recommend the release of the deputy clerk to the Gloucestershire County Council, who is

  2189
  now serving in the Army on non-operational duties. I do so because there is an issue involved in this refusal which is bigger and more important than the incident itself. The Minister of Health is in a very special way associated with local authorities. They look naturally and properly to the Ministry of Health for guidance in their many problems and for help in their difficulties. It is only to be expected that when they put up to the Ministry what they consider to be a reasonable proposal it should receive proper consideration. The Gloucestershire County Council feel very strongly that they have been treated very unreasonably by the Minister of Health over this particular matter. The clerk to the county council first took up the matter with the Ministry himself. When that was unsatisfactory, my attention was drawn to it and I was asked if I would intervene. I wrote a number of letters to the Minister, but the result was unsatisfactory, and I therefore put a Question on the Order Paper and the answer to that was equally unsatisfactory. Perhaps it will make the position clear if I read the Questions and answers so that the House can judge for itself. I asked the Minister of Health:
  "Why he refuted to recommend—"
  that is all he was asked to do, because it does not rest with him; his is not the responsibility for the release.
  "—the discharge from the Army of Captain Brewis, who is serving overseas in a legal capacity and whose release is urgently needed by the Gloucestershire County Council, of which he is deputy clerk, to relieve the heavy strain upon the officials of the council in consequence of losses through death and illness of responsible members of the staff at a time when the work of the council has considerably increased."
  The answer from the Minister was:
  "I have carefully considered the facts of this case but I am satisfied that there is no prospect at the present juncture of securing the release of this officer who is serving overseas, and, in the circumstances, I do not feel justified in putting forward a recommendation."
  In a supplementary question I asked:
  "Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, for health reasons, this officer is not allowed to take part in any operational duties? Does his answer mean that there is an embargo forbidding Ministers to recommend to the Committee that has been set up that those not engaged in operational duties overseas should be released?"
  and the Minister's reply was:
  2190
  "No, Sir. There is no such embargo. It is a matter for Ministerial decision. I have heard this suggestion before that those not engaged in operational duties should be released automatically, but the contention does not bear examination. The war could not be carried on without the services of many who are not engaged in operational duties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1945; Vol. 407, c 358–9]
  Nobody asked for the automatic release of men engaged in non-operational duties. What was urged upon the Minister was that the circumstances were such that this man would be very much better employed if he were to return to his duties with the county council than if he continued with his non-operational duties.
  What are the facts of the case? First, as regards the man himself. As deputy-clerk to the county council, he was not liable to conscription. He was exempted from service and could have stayed at his duties under ordinary circumstances, but, like many others, he had prepared himself for an emergency which might occur and which did occur. He was a Territorial and therefore he was called up at the outbreak of war in the Royal Artillery and joined an anti-aircraft battery. He has, therefore, served for over five years. After a period of service in this country he went overseas, served in North Africa and took part in the campaign there. Then he became seriously ill, which necessitated two operations and a period in hospital of six months, with the result that, over a year ago, it was decided that he was not medically fit for operational duties and he was transferred to the Judge Advocate's Department in the Middle East, where he is doing the work of an ordinary solicitor or lawyer, the sort of work which any man with a taste for advocacy could carry out, work which carries no very special responsibility and which could be carried out by somebody who could be sent from this country who had not served overseas before. He is a man of either 35 or 37 years of age.
  That is the position so far as the man is concerned. What is the position with regard to the county council? The department of the clerk to the council at the outset of war consisted of 18 members. The present clerk himself was appointed only in October, 1943. Before that his predecessor had been unwell for a time, and was away from duty, so that the work of the council necessarily suffered. As I say, the present clerk came in Octo-

  2191
  ber, 1943, and, obviously, it has taken him a long time to become thoroughly acquainted with local problems. He cannot be so well-informed as the man who held that office for a considerable period. Before the war the clerk of the council had a staff of 18. Now he has only seven. His deputy-clerk has been called up, the assistant deputy clerk, who had been in the service of the council for a great many years, has died, and the chief of the next grade of clerks, the confidential clerk to the clerk of the council, who was in the service of the council for over 40 years, and who was a mine of information and a most valuable officer, collapsed and died suddenly a few weeks ago.
  Mr. McKinlay: Do I take it that the man who succeeded the person who died was somebody brought from another place, and that the man whose release is now being sought was deputy to the man who died? Was he an applicant for that position, or was it a case of bringing in a new man and now asking for him to come back so that he can be instructed in his work?
  Mr. Lipson: He was not an applicant for the post. The previous clerk resigned because of ill-health, but as the deputy clerk was overseas he was deprived of the opportunity of applying for the job, a matter which I, personally, regret very much, because I think it is hard lines that jobs of this sort should be filled in the absence overseas of men who might wish to apply for them. I have given the staff position: pre-war, 18; now only seven. Yet there is all the routine work of the council to be done and, in addition, heavy responsibilities have been put on the county council as a result of the legislation we have passed in this House. The recent Education Act, which has given new responsibilities to county councils as local education authorities, has thrown an immense amount of work on the council, as has the Town and Country Planning Act. Moreover, we have an additional responsibility in Gloucestershire, which has not, fortunately, been the experience of other county councils, and that is that the city of Gloucester has recently brought forward a Bill in another place to extend the city boundaries at the expense of the county. The county consider that a most unreasonable proposal to bring forward at this juncture, but they
  2192
  have to be prepared to fight that Bill and that involves heavy work on all officials of the council in every department.
  The strain on the county council's officials is such that it is becoming more than they can reasonably be expected to bear. I have already intimated to the House that the assistant deputy clerk and the chief confidential clerk have died. The clerk next to him was taken ill a few weeks ago, is still away from duty, and is likely to be for some months. The position of the Gloucestershire County Council administration is becoming intolerable. It is under these conditions that an approach was made to the Minister to ask him to release the deputy clerk of the council, who is engaged in the Judge Advocate-General's Department—he is unfit for operational duties—in the Middle East. The Minister gave me the answer I have read to the House.
  I assume that the Minister has a very poor opinion of my intelligence and thinks I shall be satisfied with an answer of that sort. The only result of it has been to destroy very considerably the confidence of the county council in the Minister's fitness to hold his position. They feel that they have a right to look to him for assistance. When one writes to him, he does not answer the letter himself. I got the answer from his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I do not object to that so much when the answers are favourable, but I object very much when they are unfavourable. I am under the impression that he does not read the things himself, but hands them over to his faithful Parliamentary Secretary, who handles the matter for him. When an answer has to be unfavourable, it ought at least to go out under the signature of the Minister himself. He ought to be here now to defend himself, but he sends the right hon. Lady instead. I congratulate her on her right to be described in that way, but obviously she has been sent here with her brief. If the Minister was here he might be able to say he would give the matter further consideration, but obviously the right hon. Lady has to come with the brief which the Minister has approved. I ask, in spite of that, that she will request him to reconsider the matter. In the years ahead local authorities will be looking to the Ministry of Health for help and guidance. My right hon. Friend's contemptuous attitude towards the difficulties of local authorities is such that they feel that they have not

  2193
  got in him the kind of Minister they have a right to expect, but a broken reed on whom they cannot rely. All he is asked to do is to recommend. Unless he does, there is no chance of the proposal going through. Naturally, the Secretary of State for War will have a very important voice in deciding a matter of this kind. He can quite properly say: "I cannot recommend this, because you could not get the support of the Government Department." The recommendation of the Minister of Health is vital to the success of the appeal. I believe that from every point of view the case is unanswerable.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. McKinlay: I am interested in this as a member of a considerable local authority. It appears to me that Gloucester is famed for more things than limericks. I should like to know how the new county clerk came to be appointed. The hon. Member would have had an unanswerable case if the local authority had been left without a county clerk, or a man who was new to the job. It seems that he never had an opportunity to apply for the job. It may be that his age was against him. It may be that he is a man for whom there is no preferment. What was his age, and where did he come from? Local authorities throughout the country are confronted with the same difficulties, but they have always managed to surmount them. It is going to establish something very difficult for us if servants of local authorities are to be released from the Forces. I know dozens of private firms which are wallowing about in difficulties because their key men are away. There never were so many essential men in the world as we have had in this country during the last five years. I could make out a case for the essentiality of three members of my own family. I do not want to make the matter difficult for the hon. Member, but I, as a member of a local authority, may possibly want to go to the Secretary of State for Scotland for a recommendation to release some of the staff of the local authority with which I am associated, but I would like to have an unanswerable case when I do so. What would happen if I were to go to my right hon. Friend and say, "Will you O.K. a recommendation for this release as being essential in the interests of my local authority, because the town clerk and nearly all his assistants have passed
  2194
  away"? Gloucester must be an unhealthy place.
  Mr. Lipson: It is because of overstrain.
  Mr. McKinlay: We want to appoint someone to the town clerkship. We have a man in view, and what would be the position if we went to my right hon. Friend and said that a deputy trained by the local authority, who is now serving in the Forces, should be brought back although he had never been given the opportunity to fill the job? The Secretary of State might ask if the man was an applicant for the job, and if he was, he would recommend that he should be released. If the appointment was then made he would have no hesitation in saying that he was an essential man. Apparently, however, the man mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) has not been appointed.
  Mr. Lipson: The assistant deputy, who has since died, was alive at the time of the appointment.
  Mr. McKinlay: It is as well that we should appreciate the difficulties confronting the Minister in these matters. I am not speaking out of mischief but because I am interested as a member of a local authority.
  6.24 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I realise that this problem goes beyond the difficulties of one local authority and that the decisions taken naturally affect other local authorities. The problem comes up very often nowadays, and the Minister of Health has the utmost sympathy with the local authorities in the appalling difficulties under which they are working. Officials are working under great strain and great difficulties. My hon. Friend seemed to consider that what my right ho nd learned Friend the Minister of Health had done wrong was to refuse to recommend the release of this official, as if every case should be recommended by the Minister as though it came within the class of what is called "vital national importance."
  On 11th July last, as the hon. Member will find if he looks at HANSARD, the Financial Secretary to the War Office made a very clear statement about the difficulty of releasing men from the Forces. He pointed out that, in particular, it was almost impossible to do so

  2195
  when they were overseas. The hon. Member said words to the effect that "this man is only serving in the Judge-Advocate General's branch in North Africa," but he will agree with me that if this particular man were allowed to go home, somebody else would have to serve, because the work must be done. Therefore, we have to face the fact that each case of this kind has to be looked at on its merits. It has been laid down quite clearly that men can be released only in cases of vital national importance.
  Since that statement was made we have heard how the man-power situation has become even more difficult and how another 250,000 are to be called up, or combed out of the Services, for operational work. The pressure is greater now even than it was when the statement was made in July last. There is tremendous pressure on man-power. The only cases in which it has been possible to arrange for return from overseas for local authority officials are a few in certain categories, specialists and people with particular technical knowledge in connection with the housing problem. That has been done, but in all other cases the matter has to be looked on with reference to the difficulties of the man-power situation. Of course, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health would like to help all the local authorities in their difficulties. It would have been very much easier for him if he had said, "Yes," in which case my hon. Friend would not have come down to the House and used the language which he has used to-day.
  We know it would be of no use for one Minister simply to pass his responsibility off on to another Minister. He has his responsibility; that is why these matters have to go to the sponsoring Departments to see whether they fall within certain ea ories. If it could have been shown in this case that it was a matter of vital national importance, if it had been a case of a technical officer in connection with housing—because people of that sort can be brought home—my right hon. and learned Friend would have recommended it. It is no use at all, if we are to have a sponsoring Department, if the Minister concerned cannot
  2196
  have the courage to state to this House, as he has stated to my hon. Friend in answer to his Question, that a man does not come within this category, that he is serving overseas and that it has been laid down quite clearly by the Government that people cannot be withdrawn, and that this case is being treated, as other cases are, on its merits. We realise the difficulties of this local authority, as we realise the difficulties of them all.
  This case has been treated fairly. Due consideration has been given to it. Ever since last October we have gone into it most carefully. I can assure the House that my right hon. and learned Friend personally has looked into this matter. If it had come within the scheme laid down, he would have made a recommendation, but he can only forward names of those whose work falls into certain definite categories. Otherwise, what is the use of having any recommendation at all? All cases would have to go automatically to the Committee for decision, This scheme has worked fairly throughout the country and among the different local authorities. It would not be fair to accede in this case. There are many cases unfortunately of local authorities who are doing a very difficult job—they have much extra work and they have lost staff; their present staff may be older and over-strained; it is because of those facts that we have tried in every way to help them. This case is not one in which it falls to the Minister of Health to recommend, because we do not think it is a matter of vital national importance that the man should return.
  I hope, after that explanation, that my hon. Friend will realise that the Minister of Health did not have a poor opinion of his intelligence when he replied to the Question but a good opinion of his intelligence, which he still has, I hope now that he will realise what the situation is and will see that, at this time of the war, the difficulties of the man-power situation make it impossible to accede to his request.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Six o'Clock.

