Sitting of 29 July 1947

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  (King's Consent signified.) Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill.
  Standing Order 205 suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  (King's Consent signified.) Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  CIVIL SERVICE

    Transfer Allowances
    Brigadier Lowasked the Minister of National Insurance why the concessions of allowances for the removal expenses, cost of travel and lodging, have been withdrawn from temporary civil servants who have, at his request, agreed to be transferred away from their homes in Blackpool to fund offices in other parts of the country.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Members of the temporary staff were invited to volunteer for transfer to fund offices on the footing that they would receive temporary transfer allowances for the first three months,
    224
    and that they would then be given the option of remaining at a fund office without further payment of allowances or of returning to Blackpool. Where, however, a married officer or an officer with equivalent responsibilities has elected to remain at a fund office, I have decided to offer him the alternative of permanent transfer terms.
    Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman make quite certain that none of the staff covered by this Question have been deprived of their travelling allowances once they have become permanently attached to fund offices?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes. These permanent transfer terms will, I think, meet the desires of members of the staff.

    Ex-Service Personnel
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of ex-Service men and women employed in a temporary capacity in the Civil Service; and what prospects they have of establishment.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available centrally. As the reply to the second part of the Question is somewhat long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is it not true that there may be 20,000 or 30,000 men who are employed temporarily, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman hold out some hope that they will receive permanent employment at some time?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the hon. Gentleman will see when he gets HANSARD tomorrow morning, quite a large number of these vacancies are reserved for ex-Service men and women.
    Following is the reply:
    As to the general Civil Service classes (administrative, executive and clerical) 28,000 established vacancies which accrued during the war recently concluded are open to competition by ex-Service men and women, including those now serving in temporary Government employment; of that number 14,450 of the vacancies are reserved specifically for ex-Service men, and a number for ex-Service women in proportion to the number of

    225
    candidates. In addition, service in His Majesty's Forces in the recent war is aggregated with temporary Government service for the purpose of qualifying for the 4,500 established vacancies which are open to older temporary staff by nomination, and for the further 10,000 posts (which are being converted to an established basis as from 1st January, 1948) which are open to long service temporary staff.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Dismissed Postmen, Aberdeen
    Lady Grantasked the Minister of Labour how many postmen in Aberdeen have been discharged as redundant since 31st May; how many have been found jobs in industry; and how many of the remainder are unsuitable for industry by reason of age and or disability.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Two temporary postmen have been discharged as redundant in Aberdeen since 31st May. One is being considered for a suitable industrial job for which he was submitted by the exchange. Information is not available about the other who did not seek the assistance of the exchange in obtaining employment.

    Football Pools (Canvassers)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that some football pool promoters are employing full-time canvassers and opening shops for the distribution of their sheets; and if he will take powers to prevent this and all other uneconomic uses of manpower.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am informed that full-time canvassers are employed by some football pool promoters, but I have no information as to the numbers involved or as to the extent to which shops are used. The Government strongly deprecate the use of manpower on all forms of uneconomic employment. This question raises wide issues which are at present being examined in consultation with the National Joint Advisory Council.
    Mr. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear to the country that in this present state of emergency we cannot have both football pools and clothes, and will he make sure that labour goes into the textile industry, where it is so urgently needed?
    Mr. Isaacs: That question calls for rather a long answer which would not be appropriate at the moment; but, to summarise it, we are anxious to have the cooperation of the pool promoters in getting some of these women into the textile industry. However, the bulk of the women are employed in areas which are a long way from the textile areas, and it is difficult to move them because of the accommodation problem.
    Mr. Piratin: While the examination to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred is taking place, will he consider reverting to what happened before, when all the pools were merged into one unit, thus saving a lot of labour and materials?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot give a pledge about it, but I would draw attention to the last sentence in my main answer:
    "This question raises wide issues which are at present being examined in consultation with the National Joint Advisory Council."
    Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement on this matter before the House adjourns?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not quite sure, but if there is a possibility of making a statement on the matter I will certainly do so before the House adjourns.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to disconnect the electrical amplifier apparatus which has been erected along the rearmost benches? It makes the answers of Ministers almost inaudible by emitting a continual booming?
    Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry about that. It is an experiment, and we ought not to be afraid to try experiments. Yesterday I noticed it booming. I think that the experience so far proves it not to have been a success. I expect improvements will be made, so that, I hope, it will not boom. It is necessary that all of us should speak clearly. I try to speak clearly.
    Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of Order. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) broke the apparatus yesterday.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: When the hon. Member for Oxford broke it yesterday, we could hear nothing at all.
    Mr. Bechervaise: The apparatus on this side is quite satisfactory.
    Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the engineers of the Ministry of Works, who put in this apparatus, will take note of what has been said.

    Newspaper Industry
    Mr. Cluseasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the apprehension existent in the newspaper in dustry that the cut in newsprint may cause unemployment; and whether he is making any provision for alternative employment.
    Mr. Isaacs: In view of the current general shortage of manpower in the printing industry, I do not anticipate any special difficulty in finding alternative employment for workers released from the newspapers.
    Mr. Cluse: Can the Minister give any information about the possible variation in unemployment in the different sections of the printing trade?
    Mr. Isaacs: It is customary in this industry for the workers to be given two weeks' notice of termination of employment. Until this notice has been given and has become effective, we shall not be able to give any definite answers on the position.

    Aliens
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to augment our manpower, he will circularise all aliens who have come in on compassionate grounds calling on them to enter the essential undermanned industries.
    Mr. Isaacs: In general, aliens admitted to this country are subject to the condition that they may only take employment which is approved by me. I am thus in a position to satisfy myself that the work which they wish to undertake is work of a useful nature. There is nothing to prevent aliens admitted on compassionate grounds from applying for employment.
    Mr. Piratin: Would the Minister say whether all aliens who were brought into this country on compassionate grounds are aware that they may apply for employment and be allocated to it according to need?
    Mr. Isaacs: It would be difficult for me to say they are all aware of it, but I hope the publicity given to this statement today will bring it to the notice of them all.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the trade unions are now opposing the employment of aliens—for example, of Poles?
    Mr. Speakers: That is another question, and has nothing to do with this one.
    Captain John Crowder: Are aliens who are admitted on compassionate grounds and directed to serve in an industry allowed to leave it without the right hon. Gentleman's permission?
    Mr. Isaacs: If we find it advisable to direct an alien to an industry that is undermanned, we expect him to remain in that industry, although not in that particular employment; otherwise we should have people floating into and manning non-essential industries.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (APPEALS)
  Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Labour how many appeals were made by his Department during the period April, May and June, 1947, against the decisions of military service hardship committees to call up men for military service; and in how many cases have these appeals been successful.
  Mr. Isaacs: Twenty appeals for the grant of postponement were made to the Umpire in April, May and June, 1947. The results of these appeals may or may not have yet been announced, and I regret that, without going through all the files both for and against postponement, I can only indicate that the cases where an appeal has been made by the Minister of Labour for postponement almost always succeed because they are in accord with precedents established by the Umpire.
  Commander Maitland: Does the same apply when the appeal is the other way round—when it is an appeal by the Ministry to bring a man into the Services against the wishes of the committee?
  Mr. Isaacs: I did answer a Question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that point. I see the interlocking point. But in these cases we appeal only where the committee has obviously gone against a previous umpire's decision. We have to direct attention to it.

  SCOTLAND

    Retired Teachers (Re-Employment)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, during the present acute need for trained teachers, he will suspend the rule whereby retired teachers returning to