  JEWISH REFUGEES (LOSSES, s.s. "PATRIA")
  JEWISH REFUGEES (LOSSES, s.s. "PATRIA")
JAMAICA
  Legislature (East Indian Representation)
  Legislature (East Indian Representation)
  Reorganisation of Local Government
  Reorganisation of Local Government
MAURITIUS
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Cyclone (Relief Measures)
  Cyclone (Relief Measures)
  AFRICAN TROOPS (REHABILITATION)
  AFRICAN TROOPS (REHABILITATION)
  UGANDA (DISTURBANCES)
  UGANDA (DISTURBANCES)
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE ACT, 1940
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE ACT, 1940
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (APPROVED SOCIETIES' STAFFS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (APPROVED SOCIETIES' STAFFS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Home Leave Scheme
  Home Leave Scheme
  Canteen Facilities (Women's Land Army)
  Canteen Facilities (Women's Land Army)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Company Shares (Disposal)
  Company Shares (Disposal)
  Hostel Site, Pontypool (Purchase Price)
  Hostel Site, Pontypool (Purchase Price)
  MEDICAL MEN (SERVICES AND CIVIL ALLOCATIONS)
  MEDICAL MEN (SERVICES AND CIVIL ALLOCATIONS)
  FIGHTING SERVICES (LEAVE MEN, AMENITIES)
  FIGHTING SERVICES (LEAVE MEN, AMENITIES)
  PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS
  PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS
  FRANCE (SUPPLIES, ALLOCATION)
  FRANCE (SUPPLIES, ALLOCATION)
ROAD TRANSPORT
  Coal Distribution, London
  Coal Distribution, London
  Snow Clearance
  Snow Clearance
  Northern Roadways, Ltd.
  Northern Roadways, Ltd.
  Accidents (Statistics)
  Accidents (Statistics)
RAILWAYS
  War Casualties (Personal Belongings, Transport)
  War Casualties (Personal Belongings, Transport)
  Waiting Rooms (Heating)
  Waiting Rooms (Heating)
  REQUISITIONED MOTOR CARS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  REQUISITIONED MOTOR CARS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  RUSSIA (DEBTS AND CREDITS, NEGOTIATIONS)
  RUSSIA (DEBTS AND CREDITS, NEGOTIATIONS)
  EUROPE (SUPPLY SITUATION, INQUIRY)
  EUROPE (SUPPLY SITUATION, INQUIRY)
ROYAL NAVY
  Duty-Free Goods
  Duty-Free Goods
  Newspapers and Books
  Newspapers and Books
  Members of Parliament (Communications)
  Members of Parliament (Communications)
  W.R.N.S.
  W.R.N.S.
  AGRICULTURE (POTATOES)
  AGRICULTURE (POTATOES)
  POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID)
  POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID)
  ALGERIAN WINE
  ALGERIAN WINE
  BRICK AND TILE WORKS (DEREQUISITION)
  BRICK AND TILE WORKS (DEREQUISITION)
  HOUSING (BUNGALOW, CANVEY ISLAND)
  HOUSING (BUNGALOW, CANVEY ISLAND)
  COAL INDUSTRY (DUMPED COAL PRICES)
  COAL INDUSTRY (DUMPED COAL PRICES)
  EMPLOYMENT, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE
  EMPLOYMENT, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE
INDUSTRIAL RECONVERSION
  Appointments Department
  Appointments Department
  Reinstatement
  Reinstatement
  Vacancies (Advertisements)
  Vacancies (Advertisements)
Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
  Geoffrey Francis, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
PONTYPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL, [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

NEUTRALS AND AXIS WAR CRIMINALS.
2.12 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That "the rights of neutrality" do not extend to the granting of asylum to Axis war criminals. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to-day to endeavour to elicit any inconvenient information; I am here rather to register a widely-held point of view, and I hope that its timely expression may avoid some subsequent and possibly dangerous misunderstandings. Some time ago His Majesty's Government sought from the Government of Eire an assurance that they would not give asylum to Axis war criminals. From the reply I have extracted certain salient passages to serve as a peg on which to hang an intimation which I think is the more necessary in that the flight of the guilty is already beginning. The Government of Eire in their reply say that in their view the right to grant asylum is not in question. Not only is that right very much in ques-
928
tion, but I hope to show to-day that it does not really exist. Millions of people in this country, and in many other countries too, will vehemently deny that in a radically altered world—and it is on those words particularly that I wish to lay emphasis—any neutral countries have the right to grant asylum to Axis criminals beyond the pale. We have experienced the greatest convulsion in human history. Rivers of blood have flowed beyond the ken of the backwater of the neutrals, and in these circumstances it must surely be for the belligerents and not for neutrals to decide who is qualified for asylum and who for retribution.
The Government of Eire go on to say that they can give no assurance which would preclude them from exercising this right in the name of charity, or some other noun. I have high regard for abstract nouns; they are part of the indispensable equipment of humanity; but in this case we are not concerned with abstractions, we are concerned with preventing a third world war, which is very far from being an abstraction. Then the Government of Eire go on, I think, to give the whole, case away. They refer also to the absence of any comprehensive international agreement which covers this matter. I do not think I need comment on the admission; it speaks for itself. And this matter of neutral rights has, in effect, really been a chameleon. It has continually changed. Professor Brierly, in his new book on the outlook for International Law, has written that all the ideas that we now associate with neutrality are modern and he goes on to add a warning that neutral countries cannot expect to have things the way that they see them. Now that, in both these world wars, has been a very frequent phenomenon and if one were to take the Eire note on its face value it would apparently be what the Government of Eire would expect to continue. I am afraid that we shall have to disappoint these expectations.
Grotius, in a well-known passage—and I am sure your Lordships will agree that most famous sayings are platitudinous—says that neutrals ought to do nothing to strengthen the side which has an unjust cause in a war or to impede one that is waging a just war. But over and over again in these two world wars neutrals have taken action which has strengthened

929
the side which is waging an unjust war; and that is something that we really should not overlook. They may have felt not only impelled but compelled to do so; and within reason I understand that attitude. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will remember better than I do that in the last century there was a general and rather vague impression that neutrals were, somehow, more virtuous than belligerents. I do not think that even the Victorians pushed that theory so far as to suggest that neutrals were more virtuous than victims, and yet some of our modern non-belligerents have pushed it that far. (Very frequently in the course of this war they have vaunted the virtue of their dispassion, particularly when they thought that there was a prospect of sitting at the Peace Conference). Then the first world war came and destroyed that theory of virtue. Those of the younger generation—and I was one of them—who had just a little knowledge of International Law were somewhat disconcerted to find that neutrals, well-knowing the difference between good and evil, well appreciating the distinction between the "just" and the "unjust" causes of Grotius, continued in effect to "sit pretty' and to profit from both sides. That, speaking with all moderation, I find both comprehensible and reprehensible.
But they really pushed it rather far, for they afforded cover and camouflage to enemy companies and organizations, they aided our enemies to avoid the blockade and the Black List, and such a system of cheating grew up that for the first time in history we were obliged, in a world whose complexities have infinitely grown since the last great conflagration, to set up everywhere large counter-organizations to counteract that cheating. Now that left a certain amount of irritation so that when the last war was over and the League was founded and the Covenant drafted, and we were all given to understand that there would be no more neutrals, we were all, I think, inclined to say, "and high time too." And I have no doubt that if that promise had been fulfilled we should have had a better world. But the promise was not fulfilled. The chameleon took on a different colour and semblance, indeed the ink was hardly dry on the Treaty before some of the members of the new club, by sheer force of bad habit, were again back at the old game and were in fact
930
assisting the aggressor of the past, the aggressor of the future, to evade the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles.
At that time, too, the Kaiser took refuge with the Dutch, who refused to disgorge him, and the eyes of the world were upon us to see whether we should stand firm. We did not stand firm, as your Lordships are well aware. But the reason for the concession on our part, as I well know, because I saw that from the inside, was far less any real consideration for the theories of neutrality than the fact that we were war-weary, rather spineless, and we wished to wash our hands. We said—I often heard it said at the time—"Well, perhaps it is just as well, because it would really have been rather embarrassing to try him." Then there came the second world war and the chameleon took another turn, took another step along the road, if I may quote Grotius again, towards strengthening the side with the unjust cause. To quote the words of the Prime Minister, Eire rendered substantial disservice to the Allied cause; or, if you prefer the dispassion of an international jurist here it is:
"In the present war the Allies have respected the neutrality of Eire although it has been wholly favourable to their enemies."
And he goes on with a second censure:
"It could not be tolerated that any State which had agreed to enter the system, even with limited obligations, should supply, or allow its nationals to supply, an aggressor with the kind of assistance that neutral Swiss factories have been affording to the aggressor in this war."
From what I have seen in the Press it would appear that the United States Government have arrived at somewhat the same conclusion.
But of course these censures do not apply only to these cases—and I say this without any rancour or recrimination: the past is the past but we have got to have regard to the past if we are to form and found a sane future—these censures apply to all the neutrals. Our very Allies, Turkey and Portugal, supplied our enemies with vital war material. The Swedes did the same and even allowed the passage of German troops. For that matter, the Turks also allowed the passage of German warships. Spain not only afforded support, moral and material, to our enemies, but actually sent troops to fight our Allies. The

931
Governments of Eire and Argentina must certainly bear some responsibility for the loss of life among our merchant seamen by the fact of having maintained, in the name of neutrality, the spy nests disguised as Axis Legations. Never has such a medley of dereliction been collected in one threadbare doctrine. The neutrals, with their own hands, have very largely destroyed the ancient edifice, and if we are going to rebuild it nearer to our hearts' desire, that building must certainly not contain any room or even an attic which would shelter Axis war criminals. We can never again run the risk or court the certainty of a third world conflagration by letting the guilty live, intrigue and prepare in the safe refuge of countries that have not shared our sufferings, and in the light of this hard reality the claim of the Government of Eire, or any other neutral, that the right is not in dispute, or that it can be exercised in the name of charity or any other noun, simply disappears, in my submission. The interests of mankind still have a priority over any changing paper theories.
It is perfectly true that many of the neutrals have given assurances in this respect, but in assessing the value of those assurances we have to remember that a good part of the loot is already there. Apart from personal loot, a whole network of device and entanglement has been built up to conceal industrial theft, and on the purely personal side there has also been dereliction. I personally have the names of certain, as I think, very sinister Germans who have been getting out lately with false passports, and I happen to know not only the names on those passports but the identity of the creatures that they conceal. I suggest to your Lordships that that fact alone shows that we are in effect at the cross-roads. If we are going to admit any neutral right in this particular sphere, these men and others like them will use neutral countries as cover and bases for organizing sabotage, political assassination and subversive activities, not only in Germany but elsewhere, and they will also use those countries as bases for the organization of a new German war potential.
On that point I would like your Lordships, if you will, to listen to the very uncomfortable words of so high an authority as Mr. Sumner Welles. He writes:
932
"The majority of the agents of the German General Staff are being trained to appear as men of large commercial or financial interests who will be able to dispose of considerable amounts of capital derived from the reserve which the German General Staff has already, during the past years, deposited under one guise or another in neutral countries."
Now, we shall be wanting not only the German General Staff but the agents of the German General Staff. These are the men who have prepared two world wars; they are the worst of the war criminals, and if we are not prepared to be stern and explicit at this stage we shall find them, as I have already indicated, quoting the concrete cases, slipping through our fingers. There is another, perhaps even more urgent, illustration. I happen also to know the names of a good few of the worst of the Gestapo butchers and torturers in Norway. That country is being, I believe, denuded to bolster up the failing Fatherland, and when that process of denudation has gone a little further it is most highly improbable 'that those creatures will go back to the Fatherland. They also have their false papers ready, and unless we make our position very clear they will be slipping across the border into Sweden and will be lost to us. That surely we are not prepared to contemplate, and that is why I said earlier on that we are in fact, at the cross-roads.
Now I would like to quote, as a further reason for some doubt in assessing the value of these assurances, an extract from one of the many reports of a Sub-Committee of the United States Senate, which runs as follows:
"The Germans have made careful preparation to continue and rebuild their industrial domination as a preparation for another war. When the German guns are silenced in Europe, the principal German industrial combines plan renewed activity from bases in the Argentine. There are plain indications that the Nazis have planned to use Argentina as an industrial base of operations in the Western Hemisphere."
The Senate Sub-Committee's report continues:
"Members of the Thyssen family are now established in the Argentine. German interests have been placed at the heart of the country's economy. In all a dozen Thyssen representatives have been acting as technical advisers to the Government of Argentina."
That is all an extract from the report of a Sub-Committee of the United States Senate. And I ask myself—I do not ask the Government because I want to give

933
the reply myself—what value, what confidence can be reposed in the promises of countries already riddled with German penetration, in some cases enjoying a near-Nazi régime and in others having already broken their word? And I give my answer. I think it is this: that we ourselves must be prepared to reinforce those assurances or, where we have not received assurances, to reinforce our requirements, by suasion if possible and by more direct measures if necessary.
In contemplating those measures, I submit to this House that we need not feel ourselves to be handicapped by any of the old conceptions—although to-day I am speaking on bile issue and one issue only—by old conceptions which have been very largely, as I have shown to you today I hope, self-slain. At the Moscow Conference the three great Allies pledged themselves to pursue the war criminals to the uttermost ends of the earth. Those were the words used, and I submit to you that if words have any meaning, and we are not to be mocked again, those words mean acquiescence in the Motion I have brought before this House to-day, and I think an explicit declaration in that sense may save a lot of trouble later on. In our contemplations and actions we must be guided by one clear fact. It is this. The Germans are not only cannon fodder, they are war material when deliberately exported, and exports of German war material must be as strictly controlled as imports of German key war materials like copper and nickel. On that latter phase I think we are all agreed. I submit we should also be agreed on the former.
If your Lordships will be so good as to cast your minds back over what has actually happened during our lifetime, I think you will see that these points emerge very clearly. Firstly, as admitted by the Government of Eire, these neutral rights repose on no fixed foundation; secondly, that in the course of this century those rights have been distorted beyond recognition; thirdly, that this distortion is due —and I want to lay special emphasis on this point because to my mind it is the explanation of the whole business—to the fact that Germany has been allowed to start both these world conflagrations with an overwhelming initial preponderance of force; fourthly, that has, in consequence, driven the neutrals, or some of them at least, to consider that their
934
interests—not their rights, their interests—entitled them to strengthen the side of the unjust cause, to strengthen the aggressor until he became clearly the loser; fifthly, this rather sorry tale points in my mind to the necessity of a redefinition of neutral rights.
I am only speaking about one of them, one that has been claimed to-day, but I think it highly probable that at the peace settlement that redefinition will have to take place, although I personally have not yet abandoned the hope that we may at least enter the promised land where there will be no more neutrals. In any case I am sure that this time at least sufficient measures will be taken to make it impossible for the aggressor ever again to start with that initial preponderance of force and in those circumstances it may be that less need or emphasis will be laid on neutral rights as a whole. In the last war M. Clemenceau said war was too serious a thing to leave to soldiers—to my mind a highly contentious proposition. But I think that most of us will be agreed that one of the most vital things that belong unto our peace is too serious to be left to neutrals. We are on the eve, I hope, of a new world. We are already on the threshold and those who think as I do wish to cross that threshold un-trammelled by any obsolete fiction. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That "the rights of neutrality" do not extend to the granting of asylum to Axis war criminals.—[Lord Vansittart.)
2.34 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I wish I could say that I think the Motion of my noble friend is, as he thought in his first sentence, well-timed, but I do not think so, and I must briefly put the matter before the House and ask your Lordships to consider one or two reflections which find no place in my noble friend's speech. He began by saying that there was no right of asylum and that nobody was qualified for asylum, and so far every sensible and well instructed man will agree with him. The circumstance that a fugitive, whatever his past record, tries to enter a country other than his own gives that individual no right whatever to be admitted. The right does not attach to the fugitive at all and I am not aware of any competent person who suggests that it does. So we may get

935
rid of any idea of that sort. But a wholly different question arises in the case of a sovereign State—and I suppose the neutrals are sovereign States; Switzerland, for instance, is a sovereign State—when the matter that is raised is whether the sovereign State can be compelled to surrender any portion of its sovereignty. Hitherto at any rate it has been part of the sovereignty of a sovereign State that it might receive, and it might refuse to give up, a foreign fugitive. In times past that claim has been made by this country, when it has chosen to receive men whose record we thought was a record of courage and of true patriotism, in spite of all the knocking at our gates by other Powers to compel us to surrender those who had come here.
I must say that I am surprised that my noble friend with his long and close acquaintance with these matters and his lifelong connexion and training, should really come forward and move, as though by a Motion of this House you could somehow alter International Law, that rights of neutrality did not extend to the granting of asylum to Axis war criminals. I hope my noble friend will forgive me for saying that I think he has adopted the very worst means of securing the object which we all have at heart. I cannot imagine a worse way of persuading Irishmen that they have no right to admit a crime-stained fugitive than by shouting at them that the British House of Parliament, or one House of Parliament, has resolved that they have no right. I cannot imagine a situation which is less likely to produce the result desired.
What in practice happens is this. Nobody knows much better than my noble friend, but I must remind the House of it. I claim that what the Government have done in this matter is perfectly right and we have every reason to think it will be effective. Twice over we have had debates in this House already—elaborate debates—on the subject. Twice over the attitude of this country has been explained. We have not proceeded by the method of informing neutrals that they have not got any rights. That is what Hitler did. He told a lot of neighbours they had no rights and he proceeded to act accordingly. We have not told these neutrals they have got no rights. What we have told them is this. We have said, to give asylum or refuge
936
to these crime-stained scoundrels would not only be utterly opposed to our notions as to how we all may make our contribution towards building up a better world, but it would be a course of action utterly opposed to the whole purpose of those who have had to fight to establish liberty, your liberty and ours, that having preserved your liberty you should take so deplorable a course. That has been done not only by this country. It has been done in the United States by messages from President Roosevelt. It is not by a method of writing down a resolution which denies one of the matters which has hitherto been one of the attributes of national sovereignty, that you will build up a sense of reason and wise policy in neutral countries; it is not by that method that the results will be secured which we all whole-heartedly intend by every means legitimately in our power to achieve.
Let me remind your Lordships a little more in detail of what has been done, because it is not a new subject to the Government at all. First of all, in the summer of 1943 as the result of developments which were then very rapidly producing their effect in Italy, the Allies undertook communications to the neutral States on this subject. We were specially concerned—I think everybody was concerned—lest Mussolini and others who shared guilt with him might attempt to take refuge in some neutral country. We did not put our appeal on some assertion of legal right, which would at once have raised a controversy between all the international authorities in the world, and which I must say, from such small knowledge as I have on the subject, might very likely have turned out to be a not very good argument. What we did was to publish this statement to all the neutrals involved. I am reading the actual words:
"In view of developments in Italy and the possibility that Mussolini and other prominent Fascists and persons guilty of war crimes may attempt to take refuge in neutral territory, His Majesty's Government feel obliged to call upon all neutral countries to refuse asylum to any such persons and to declare that they will regard any shelter, assistance or protection given to such persons as a violation of the principles for which the United Nations are fighting and which they are determined to carry into effect by every means in their power."
It would ill-become me to bandy words with the noble Lord as to the preferable methods of diplomacy, but I must say

937
I should have thought that that method of presenting the plain situation to the neutrals was a good deal to be preferred to the Resolution which he has put upon the Paper. The United States, at the same time, made parallel representations. The authority of the United States goes with that document addressed to neutrals. The Soviet Government also addressed such neutral countries as were proper, those with which they had relations. I do appeal to the good sense of your Lordships' House that that is the proper way in which to present this most urgent demand to neutrals, and that it is not the proper way first of all to write down something as though it was the law of nations which is not the law of nations at all, and secondly, to deal with neutrals as though they were not sovereign Sates.
That was what happened in 1943 more particularly, as I have said, in reference to events then going on in Italy. But further communications between the Allies and further reflection made it necessary to consider whether a wider communication ought not to be made, not in reference to Italy but of a much more general character and indeed more largely referring to Germany and, I suppose, to Japan. In the summer of 1944–I think the actual occasion was in connexion with events then happening in France—the United States Government took the first step in this matter, a step in which we immediately concurred. The United States Government deemed it advisable to make further representations at Berne, at Madrid—my noble friend Viscount Templewood will remember when he received the intimation—at Lisbon, at Stockholm and other places. President Roosevelt made, first of all in Washington, a public statement of the firmest character on this very subject. That statement having been made in Washington, the American Government proceeded to transmit it to the neutral Governments at the places I have mentioned.
The substance of it was this. The President declared that it was difficult to believe that asylum or protection to any such persons would be given by any neutral countries, and that the United States Government would consider the harbouring of any of the Axis leaders or their henchmen by a neutral Government as contrary to those principles for which the peoples of the United Nations were
938
waging war. We proceeded gladly to adopt and countersign that declaration. It lies in the Foreign Office of every neutral in the world and I apprehend that it is not likely to be overlooked. The results were by no mean discouraging. The declaration did not call for any answer—it was not in the form of a communication which invited a reply, any more than was our declaration of the previous year—but none the less neutrals lost no time in assuring us of their own intentions. One of the neutrals, I think, pointed out that this trenched very nearly upon their rights of sovereignty, but your Lordships will appreciate that it does not do so because it is not denying to them their sovereignty; it is saying what we and the Allies, who had fought and suffered in this war, expect of them as good members of the human society. It was in that spirit that the neutrals replied.
I will give one or two examples. Portugal, in a note handed to His Majesty's Ambassador in Lisbon by the Secretary-General of the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said:
"The Portuguese Government has no hesitation in affirming that it will not, by granting asylum in its territory, permit war criminals to escape the decision of the national, or international, tribunals competent to try them."
Spain, my noble friend Viscount Temple-wood will remember, communicated with us, and His Majesty's Ambassador received an assurance that it was not the intention of the Spanish Government to provide asylum for war criminals in Spain. Then Sweden. At a meeting of the Riksdag, the Legislature, the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs said:
"It must not be concluded from our generous policy towards refugees that Sweden is also open or will offer asylum to persons who have defied the conscience of the civilized world."
Next the Argentine. In a memorandum of the Secretary of State, which was handed in by the Argentine Ambassador, it was stated:
"Firstly, in no event will persons accused of war crimes he allowed into Argentine territory. Secondly, neither will they be allowed, to create capital deposits or acquire property of any kind."
That communication is not novel to the House. In a speech on this subject which I made some time ago I quoted it as an example of what might be clone by our

939
method of treatment. Then there is the case of Switzerland. Switzerland is entitled to regard itself as a sovereign State, and I do not think that we shall ultimately promote the unity and happiness of mankind if we claim that it is only we who have been fighting who are entitled to decide these matters. In a written reply, dated November II, to a councillor in the Swiss Federal Council, the Government said:
"It is clear, in particular, that asylum could not be granted to persons…who have committed acts contrary to the laws of war and whose past conduct reveals them as possessing notions irreconcilable with the basic traditions of law and humanity."
My noble friend, very naturally, in a great part of his speech, dealt with the case of Eire. It is an unhappy case. Eire received the same communication, and they first asserted that as they understood it the right to grant asylum is not in question. But they went on to say that it had been "the uniform practice of the Eire Government to deny admission to all aliens whose presence would be at variance with the policy of neutrality, or detrimental to the interests of the Irish people." In these circumstances the Dominions Office thought it was right to send a reply to the Eire Government which your Lordships may be interested to hear read. This phrase "detrimental to the interests of the Irish people" was a striking phrase, and therefore the United Kingdom Government replied by saying that, for their part, they would wish to make it clear to the Eire Government that it would certainly, in the words used by the Eire Government, "be detrimental to the interests of the Irish people" were war criminals to be harboured in Eire. That seems to me a very proper retort to the communication which we received.
This is a question which is not to be decided in heat or passion at all. The question is whether the methods which are thus followed by the British Government in this matter are all wrong, half-hearted, namby-pamby and milk and water, and whether in place of them your Lordships should adopt unilaterally this bold Resolution which I should think would cause all the International Law books in the world to he rewritten, and therefore give some comfort to some people, but which, in my humble opinion, would be a most unwise way in which to proceed. You do
940
not get the result you want always by announcing that you are the person with the big stick, and that you are going to have your way whether it is right or not. And you certainly do not get it by passing resolutions, pious or otherwise, which, in themselves, have no result at all. I am convinced—and I hope that I have convinced your Lordships by what I have said—that the proper and wise way to behave is not to deny that neutrals have rights—though it would be a most extreme and fantastic exercise of them if they treated these criminal emigrants as an acceptable addition to their population. That is not the way to do it.
Surely according to the best dictates of diplomacy—that great science which my noble friend Lord Vansittart has for so many years practised and expounded—the right thing is to say to these neutrals, as we have in fact said: "You people are standing by while we have bled and suffered and fought and endured tortures, in order to rescue liberty for the world. You will enjoy the fruits of these efforts although you have never bled or suffered. If you feel that you are a member of this new community which we hope will result in producing a better world, well then, behave as such, behave as a member of the club, for he sure that if you do not you will be acting in a manner contrary to the whole objects which we have had in view in fighting this war. You will get no good out of it; nothing but trouble and, it may be, disaster." That is the language which should be used in these communications to the neutrals, and I appeal to your Lordships, exercising, as we always do in this House, perfectly free and unfettered judgment, to say whether that course, taken by His Majesty's Government, is not really wise and politic.
I regret very much if I seem to be critical of so old and valued a friend as the noble Lord, but he will see that he puts me, and puts us all, in rather a difficulty. What is to happen to this Motion now on the Paper? Should it be carried? I think it inconceivable that we should carry a Motion which contradicts the whole method of President Roosevelt and of all our Allies. It raises, to say the least, a most dubious proposition of International Law, and it provokes these very neutrals into asserting that, small as they are, unimportant as they are, they, too, have their rights

941
of sovereignty. It seems to me that that would be a very unhappy result of this afternoon's excursion. Are we to reject the Motion? For my part, I am most unwilling to go and register a clean negative that may almost seem to be encouraging them to do the very thing which no roan in this House, for one single moment, wishes them to do. There really is, if my noble friend will forgive me for saying SD, only one course which can be wisely taken here, and that is that he should ask leave of the House to withdraw the Motion. We are grateful always for the illumination he brings and for the brilliant speeches he contributes to our debates. But this thing is a mistake, and I hope very much that—if only as a matter of responding to a personal appeal —my noble friend will think it right, whatever his immediate feelings may be, to withdraw the Motion.
3 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, it is difficult indeed for me and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to argue this question at any length, because we start from diametrically opposed standpoints. He has argued the matter mainly from the legal and theoretical point of view; I have confined myself strictly to the practical point of view. I think that the argument need not be prolonged. He says, if I understand him rightly, that we are going into the new world with the old conceptions and (as I consider them) the old handicaps. Unless I misunderstood him, he seemed to think that I was attacking neutral rights as a whole, whereas I confined myself very explicitly to denying this particular one in, as I said, a radically altered world.
This is a point on which millions of people feel very deeply indeed. We do not feel that words alone will suffice. The noble and learned Viscount talked about the reprimand which would be administered to any member of the new club if he misbehaved. I think that I showed in my speech that some members of what was the new club after the last war did not behave too well. I omitted to mention that some of them did not even pay their subscriptions. I do not think that we can pin all our hopes to that. This is a vitally serious matter. I should like to point out that I showed in my speech that abuses are already taking place. I do not know what action the Government contemplate to meet those abuses, and I carefully
942
refrained from asking that; but I emphasize again that they are taking place. I would venture to ask—though I expect no answer—what the Allied Governments meant by saying that they would pursue the war criminals to the uttermost ends of the earth, if the interpretation which we have heard to-day is the right one. Does that mean that they will sit at home and send a few notes and expect the goods to be delivered? I maintain that if we once admit this particular right in this radically altered world it will be abused; and signs of abuse have already been manifest.
The noble and learned Viscount suggested that I should withdraw my Resolution. I have in this House, I think, withdrawn almost every Motion that I have ever brought forward, but in this case I do not see my way to do so. This is a subject on which too many of ifs feel too deeply for me to do that. In order to meet the convenience of the Government —and this is as far as I can possibly go in this vital matter—I am prepared to leave my Resolution on the Paper. I shall not withdraw it. I am prepared to leave it where it stands to-day, and, if I get any further evidence of abuse, I shall come to this House again and take up the matter where I left it and divide the House. To-day I shall refrain from doing that.
3.4 P.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I think that the course which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, suggests will not be congenial to the general body of the House, nor do I quite understand how such a course can be taken. He could move that this debate be now adjourned, and, if the House agreed to that, the subject could be discussed on another day; but that the debate should come to an end without any decision of any kind in any direction, and that the matter should be left in the air, is, I think, not possible according to the rules of this House. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor appears to have given conclusive reasons for the inadvisability of passing this Resolution, and reasons also why it would be very inconvenient to allow it to be voted against and negatived. In these circumstances I would appeal to the noble Lord not to press his Resolution now, or to endeavour to deal with it in the manner which he suggests. If he does so, I think it probable that the House would prefer

943
to pass a Motion for the previous question, which I believe is in accordance with the rules of this House, although a course which has been very seldom used of recent years. Perhaps the noble Lord, on reconsideration, will not put the House to the inconvenience and disability of being compelled to adopt that course.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, in answer to the noble Viscount, I should like to say that I am ready to adopt any course convenient to the House short of withdrawing my Resolution. If it will suit the House better for the debate to be adjourned, I am prepared to agree to that course.
NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD VANSITTART: If the House prefers to negative the Resolution, that must be done.
3.6 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I hardly think it would be in accordance with the wish of the House that this debate should be merely adjourned. There are only two good reasons for adjourning a debate: either that time does not permit it to be finished, or that the House requires more information to enable it to be finished. Neither of these reasons is present in our discussion to-day. I deeply regret the action of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, whom I have always regarded with very great respect as an experienced diplomat, but I do not think that on this occasion he has shown the same experience of our Parliamentary system. The whole Resolution is ill-framed. He asks your Lordships unilaterally, without consultation with our Allies, without consideration of the effect on neutrals, on the Motion of a private member to pass a Resolution the result of which would be fundamentally to alter the ordinary course of International Law. I really do not think that the noble Lord can expect the House to take action of that kind. If he insists on pressing his Resolution to a Division it will have to go to a Division, and I hope that your Lordships will show in no uncertain manner what you feel about this procedure.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, if there is no middle course between this
944
Resolution going to a Division and my withdrawing it, I shall feel myself compelled to ask leave to withdraw it. I leave myself in the hands of the House on that point.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

RELIEF AND REPATRIATION PROBLEMS.
3.8 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the position of displaced and Stateless persons on the Continent of Europe; and to move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this is not a subject into which one can introduce any particular degree of glamour or exhilaration. It is a vast, complex, sombre and intractable problem, and, although it may not be the direct concern of this country, at the same time it affects so many Continental countries that no real stability can be restored to Europe until it has been at least substantially solved. I confess to some astonishment at the apparent failure of the Press and public, and I am inclined to add of Parliament itself, to appreciate either the immensity or the immediacy of this topic. The displaced persons referred to in this Motion are, of course, those who for different reasons or under different degrees of compulsion have been uprooted by the Germans from their homes and deported to other regions of their own countries, or to other German-occupied countries, or to the interior of the Reich itself.
The great majority of these people have been used as an almost bottomless reservoir of slave labour dedicated to the maintenance of the German war machine, either as members of the gigantic Todt organization, a vast labour service which has almost the proportions of an army itself, or as workers in the fields, factories, mines and forests producing materials of war. And side by side with that tremendous productivity there has been taking shape Hitler's New Order. The German leaves nothing to chance, and little to choice. His policy has been so to parcel out industry and agriculture that no country shall under either of those heads be self-sufficient but that all shall be inter-dependent upon

945
each other, and at the same time subservient to the Reich itself. The implementing of that policy has, of course, required the wide distribution of labour, and these slaves, as they substantially are, have been herded like cattle from place to-place, as circumstances required and as labour shortage in any particular area or any particular industry prevailed.
At the same time, when the lay-out of industry was being devised, or the attentions of the Royal Air Force became too pressing, and it was decided to shift a factory from, say, Northern France to the once relative security of Czechoslovakia, it has been the practice that when that factory moved it should move accompanied by its entire directing staff and workers—taken up lock, stock and barrel, and deposited in its new home. Repeat that process a few hundred times, add to those slave workers civilian prisoners, persons in concentration camps, hostages, war fugitives, and the countless thousands who have been evicted from their homes in border lands, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and Alsace, in order to make way for Nazi lords of creation to be installed as Wardens of the Marches of the Reich, and you have a very presentable imitation of the reign of chaos.
It is surely no extravagant conjecture that the German leaders, while planning the economic vassalage of Europe in the event of their victory, should at the same time have calculated that in the event of their defeat they would, by the use of these methods, leave behind them such a legacy of turmoil and travail for their conquerors as to frustrate for a long period of time their efforts to restore tranquillity to the liberated lands. According to an official estimate by the Allied Governments these conditions of organized deliberate upheaval affect something between 20,000,000 and 30,000,000 persons in Germany and German-occupied countries of Europe; and those 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 have to be identified, collected, sorted, fed, clothed and ultimately transported back to their homes—or what is left of them. For it is only too likely that in many cases there will be nothing and nobody to welcome and cherish them on their arrival, and that they will have to depend upon such relief as can be afforded them in food, shelter and clothing until the gradual and
946
painful process of their rehabilitation can begin.
It is clearly the first essential that turn to their countries of these people shall not proceed according to their own devices and impulses, but that it shall be systematically controlled along carefully prepared lines; otherwise, the roads of Europe will be strewn with millions of desperate, exhausted, sick and starving people, and the hideous anarchy of the end of the Thirty Years' War will be re-enacted on an incomparably greater scale before our own eyes. But the mere mechanics of the undertaking are prodigious. It has been estimated that to transport home no more than the 1,800,000 Frenchmen believed to be still captive in Germany, would require no fewer than twenty-four trains a day for a period of ninety days, or some 2,160 trains in all. And they, after all, are only one-fifteenth part of the total, and concentrated in one country have to be moved to a neighbouring country; the rest, scattered over the face of Europe, require to be conveyed at a moment when railway lines are torn up, railway bridges destroyed, railway stations obliterated, and locomotives and rolling stock at a fantastic premium. The disease demands urgent remedy, for these people will be pining to get back to their own homes, and the process of their physical, moral and economic rehabilitation cannot begin until they are back in their own surroundings.
Moreover, impatient and resentful of delay, they may well prove a disturbing element in the country in which they are found, to which, after all, they represent no more than additional mouths to be fed at a time of acute dearth. Incidentally, if there is to be delay it is greatly to be hoped that every effort will be made to find them on the spot some work of however transient a character, in order that they may be kept employed in the interval, and not left with twenty-four hours out of the twenty-four in which to brood and fret over their fate. That, I believe, to be of immense importance. There is the further consideration that the countries of Europe will be anxious to reestablish their own economic life, and for that purpose to reassemble at the earliest moment their scattered nationals in order that they may make the fullest use of such resources as remain to them.
There is the problem in outline, one of infinite ramifications, humanitarian,

947
social, economic and administrative; and so far not a great deal has been heard of steps taken and measures devised to solve the difficulties. Presumably, as in the case of relief, the first approach to the problem will come from the military authorities, whose task it will be to initiate action at least for the assembling and accommodating of these people, pending further developments. In the next stage—always assuming that it receives the necessary formal invitation—U.N.R.R.A. is supposed to come upon the scene. The only authority in actual possession and control of quantities of transport, supplies, medical stores; the only authority in actual control of manpower for the building of huts; the only authority in control of movement personnel, traffic control and police, is the military authorities; and if this problem is going to he effectually and speedily solved, I hope that, always provided that it shall not delay the demobilization of the Army, the putting into operation of such plans as there may be for the repatriation of these people will be left for the longest possible time in the hands of the Army, if these persons are to have any hope of being got back to their destinations.
In the recent debate on the war situation, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House assured us that it was not lack of administrative personnel that was hampering U.N.R.R.A.'s activities but lack of transport. If transport was insufficient even for the needs of relief, how are these unfortunate people to be got home? And if man-power was adequate for the distribution of relief, is the noble Viscount equally in a position to assure us that the man-power at U.N.R.R.A.'s disposal is sufficient to cope both with the problem of relief and with the problem of repatriation as well? For U.N.R.R.A., after all, once it has been invited, is charged with a three-fold problem: first, the provision of relief in the countries where the people are found; secondly, the task of transporting them home; and thirdly, the task of maintaining them in conditions of relief when they have arrived at their destination.
Here again, as in the case of relief which we discussed not long ago, there is this strange situation: that U.N.R.R.A., although it is not a private charitable organization but a great inter-govern
948
mental agency, cannot come into a country unless it has been invited so to do by the Government concerned. At the Montreal Conference, held in September last, the Director-General of U.N.R.R.A., in his speech to the delegates, said this:
"Progress has been made towards the definition of the functions which the administration "—
that is U.N.R.R.A.'s administration—
"is to perform in handling the displaced persons found in each liberated country."
"Progress has been made towards the definition "—it does not somehow give a ring of great expeditiousness. He goes on to say that preliminary to such individual agreements a Multilateral Agreement between the United Nations has been devised and he adds that it is to be hoped that this agreement can soon be signed by the Governments concerned. It would be interesting to hear from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House how many countries in the interval since September have entered into definitive agreements of the sort referred to with the administration of U.N.R.R.A., and also how many signatures have been obtained of Governments to the Multilateral Agreement to which apparently the Director-General attached so much importance. It is fundamental to the solution of this grim and baffling problem that agreement should be properly and widely arrived at. One cannot avoid a suspicion that the matter is still hanging fire.
On the aspect of repatriation, two other queries arise. How is nationality to be decided? There will be amongst these persons large numbers possessing no documents at all. Others will be in possession of false documents, in which there has been an enormous trade in Europe under the German occupation. I understand the present project to be that each country concerned shall be called upon to admit a repatriation officer from each other country concerned, in order to examine the credentials of those claiming to be its nationals. I cannot feel any particular affection for the idea of that corps of itinerant inquisitors, who are apparently to be charged with the power of rejecting a man's claim to nationality because they dislike his face or his necktie or his accent, and condemning him thereby to permanent exile. Surely there should be some appeal against such rough injustice, or, better still, the original

949
investigation should not be carried out by one individual but by a tribunal of three, one drawn from We country in which the man is found, one from the country of which he claims to be a national, and the third from a neutral country to preside. Only in that way can the individual hope for adequate protection.
The other question concerns those people who are of settled residence in a country but at the same time not of its actual nationality, although they may have lived there for many years and carried on their business there. To what country are those people to be repatriated —to the country of which they are settled residents or to the country of their former nationality? And if to the country of their settled residence, have those countries agreed to take them back? If there is an agreement of that kind, what for this purpose constitutes "settled residence" as distinct from "temporary sojourn"?
I have not yet exhausted all the bodies who are concerned in these various operations. There is still another which comes in, although no doubt on a more limited scale. I assume for this purpose that the principle is accepted that there shall be no repatriation of any individual against his will. If that principle be agreed, then there remains a residue of non-repatriables, responsibility for whom I understand to be vested in the Inter-Governmental Committee for Refugees. It is the task of that Committee to provide for the ultimate destination of these persons, and from my own experience of similar problems in the years before the war it is no light or enviable task. The relation between U.N.R.R.A. and the Inter-Governmental Committee I understand to be this: that it is U.N.R.R.A.'s task to look after these persons for what is called a reasonable time and then hand them over to the Inter-Governmental Committee when the final arrangements are made. What, for a purpose of that kind, is a reasonable time, and who is to decide in a particular case whether or not a reasonable time has elapsed? If U.N.R.R.A. contends that it has performed its function for a reasonable time, and that contention is upheld, and at the same time the Inter-Governmental Committee is not yet ready to take over, whose is the responsibility for these unfortunates during We interregnum? Considering all these various bodies involved
950
one is driven to the conclusion that too many cooks with too ill-defined spheres of influence have been engaged to spoil this particular broth, and while they are discussing between themselves which recipe to follow or responsibility for the preparation of the separate ingredients, the broth itself will probably have taken the initiative and incontinently boiled over.
As regards Stateless persons, those who upon racial, religious or political grounds have been deprived of their former citizenship by Germany or her satellites, I have only two questions to ask. So far as is known have those persons been given any effective papers of identification in place of those which have been removed from them? The second question is this: Is it the intention to extend to them the benefits of the Nansen scheme or some similar scheme so that they shall not live the rest of their lives as hunted wraiths without any recognized existence in the world? Again, at Montreal the Minister of State who represented Great Britain committed himself to an admission which is both startlingly frank and frankly startling. What he said was this:
"Apart from the question of supplies, there are one or two other practical matters which I think the Council ought to come to some decision upon before we leave Montreal. First of all there is the question of displaced persons. I think in general we have not realized until quite lately how extremely important that question is. In fact, if U.N.R.R.A. is able to organize the repatriation of those millions of unfortunate beings. U.N.R.R.A. with that alone will have done a job which justified its existence. As I say, there are practical decisions which have to be taken by this Council meeting if U.N.R.R.A. is going to be able to do that job, and I hope when those questions come up for decision we shall be able to act rightly and with decisive permanence."
A NOBLE LORD: Who said that?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Mr. Law, Minister of State. So far as I can ascertain the decisive permanence for which the Minister of State was hoping took the form of the passing of one additional resolution which extended the sphere of U.N.R.R.A.'s operations to include enemy and ex-enemy countries—no doubt a right decision, but one which very gravely added to the already burdensome weight upon U.N.R.R.A.'s shoulders, and at the same time emphasized the necessity for definite and detailed plans in preference to nebulous benevolence. Resolu-

951
tions may be such stuff as schemes are made of, but they do not put clothes on men's backs or food into their mouths or a roof over their heads or warmth into their bones or provide transport to carry them home. When the U.N.R.R.A. conference took place this war had been going on for five years and it had long been abundantly and increasingly apparent what the problem was, what the immense scale and complexity of it was and how necessary it was that plans should be made for its solution.
I have put this Motion down in the hope of eliciting from the Government how far even now they and other member Governments of U.N.R.R.A. have awakened to the urgency of this problem; how far plans really exist in any concrete form for dealing with the situation; and how far we are expected to take seriously their support of U.N.R.R.A. when for a period of six months the vital post of Deputy Director-General of U.N.R.R.A., rendered vacant by the resignation of Sir Arthur Salter, has never been filled. A problem of this size cannot be tackled by last-moment inspirations or piecemeal palliatives. I believe, and I hope that your Lordships in general and His Majesty's Government in particular will share the belief, that unless plans to meet this situation have been carefully preconcerted, ready to be put into operation swiftly and effectually when the moment comes, the seeds of peace in Europe will have been planted in sterile and infected soil. I beg to move.
3.38 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure I speak for the whole of your Lordships in saying that we are grateful to the noble Marquess for drawing attention to a question of such tremendous importance and indeed urgency. I only hope his words be passed on by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to his colleagues in the Government who are more directly responsible for this state of affairs. It is of course not only a British responsibility or even a British Empire responsibility. This is a matter affecting the whole of the United Nations and above all of course the three principal Powers. The noble Marquess referred to the Nansen scheme after the last war. I share with him a great
952
admiration for the late Dr. Nansen, with whom I had a long friendship. I suppose no man did more for suffering humanity in those years immediately after the last war than that great Norwegian. The noble Marquess referred to the question of people who have lost documents of identity and so on. The failure in this respect that followed the last war was due to the fact that the States concerned did not recognize the Nansen scheme and the Governments concerned did not play the game in regard to it.
The noble Marquess has dealt with a matter which will become urgent in the near future. A great deal of the problem cannot be tackled until the fighting of the major battles has ceased on the Continent of Europe, but I hope that when that moment comes there will be a complete change of attitude towards this question. I can best describe perhaps what I am hoping will happen by relating to your Lordships a conversation I had with a survivor from the troop ship "Arandora Star," which was torpedoed in mid-Atlantic when carrying German and Italian prisoners of war to Canada. Before the ship was torpedoed there were on board Italian prisoners and German prisoners who had looked on each other with hostility, and the Italians were divided into Fascists and Anti-Fascists. There were also on board British guards and British seamen. Five minutes after that ship had sunk and when the survivors were struggling in the water all distinction of nationality was lost; they were all helping each other to survive, to live. I hope that when the main battles end in Europe a similar spirit will actuate all the nations concerned. This frightful problem will have to be dealt with drastically and urgently. With all respect to the noble Marquess I hope it will not be dealt with by such people as Mr. Ernest Brown.
I propose to deal only with a section of this very large problem and to refer in a few words to the position of the refugees, mostly Jewish, in the Balkans and in other countries. Those countries have been liberated either by the Russians or our own Armies or by partisans, and the problem is immediately before us. The noble Marquess said that some 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 people were concerned. The majority of them will not have countries to go back to. The trouble is that the majority of the refugees in the Balkans come from Hungary and

953
Germany and cannot go back. I imagine that very few of the Jews surviving from Hitler's persecution have any wish to go back to Germany. Many of them are survivors of the original Jewish communities in the satellite countries; for example, Rumania and Bulgaria. It would be very difficult for them to be absorbed in those countries where they are now refugees.
According to my information at least 80 per cent. of them are willing and anxious to go to Palestine and arrangements have been made in Palestine to house them and find employment for them. Accordingly, the difficulties occasioned by problems of work and houses and the slowness of the military do not arise. About 700,000 are affected and that number will increase. Employment is waiting for them and houses are waiting for them. When they get to Palestine a number of them, the fit young men, will be eligible and, I am sure, willing to join His Majesty's Forces. We shall need manpower in Europe for some considerable time and of course there is the Eastern war to be taken into account as well. If these people reach Palestine the younger men at any rate can be recruited for Jewish brigades. In the neutral States and the States outside our sphere of influence —I apologize to the noble Viscount for the term because I know he will deny we have spheres of influence—we might have difficulty in recruiting these men for the Forces, but when once they get to Palestine there will be no difficulty. There are 10,000 in Greece, 25,000 in Italy, 310,000 in Rumania and Transylvania, 450,000 in Bulgaria, 180,000 in France, and 22,000 in Belgium. Some of those I have referred to are of course indigenous.
The Vichy Government, under stimulus from the Nazis, deprived the Jews wherever they could of their property, their possessions and their employment, and rendered them almost outlaws. Their places have been taken by French shopkeepers, business men, professional men and so on. The Vichy Government has been displaced but there is difficulty in persuading these little non-Jewish business men, who have taken over businesses and property, to restore them to their original owners. The result is that you have a large Jewish community there, suffering just as much from economic distress as any of those referred to by the noble Marquess. Of refugees in the accepted sense of the word there are 13,000 in
954
Sweden and 26,000 in Switzerland. This problem is not as big as it might have been. There were, in the parts of Europe which came under Axis domination, about 6,000,000 Jews. There are only about 1,000,000 left. One of Hitler's war aims has been nearly achieved. It is unnecessary for me to dwell on the cruelty with which this extermination has been carried out of 5,000,000 people. The whole world is aware of the enormity of the crime.
But how about the surviving million? Most of them are impoverished, homeless, workless, with little prospect of resettlement in the territories where they used to live or in the new territories where they are refugees. Are we going to allow the complete achievement of Hitler's war aim by leaving this million to their fate? Of course we shall not. The British public would not permit it. The trouble is that in the onrush of great events, with the great panorama of history passing before our eyes, these people are forgotten. The newspapers are reduced in size and the B.B.C., as we know, is completely under the Government; so these facts are overlooked, and these people are forgotten. In due course, as the noble Marquess said, U.N.R.R.A. will get to work and provide clothing and food to relieve immediate necessities, or it will be done, as it ought to be done, by the military authorities. But these people will still remain outlaws without an economic niche in the countries where they found refuge. On the other hand, if we allow them to go to Palestine—and the barriers against it are purely artificial—they can be established at once, and the task of U.N.R.R.A. and of the military authorities will be relieved to that extent.
In Rumania alone there are 50,000 candidates for emigration to Palestine and there are 30,000 in Bulgaria. These people are destitute, helpless and homeless. Their only hope is to go to Palestine. They cannot be reabsorbed in the Balkan countries. The present quota of visas to Palestine is 1,500 a month and that is now exhausted. There was an original quota under what was known as the White Paper—the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, will remember that because he was a member of the Cabinet—of 75,000 emigrants to be allowed into Palestine. Those 75,000 permits have now been used up. May I ask the noble Viscount, the Leader

955
of the House—I gave him notice of this, not very long, but some hours—what is proposed to be done now? The 75,000 permits under the 'White Paper issued by Viscount Templewood and his friends, have been used up, and conditions now are entirely different. I think that number would never have been agreed to if it had been known what was going to happen, but the 75,000 have been used up. What is going to happen now?
I am not discussing—for this is not the occasion for it—future policy in regard to Palestine. This is a matter affecting the United Nations. This particular matter of these helpless people is extremely urgent and we must have an immediate policy. This is an administrative matter; it is a matter which would be raised in Committee of Supply in another place. Many obstacles, apart from this very meagre ration of permits of admission to Palestine, have been put in the way of the rescue of fugitives from Nazi oppression. During the last year or two we have had from spokesmen of the Government, particularly from the Foreign Secretary who spoke at times with tears in his voice, heart-rending accounts of what has been going on, and assurances that we would do anything that lay in our power to save these people from Nazi concentration camps and gas chambers. But, in actual practice, many obstacles have been put in the way of their reaching sanctuary. For example, in July, 1943, it was decided that the Jews who escaped from Nazi oppression and who succeeded in reaching Turkey—they managed to get through underground channels from the Balkans—should be granted visas for Palestine. But the Turkish Government was not informed of this until June, 1944; that is to say eleven months later. So eleven months was lost, and I do not know how many people have perished in the interval.
Particularly would I ask the noble Viscount if there is any relaxation proposed in the near future for the orphaned Jewish children. I am sorry to see that the Bench of Bishops has been somewhat depleted since the House first met as I had hoped for strong support from the Church on this particular matter. The Churches in France and Switzerland, of all denominations, have done wonderful work in caring for these Jewish children.
956
I am sure that humanity can be grateful for all time to the religious houses of France for the great and splendid efforts they have made in this cause. There are 15,000 of these children in France, 2,500 in Belgium, 1,000 in Switzerland and large numbers in liberated Poland and other countries. There is an exceptional number of orphaned Jewish children for a special reason. At one time the Nazis in France did not send orphaned Jewish children to the Polish concentration camps and gas chambers, and many hundreds of Jewish mothers committed suicide in order to save their children. What is going to be done about this? There are arrangements made for them to be received, to be taken care of, brought up, educated and made into useful citizens in Palestine. Is the door to remain closed? If so, how is that justified?
As I said, the conditions in which Lord Templewood and his colleagues drew up a temporary policy for Palestine have been completely altered by the events of the last five years. There was not this problem, or any problem of this kind, then. I hope that Lord Templewood when he speaks will support my plea. I hope that I can rely upon his advocacy here, in this most important matter. I fully support, and my noble friends have asked me to say that they do also, Lord Reading's main thesis, but on this particular question I would make a special appeal to the Government to see that these Stateless, homeless Jews who are now living in distress and poverty, particularly in the Balkans, and who will perish if something is not done for them, are allowed to go to the only country where they have a legal right to settle under the Mandate, and that is Palestine. I only hope that my poor arguments will have some result in helping some of these poor people, and that the much more eloquent plea made by the noble Marquess for a change of policy may have its effect.
3.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I am emboldened to make a few observations upon the Resolution, which has been so eloquently moved by the noble Marquess, as the result of certain definite experiences which I have had over a number of years, and particularly in the last four and a half years in Spain. I cannot help remembering that, at the end of the last war, I had the privilege of helping the

957
League of Nations with the settlement of 30,000 refugees in Eastern Europe. Incidentally, my memory of those months does not confirm the criticism made by Lord Strabolgi of the so-called Nansen passport. My experiences may have been exceptional, but I did, at that time, find the Nansen passports invaluable for the refugees with whom I was dealing.
LORD STRAMLGI: If my noble friend had had to travel on one of those passports himself he would have found things very different.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I can only state what my own memory is. Perhaps my noble friend the Earl of Perth, when he speaks, will either confirm or criticize what I have said. Subsequently, when I was at the Home Office I had to deal with the difficult problem of the migration of Jewish refugees from Germany. There, I cannot help regretting the fact that I was not successful in the attempt that I made to settle in this country a great many more Jewish professional men—and particularly Jewish doctors —whose services, I believe, would have been invaluable to the Allied effort at the present time. Then I come to my experiences in Spain. Dealing with refugees and escaped prisoners of war was one of my principal duties. During the time I was at Madrid about 60,000 escaped prisoners of war and refugees crossed the Pyrenees and passed into Spain. It was my responsibility and the responsibility of my Mission to facilitate their passage, and to prevent their being thrown back into the hands of the Gestapo for expulsion once again back into German-occupied territory. I am glad to say that my staff succeeded with this difficult task.
We passed through Spain many thousands of Allied prisoners of war, and we also passed varied crowds of every type of refugee—men, women and children of all nationalities, Christians and Jews, and including curious groups such, for instance, as the Jews from Salonika, who had been settled there since the sixteenth century, still talking the Spanish language and maintaining Spanish habits, and also numbers of Stateless persons for whom we had to provide guarantees and passports. As I say, I am glad to think that with possibly only one exception none of these refugees was allowed to drift back into German hands. It was a hard battle.
958
The Germans were claiming to have them returned. I should like to pay a tribute to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Count Jordana, now unfortunately dead, with whom I was dealing, and who throughout those difficult months and years maintained a firm front against the German demands.
This cross-section of escaped prisoners and refugees of all sorts left upon my mind a vivid impression of the complexity and the magnitude of the problem with which Europe is faced. The noble Marquess spoke of 30,000,000 displaced men and women. I believe that figure is below the mark. This is one of the greatest problems which has ever faced Europe—these 30,000,000 men and women torn from their homes, as the noble Marquess said, with their homes probably destroyed, themselves physically weak and often physically mutilated by the treatment to which they have been subjected, having lived for months and years terribly abnormal, inhuman lives, without hope, without even the hope of the prisoner who looks forward to the end of his sentence. They have lived the lives of slaves and of beasts of burden. It is not necessary to elaborate this terrible picture; the noble Marquess has said enough to show how immense is the problem which now confronts us.
When I come to the methods with which we are attempting to deal with it, I cannot help reaching the conclusion that they are totally inadequate. I make no criticism of the personnel who are engaged upon this work; for all I know they may be excellent, but what they are doing is upon a scale altogether inadequate for the magnitude of the problem. There is U.N.R.R.A., from what I can judge (and I speak without inside knowledge), either unable or unwilling to realize the urgency and the magnitude of these problems. There is also what is called the Inter-Departmental Government Committee, a Committee which I helped to set up when I was Home Secretary, an excellent Committee for the purposes of seven or eight years ago, with a personnel against whom I make no criticism, but without adequate directive from the top and without adequate means at its disposal.
I venture to impress upon the noble Viscount who is to reply that what is needed is that the three great Allied Leaders should take cognizance of the

959
urgency of this question, that they should announce a common policy, and that they should give a directive to the organizations concerned. As things are at present, I am doubtful whether any such directive has been given. Have the Allies a common policy? Have they a common policy upon the question already raised by the noble Marquess and by the noble Lord who preceded me, as to the categories of refugees that they are prepared to admit or whose admission they intend to refuse? I could give you a list of questions of that kind, but I shall not weary the House with them. What is urgently needed is a united Allied policy, stating clearly the obligations that the great Allies are ready to undertake and placing at the disposal of the various organizations sufficient material means for that policy to be carried out.
It may be that my own experiences in Spain were exceptional and not fully representative of all that has been happening. I can only say that time after time in Spain I felt the need of quick decisions and speedy action. I will give noble Lords two examples taken from my own experience. I was confronted with the arrival of these thousands of refugees. The Spanish Government were naturally somewhat hesitant as to whether they could receive them, and they wanted to know who was going to maintain them. They also wanted to know how long they were going to remain in Spain. From my own point of view it was necessary for me to attempt to sift the refugees into various categories. For instance, it was urgently necessary for us to do our utmost to sift out the German agents who were introduced into Spain under the guise of refugees, and of these German agents there were many. I had no staff at my disposal adequate for the separation of these thousands of men and women into the appropriate categories. On that account, I pressed upon the Government here that a camp should be set up in North Africa, which was then already in our occupation, where the sifting could be effectively done. I was convinced that if such a camp were once set up I could pass these men and women quickly through Spain and the necessary sifting could be done in North Africa with the staff which was at the disposal of the Allies. Everybody agreed to my proposal; indeed, I think they thought it was
960
a very good one; yet month after month —I think I am right in saying year after year—passed and that camp was not set up.
I can give another instance, an instance that bears upon the question just raised by Lord Strabolgi, the instance of the Jewish refugees who were to go to Palestine. A number of these Jewish refugees came through Spain. The appropriate associations sent out their representatives to investigate their cases, and in course of time a category was created of persons to whom permits were given to go to Palestine. So far as I know, there was no difference of opinion about these permits; the various authorities were all agreed. Yet for month after month we could never coordinate the arrival of these Jews at the ports, the arrival of ships at the ports to take them to Palestine, and the permits for their actual admission into Palestine. Here again, I make no criticism against any individuals: I quote the instance to show how necessary it is in all these matters, great and small, to have a directive at the top, and to have a directive that insists constantly upon the extreme urgency of these problems.
I have said this much on the material side of the problem—the transport, the feeding the resettlement of these tragic people; but in my view the material side of the problem, immense as it is, is less complicated than the moral one. As I said just now, these men and women have, for year after year, been living in absolutely inhuman conditions. It does not need a psychologist to say what reactions this tragic period may have had upon them. There were many instances within my own knowledge. Many of these men and women were in an abnormal state, and I considered that it would take months and perhaps years of care and trouble before once again they could become normal citizens. Let me give your Lordships a single instance, the instance of a prisoner of war who escaped into Spain. He was a very gallant officer, with a magnificent military record, covered with every decoration for gallantry. He escaped, he passed through terrible adventures, he endured an incredible physical strain. He was of invaluable help to the other British prisoners of war who were with him. He arrived on the frontier, and on the night

961
of his arrival he wrote a letter to his wife saying that his whole life had been a failure, that he had committed the unforgivable sin of betraying his companions who had accompanied him out of Germany into Spain, and he was going to end his life. He killed himself that night. There was not a word of truth in any of those suspicions with which he had convinced himself: he was suffering from an illusion. There was a man of strong physical resistance, who had the courage to make his escape across Europe—the kind of man who of all others, one would have hoped, could have resisted such an illusion. If that can happen to such a man we can imagine the individual illusions and the mass illusions from which thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of these men and women on the Continent of Europe are suffering to-day, and will suffer, it may be for months and years to come.
LORD STRABOLGI: And the children, too.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: And the children, too. On that account I do press the Government not to ignore this side of the problem. And, side by side with an organkration fitted to act quickly and upon a broad front, there should also be an organization (shall I call it of welfare?) for these sufferers, an organization that may have to be kept in being for months and years to come. I am sure, from the experiences that have had from day to day in Spain, that unless we concentrate upon this side of the problem these millions of men and women, after this inhuman and abnormal period, to put it at its lowest, will be a continual source of unrest to the future of Europe.
In conclusion, I look back to the years between the two wars and to the attempts that we made, some of us it may be unsuccessfully, to resettle the Continent. Looking back with the dispassionate eye almost of a historian, I come to the conclusion that the fundamental mistake that we made in those years was to think of our problem in political and territorial terms. We did not realize that Europe had been passing through one of the great upheavals in its history, an upheaval that left behind every kind of moral problem. I venture to say to this House, let us not repeat that mistake; let us realize that, great as may be the problem of the material relief of these men, women
962
and children, their moral welfare is more important. I hope I have said enough to show my deep sympathy with the objective of the noble Marquess. I hope I have said enough to show that I make these observations in no spirit of carping criticism I realize the immense difficulties of the problem, but I feel that here we are dealing with one of the central problems of the future, and that it is essential, if we are to confront it with any success, that the organization of the United Nations should be upon a much greater scale than it is at present, and should take into account the extreme urgency and difficulty of the questions with which we are faced.
4.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I find it extremely difficult to follow the noble Viscount, who has just made a speech, based on experience, which has aroused, I think, not only your Lordships' sincere sympathy but even emotion. I do want, however, very briefly to support the plea so eloquently put forward by the noble Marquess when moving the Motion which is on the Order Paper. Now the Motion divides certain persons on the Continent of Europe into two categories—displaced persons and Stateless persons. Both those categories have one thing in common: they will both require food, relief and clothes. But the first category, the displaced persons, do have one enormous advantage: they have a country to which to look forward, their home, while the Stateless persons have nothing. It is therefore the latter problem which, to my mind, is the most critical, and it is the one with which I should like very shortly to deal.
Of course, the numbers are quite different. It is clear that the displaced persons are far more numerous than the Stateless persons. Nevertheless, if we judge from what happened after the last war, the problem of Stateless persons can become very acute. It became very acute then because these persons were numerous and no provision of any kind had been made for the position in which they found themselves. Naturally, owing to this lack of provision, they had no passports, they were unable to travel and were in a state of great trouble and unhappiness. The matter was taken up, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has reminded us, by Dr. Nansen, and by his untiring efforts for a long time he did succeed in

963
securing the issue to these Stateless persons of what were known as Nansen passports. And here I venture to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi: those passports really were very effective in the end because they were recognized by the vast majority of the countries who were members of the League of Nations—at that time I think there were something like fifty. It is perfectly true it was not very easy to travel with them. Why? Because the passport official is a most suspicious being. These passports were new and he took a long time examining them; he probably had the people out of the trains and put them through a grilling. Still, the passports were recognized and ultimately were of the greatest value to these poor people. By those passports they were entitled to travel and also to have the protection of the Nansen organization. Up to this point, however, there was great misery, and in my view it is very important that steps should be taken now to avoid the recurrence of a situation of that kind. We cannot obviously to-day estimate the numbers of those people who will become Stateless after the war, but they are not likely anyhow to be less than they were after the war of 1918.
Now one thing is quite certain: it cannot do any harm and I believe it will be of very great benefit if proper arrangements were now made to cope with this problem. It is in the years immediately after the cessation of hostilities that the problem becomes so difficult. After many years these people tend to settle down; sometimes they become naturalized in the different countries, the scope of the difficulty is less, and really automatically the problem solves itself. What you do want, however, is to allow these people to travel freely, so that they can ultimately find a country of their own where they and their families can settle. For that purpose passports are essential and the passports should be recognized. I therefore trust that the Governments—and I quite agree with what the previous speaker has said, that it is not only His Majesty's Government but the Governments of the United Nations—will give this problem of Stateless persons immediate consideration. I do not mind a bit whether the task is undertaken by U.N.R.R.A. or by the Inter-Governmental Refugees Committee —that is not the point. The point is that there shall be a central organization which
964
is dealing with it and which shall take the responsibility and have the authority to execute its decisions. Personally I think that as the mantle of Dr. Nansen has fallen on the High Commissioner for Refugees, he would be the proper person for the task, but I should not think of pressing that view, because the real question, as I say, is that there shall be a responsible body which shall act at once.
LORD STRABOLGI: You want a tiger.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Well, a wise tiger and a tactful tiger; if you can get one, so much the better. I do hope, therefore, if I may say this final word, that His Majesty's Government will take the initiative, if necessary, in urging that this problem shall be put before the Council of the United Nations, and that their representative on whatever body they think fit will take a leading part in endeavouring to get the matter settled and to put a finish to this human misery.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I think no one who listened to the moving and eloquent speech with which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, introduced this debate, can have any doubt of the single-minded purpose which inspired him in putting down his Motion, or of his passionate desire to find some practical solution to what I would fully agree is one of the most tragic problems of these very tragic times. I think the debate has fully maintained the high level which the noble Marquess himself set. We must all welcome very warmly this debate, for two reasons. First of all, it calls attention to a vast problem which is too often overshadowed by immediate political or military developments but which will need to be handled, quite obviously, after those developments have passed over Europe; and secondly, it gives us an opportunity, I think, of explaining and putting into their right focus some aspects both of the problem itself and of the manner in which it is being tackled.
The Motion, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said in his speech, deals with two categories, displaced persons and Stateless persons; but he would be, I am sure, the first to agree that those two categories cannot, in fact, be divided into watertight compartments. Numbers of displaced persons are, of course, Stateless,

965
and the vast proportion of Stateless persons have, in fact, been displaced by the war. The two categories dovetail into each other. The problem, as I see it, might perhaps be stated in this way. As a result of the war there are millions of Europeans (for the purpose of the Motion as I understand it we are dealing with Europe only) who have been forcibly deported from their countries or homes or who have fled to avoid a worse fate. The total figure has been mentioned in the debate this afternoon of 20,000,000 or 30,000,000. I do not know if that is a correct figure, but I think we can take it for certain that the total runs into many millions. Very large numbers of these unhappy people are still in enemy hands. Considerable numbers have been found in what is now liberated territory, and others have succeeded in reaching, or have been helped to reach, territory never occupied by the enemy at all. The ultimate problem as regards all these displaced persons—and it is only with them I am at present dealing—is this: Can they be repatriated to their countries of origin or returned to their homes? If they cannot, what is to be their future? Are they to stay where they are or are they to go elsewhere?
The features of the problem are well known to your Lordships, but before I go any further I might make two general observations. First of all, I would like to say a word about the Jews, which occupied the main part of the speech delivered to your Lordships by Lord Strabolgi this afternoon—a speech, if he will allow me to say so, rather more sweeping in its assertions than accurate. The noble Lord asked certain questions and I am very glad to give him the answers, so far as I am in a position to do so. He stated as a fact, or at least so I understood him, that the quotas for Palestine were now completely exhausted; and he built the whole of a very powerful argument upon that fact. But in fact the quotas are not exhausted. I am very glad to be able to relieve his mind on that point. This is the position. In September last the Jewish Agency asked His Majesty's Government that 10,300 places should be made available for migration to Palestine. That request, as the noble Lord knows, was granted in full, but a necessary limit was placed of 1,500 immigrants a month. This was done for purely practical reasons—the housing situation in Palestine and the possibility
966
of serious difficulties in the economic sphere if the immigrants came in too rapidly. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said to-day that there was no housing shortage in Palestine. I really think he must have been misinformed. In fact, there is a perfectly appalling housing shortage in Palestine.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not say that. I am sure the noble Viscount does not want to misrepresent me. I said that arrangements have been made to accommodate these people by putting them in camps and that sort of thing for the time being.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The noble Lord said, as I understood, that there was no housing problem.
LORD STRABOLGI: No difficulty about accommodating these people.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: There is in fact an extremely severe housing shortage, and in addition the economic position of Palestine does not allow at present of a very rapid accumulation of immigrants. No doubt, they can be brought in gradually but there must be a limitation in the number that can be absorbed at any one time. As a result of the decision which was reached last October and the agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Jewish Agency, there are numbers of immigrants who are going in there at the present time. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the situation which will arise after next May is one that clearly requires the most careful consideration, which is being given to it. But I am not, I am afraid, as your Lordships will understand, in a position to make any announcement about that to-day. I recognize, as Lord Strabolgi does, that there are very large numbers of Jews from Rumania and Bulgaria in addition to other categories to which he referred this afternoon, who want to go to Palestine. But of course the question as to which particular Jews go to Palestine and where they are to come from is a matter not for His Majesty's Government but for the Jewish Agency itself, to whom the power of selection, as the House knows, has been entrusted. No doubt they will choose those Jews whom they think would be of greatest benefit to Palestine or whose danger in Europe is the most acute.

967
I seemed to detect at one moment in the noble Lord's speech an attempt to extend the discussion into a debate on the future policy of His Majesty's Government towards Palestine. I hope he will forgive me, if that was was not his intention. In any case, I think it is clear that this is not the proper time for that. I cannot emphasize too strongly that the problem which we are discussing to-day, the refugee problem, is not solely or even mainly concerned with the Jews. It is a much more general problem than that. Naturally, no one would deny that the miseries of this war and of the years leading up to it have borne more hardly upon people of the Jewish race than upon others, but it would be wrong to think we can deal with Jews as a quite distinct body of persons from their fellow citizens who have been deported or displaced. It would be untrue and it would also, I think, be wrong.
Secondly, my Lords, I was very glad to hear what Lord Reading said this afternoon as to the necessity for international control of the movement of displaced persons, whether in the direction of repatriation or in the way of resettlement. I am quite certain he is right that the international method on this question is the only really effective method. The problem and the numbers involved are so great that they must be handled in an orderly manner and, where at all possible, in groups, or we shall merely get chaos. It follows logically that this is a matter to be handled internationally and on a comprehensive basis rather than by a series of ad hoc measures or agreements. It may be argued that the problem is pressing and that international machinery is in its nature too slow and ponderous. I think that was rather the view of Lord Reading himself this afternoon; but against that the complications which are likely to follow attempts to deal with the matter unilaterally or even bilaterally—except in rare cases where the probem is clearly defined and of limited scope—are obvious. The situation to which the noble Marquess has called attention is therefore that there are at present in liberated territories very large numbers of displaced persons—I will deal with the Stateless problem later—and the noble Marquess asked what is being done or what is going to be done for these unhappy people. He enumerated the
968
following agencies as being intimately concerned. First, the military authorities; then U.N.R.R.A.; and thirdly the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees, in the case of non-repatriables. He also I think drew attention to the question of agreements which have been or may be concluded between the Governments concerned.
I would like, if I may, to answer him briefly on all these points. As your Lordships are aware, the military authorities are of course under present arrangements in complete control in forward operational zones and in the so-called military period before territory is handed back to the civil Government. I dealt with that in the debate on the war situation last week. This, as I said last week, may he of longer or shorter duration according to the particular circumstances of the country concerned. It is open to the military authorities to employ U.N.R.R.A. to handle under their control displaced persons, provided that the Governments concerned agree to U.N.R.R.A. being employed to handle their nationals as well as displaced persons who have become Stateless. I got the impression from the noble Marquess's speech that he rather resented U.N.R.R.A. being dependent upon an invitation from the country concerned, but surely it would be impossible to impose an international organization of this kind upon any country. If a country is ready to receive it, the organization should be available; but I do not think it would be possible to impose an international organization upon a sovereign State.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My point on that was that U.N.R.R.A. is itself the result of an agreement between a number of Governments, and one would expect that the Governments in agreeing to create U.N.R.R.A. would automatically be giving their consent to U.N.R.R.A. going in to function in the respective countries.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I quite agree. One might have expected it, but it has not worked out that way. In North-Western Europe, both in enemy territory and in forward operational zones in Allied territory, U.N.R.R.A. will thus be employed under the terms of an agreement signed by Governor Lehman and 1 General Eisenhower on November 25

969
last. Once the United Nations' territory has been liberated by the Allied Forces and has been handed back to the civil Government—that is the second stage—it rests under the terms of the U.N.R.R.A. Charter, with the Government concerned whether or not to invite U.N.R.R.A. in to handle the problem of displaced persons found within that territory. It is the Governments themselves who are primarily responsible. It is only if they invite U.N.R.R.A. that U.N.R.R.A. can come and assist. I am not altogether clear what the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, meant when he referred to "definitive agreements between Governments and U.N.R.R.A." There are, so far as I know, no agreements dealing specifically with displaced persons. Possibly what he had in mind was that the French, Belgian, Luxemburg, Dutch, Norwegian, Czechoslovak, Polish and Greek Governments had expressed a wish to receive U.N.R.R.A. liaison missions. I do not know if it was those that he meant.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I hesitate to interrupt again but the noble Viscount asks me what I was referring to. I was referring to a speech by the Director-General himself at Montreal where he said progress had been made towards a definition of the functions which the administration of U.N.R.R.A. had to perform in regard to displaced persons found in liberated countries, although no definitive agreements had as yet been reached. I took that to mean that it was expected agreements would be reached.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Agreements have not been reached, as far as I know. The missions to which I have referred would, of course, cover, among other things, displaced persons. There are already U.N.R.R.A. missions of this kind at Paris and Luxemburg and no doubt there will be others added at a later date.
The noble Marquess also asked about the Multilateral Agreement concerning the care and repatriation of displaced persons. The scope of this agreement briefly is that each contracting party, while retaining full control over displaced persons within its own territory, agrees to take certain steps designed to secure orderly repatriation and to admit missions from other United Nations, for the purpose of identifying and assisting their nationals, and from U.N.R.R.A., for the purpose of carrying out similar tasks in respect of displaced
970
persons with whom U.N.R.R.A. is authorized to deal. The noble Marquess seemed to have the impression that this agreement has entirely hung fire. Perhaps he did not intend that.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I asked whether anybody had signed.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I will give him the facts. The agreement negotiated under U.N.R.R.A.'s auspices, has been accepted by Belgium, France, Luxemburg, Holland, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia, and it is to be signed in London on behalf of those Governments on February 20. The noble Marquess also asked about individual agreement between Governments—not between Governments and U.N.R.R.A. but bilateral agreements between Governments —to deal with the repatriation of each other's displaced nationals found in the other's territory. There are at present five such bilateral agreements, one between France and Czechoslovakia, one between France and Luxemburg, one between France and Belgium, one between France and Holland and one between Belgium and Holland. These are, a matter primarily for the Governments immediately concerned, but perhaps I may make one general observation. I would not suggest for one moment that bilateral agreements of this kind are intended to conflict or indeed do conflict with the Multilateral Agreement of which I have spoken. But the fact must be faced that to the extent that they clearly prefer direct two-way handling of the problem to a more comprehensive handling under U.N.R.R.A. auspices, they do weaken the intention underlying the Multilateral Agreement. It is, I think, at least arguable that what is gained by a direct and relatively rapid handling of a matter which two Governments can deal with on their own, is outweighed by the fact that attempts to deal with what is fundamentally an international problem on an international basis, are thereby weakened.
Let me now come back to the problem of the ultimate repatriability of displaced persons, since it is to this end that all U.N.R.R.A.'s activities with regard to the displaced persons must primarily be directed. It is, I think, generally recognized that when groups of displaced persons turn up in the course of military operations or afterwards, it will not be immediately possibly to establish

971
what proportion of them will be repatriable. That is a practical point, as your Lordships will recognize. Repatriation depends on a number of factors. It depends, for instance, upon whether the Government of the country of which they are nationals, or where they had their place of settled residence, is prepared to receive them back. If not, of course U.N.R.R.A. has no power to compel them to go back. Again, conditions in the country of origin, the countries from which they originally came, may be so disturbed that it would be dangerous, or for other reasons impossible, for them to return. No doubt displaced persons will be encouraged or expected to return home as this becomes practicable and in a suitable order of priority, or unless there are very strong reasons to operate against this. During the intervening period, they will remain an U.N.R.R.A. responsibility and, as the Minister of State explained in another place on October 11, U.N.R.R.A. has already agreed at Atlantic City to assist in their maintenance for "a reasonable period even after it has been proved that they are not repatriable, until they can be moved to resettlement elsewhere."
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, raised this point of "reasonable period" this afternoon. He asked what is a reasonable period and who is to determine it. He will remember that, at Atlantic City, the closest consultation was enjoined between U.N.R.R.A. and the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees within whose field the problem of resettlement as opposed to repatriation lies. The two bodies are, in fact, in the closest touch on this and other points, and I can assure the noble Marquess they will do all that is possible to see that satisfactory arrangements are made on this question. Perhaps it may also be convenient if I deal here with the point made by the noble Marquess with regard to the future of persons "of settled residence" before the war though not possessing the actual nationality of the country of residence. A very good case in point is that of Poles living in. France, of whom there are a considerable number. This also was considered at the Atlantic City meeting of the U.N.R.R.A.'s Council and is dealt with in a provision of the Multilateral Agreement to which I have already referred. Under this provision the signatories of the agreement
972
"while they can give no absolute or general guarantee to readmit all such persons into their territory, undertake to meet any requests they may receive for their readmission in a spirit of wide humanity."
Thus the principle to which the noble Marquess attaches importance is accepted. I think he asked what period would qualify for readmission to their own countries.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: What constitutes settled residence?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: There is no specific period. I have made inquiries and I understand that it is recognized that it must be for individual countries to decide for themselves what decision they may reach on this matter. I do not think it would be possible—I am only expressing a personal view—for any international body to compel nations to take back people who are not their nationals. One might ask them to take back their own nationals, but these are people who have never acquired the nationality of the country in which they have lived. It is impossible for any international body to compel nations to take them back. Nations will have to make whatever arrangements they think right with regard to this particular category. Until these people are repatriated they will presumably have to remain the responsibility of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees.
And now I would say a word about those people who, in the jargon which has grown up round this subject, are known as "non-repatriables." It is a terrible expression, but your Lordships will know what it means. It is clear from what I have said to-day that, in the best of circumstances, the number of non-repatriable displaced persons will be very considerable, running perhaps into hundreds of thousands. To them will doubtless have to be added a large proportion of those persons who, even before the war, had been obliged to leave their homes for reasons of race, religion, or political belief. Among these are to be found the bulk of those persons who have become Stateless—that category to which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred in his speech. In the last resort, non-repatriability ultimately implies resettlement, either in the country of temporary refuge or elsewhere, and the bulk of non-repatriable people (including those whom Allied

973
Governments will be unwiling to allow to return to their countries on the ground of their war-time activities), will thus come within the field of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees.
That body, of which Lord Perth, I think, had very long experience at one time, and whose work in connexion with refugees, allied to that of the League High Commissioner for Refugees, dates back to a considerable time before the war, has now considerably expanded its work under the wide authority given it as the result of the Bermuda Conference of 1943. It has already a representative in Paris, and the Belgian Government have, in principle, accepted the appointment of a representative in Brussels. It has also one in Italy attached to the Displaced Persons Sub-Committee of the Allied Control Commission, and one in the Middle East. The Inter-Governmental Committee has been very active in several directions. Besides keeping a close eye on the well-being of the large numbers of refugees who already came within its mandate before the war, it has been concerned with relief and rescue measure in connexion with those still in enemy hands, and in investigating on the spot, in liberated countries, the situation with regard to persons of former German and Austrian nationality—at present Stateless—who are now found there, and of other groups who, if they cannot he repatriated or returned to their homes or absorbed where they are, will eventually need to be resettled. It is worth mentioning that the United Kingdom and United States Governments are jointly responsible for the financial implications of the Committee's operations, and that all its operational schemes are submitted to them for approval. I have already explained what is intended to be the eventual delimitation of work, in connexion with displaced persons, as between U.N.R.R.A. and the Inter-Governmental Committee as recognized at Atlantic City.
There remain a few miscellaneous questions which have been raised in the debate, and which seem to me to require some answer. I think it was the noble Marquess Lord Reading, who asked whether U.N.R.R.A. has a sufficient staff to cope both with relief and repatriation, and whether the military authorities ought not to be left in charge as long as possible. The answer to the first of these
974
two questions is that U.N.R.R.A. has, so far, been able to meet all such requests for personnel as have been made to it. If U.N.R.R.A. has not been more widely used, the first reason is the one which I gave a week ago; namely, transport difficulties. A further reason is that some Allied Governments have preferred, and felt able, to handle the problem themselves. Under the S.H.A.E.F.U.N.R.R.A. Agreement, to which I have referred, S.H.A.E.F. have asked U.N.R.R.A. to provide a large number of personnel to deal with Allied displaced persons in Germany, and U.N.R.R.A. has, for some time, been busy recruiting and training persons so far as man-power difficulties allow. But it is not, of course, easy, as your Lordships will realize, in existing circumstances, to find very large numbers of suitable men for this type of work, which requires special qualities of tact and judgment. I sometimes hear people talk as though it was only necessary to go out into the street to pick up a few men fitted to work for U.N.R.R.A. As a matter of fact, these are extremely difficult posts to occupy, and they call for great experience of a rather specialized kind.
This staff will, for the present—indeed for a long time to come, I should think—work with the military authorities who will continue to be responsible for supplies and transport. In fact, I would suggest that the question is not whether the military authorities or U.N.R.R.A. should handle the problem: the problem can only be dealt with effectively by the two authorities in combination. The experience gained by U.N.R.R.A., while working with the military, should enable U.N.R.R.A. later on to relieve the military of the burden, and the sooner this can be done, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, the better. In liberated territories, of course, where the civil Government is in control, and U.N.R.R.A. has not been invited in, the responsibility remains with the Government of the country concerned, and must do. This, I think, answers the point which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, raised about the need for provision for housing and feeding for repatriates on arrival at their destination. Where Governments do not invite U.N.R.R.A. into their territories to operate, the responsibility must remain upon them. But where U.N.R.R.A. has been asked to assist, it is, of course,

975
clear that this would be one of its main functions.
I believe that both the noble Marquess and the Earl of Perth asked me a specific question about Stateless persons—namely, whether they have any sufficient documents, and, if not, will the Nansen system be applied? That is a question which it is extremely difficult for me to answer at the present moment with complete finality, and I hope that your Lord-ships will excuse me if I do not do so. But, broadly speaking, while some Stateless persons may not have sufficient documents, those who have enjoyed previous arrangements—for instance, those in the United Kingdom or other countries where international rules and standards of conduct apply—are provided with adequate documents. But this is clearly a serious problem, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees are at the present time engaged in c9iivening a committee of Government experts to study this particular problem of Stateless persons not covered by previous arrangements in regard to their documentation—who constitute the core of our problem.
In conclusion—and I am afraid I have kept the House for a very long time—I would say this. The whole problem of displaced persons, using the term in the widest possible sense, is on a scale which has never been seen before. It has arisen not only out of the war itself but from events in Germany and elsewhere leading up to the war, and even—as those of us who worked at Geneva know very well—from the aftermath of the last great war, and the revolutions and upheavals which resulted from it. It is no new problem. It is necessary to set in clear relief the two conceivable ways of tackling it. One is by grasping at immediate aspects which seem capable of settlement, but which in that event are bound to be dealt with as it were ad hoc and without overmuch regard to similar problems elsewhere. The other method is to deal with the problem as a whole, internationally, and methodically work out systems of priority and machinery. It is easy to understand the desire of the advocates of the first course (and they are quite numerous) to press on, and to sympathize with their impatience with the international approach, with all the
976
machinery involved, as being unnecessarily cumbrous and slow-moving; but to those (if there are any) in your Lordships' House who feel like this I would say a word of caution. There is a real danger that if they had their way we should get the worst of both worlds; we should haver and waver between the two courses and lose the advantages of each.
I should like to be bold enough to express a personal view. I cannot pretend to be an expert on this most difficult and technical question, but I do know something of the background, because I spent many weeks working on various aspects of the refugee problem at Geneva in the years before the war. Frankly, I do not believe that this is one of those problems which can possibly be tackled on an ad hoc basis; it is far too big and the numbers involved are far too formidable. I will freely admit that the results achieved in the past by international action have not always been all that we might have hoped. I think that on the whole they have been disappointing, and I am afraid that has to a considerable extent been due to the fact that not all those nations who paid lip service to the principle of international action were in practice willing to give it a fair trial. Of course, unless nations are really prepared to live up to their professions, no scheme of any kind will succeed.
In my view, however, we must not allow ourselves to be discouraged by possible lack of complete success in the past. It would be, I think, very surprising if we had achieved success at the first effort. International action in this sphere, as, I am afraid, in many others, is a plant of very slow growth. Of course, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said to-day, this is an urgent problem. His Majesty's Government recognize that as much as anyone in this House; but I do not think that any implied charge of dilatoriness—and this is the only part of Lord Reading's speech which could give any ground for complaint—is justified. On the contrary, there is an immense amount of devoted work going on at the present time. But it is no use raising false hopes that there is an easy way out of this problem; there really is not.
The noble Viscount, Lord Templwood, asked why we did not have a common policy between the three main Allies.

977
There is a common policy, agreed at Atlantic City, with regard to repatriation. There are not yet detailed plans with regard to resettlement. First of all, we do not know how many people will have to be resettled, and we do not know what will be the areas, by the time that this war comes to an end, which will be suitable for their resettlement. There will be countries of temporary refuge and countries of permanent refuge. In my view, the countries of temporary refuge will have to keep a large number of these refugees permanently; I do not believe that you can go on moving them about the world. But that is a matter to be thrashed out, and in the meantime these people will have to be looked after as best they can be by the International Committee.
We must recognize one hard fact. We cannot expect a rapid or complete solution of this problem. It would be futile to do so. I have seen myself far too much to have exaggerated hopes. However we tackle the refugee problem, it is going to be with us for many years to come. It is one of the evil legacies of the great world upheaval which has been going on since 1914. This is only one aspect of the formidable task of restoring order out of the present chaos which is likely to occupy the whole of our lives and most of the lives of our children. Everywhere—at Dumbarton Oaks, at Hot Springs, at Bretton Woods—we are tackling it on an international basis; and on that basis alone, I firmly believe, have we any chance of achieving success.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I have an answer to the question relating to Jewish orphan children, of which I gave notice?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not think that I can say more to the noble Lord than I have already said. I did make it clear to him that there was a certain number of certificates allowing people to come into Palestine, and those certificates are allocated by the Jewish Agency.
5.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, sometimes in listening to a Minister replying to a debate I reflect that whilst the War Office has a General Staff other Ministries appear to have a Generalization Staff; but to-day that reproach cannot be addressed to the noble Viscount, of
978
whose sympathy with any problem of human suffering we are all fully aware. He has answered the debate to-day with the courtesy and diligence which he always shows in answering a large number of specific questions flung at him. I am most grateful to him for the care which he has taken in his reply, and with the leave of the House I desire to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORDS DEBATES.
5.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they will arrange that in future the debates in the House of Lords on matters of public interest shall have fair representation in the bulletins of the B.B.C.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I have been asked to reply for the Government to the noble Viscount's question. The responsibility for the broadcast reports of the proceedings of Parliament rests with the B.B.C. and not with His Majesty's Government, but I understand that my right honourable friend the Minister of Information not long ago called the attention of the Governors to the desire expressed by some Members of Parliament that there should be fuller Parliamentary reports.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, arising out of that answer, does that mean fuller reports of the House of Lords as well as of the House of Commons? The House of Lords is never mentioned in these Parliamentary reports at all. Last week there were two very important debates in your Lordships' House, one on the question of the dissemination of Empire information and the other on the regulation of advertisements, both subjects of great importance to people in this country, and there was absolutely no reference to them at all. I should like to ask the noble Earl, therefore, whether that general statement with regard to Parliamentary reports does cover the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount can take it that the expression "Parliamentary reports" covers proceedings in both Houses of Parliament.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, arising out of this question, is the Leader of the Home aware that for some weeks the B.B.C. news broadcasts have contained no mention of the House of Lords at all, or even of his own admirable speeches?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer for the B.B.C., which is an independent-minded body. We may not agree with their assessment of the importance of your Lordships' House, but we cannot do anything about it.
LORD STRABOLGI: While there are still two Chambers in this Parliament, why should one be ignored? Is my noble friend aware that the Government have a great deal of influence with the B.B.C., as we saw from the Greek debates in another place?
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether it has been pointed out to the Governors of the B.B.C. that there must be an interaction between Parliamentary proceedings and public opinion, and that public opinion cannot be informed in the absence of information, and that therefore the B.B.C., as an organ of publicity, in not reporting these debates is depriving the public of the possibility of forming its opinion upon matters of the first importance?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have not the slightest doubt that the Governors of the B.B.C. will take notice of what has been said in your Lordships' House.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is my noble friend aware that the very important shipping debate initiated by my noble friend behind me (Lord Winster), when for the first time for two years we had a statement on Government shipping policy, was not referred to at all in the B.B.C. report of Parliament, though that was the only way in which sailors at sea could know about a matter affecting their own profession?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask my noble friend, in view of the expressions of opinion that we have heard to-day in this House, whether he will bring such influence as he can to bear upon the Minister of Information or the B.B.C., or upon both, in order to remedy a situation which is creating a good deal of feeling among many noble Lords in this House?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I will certainly be very glad to report what has been said to-day to the Minister of Information, but, as I say, it is realty a matter for the B.B.C., and I have no influence with the board of the B.B.C. whatever.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twelve minutes after five o'clock.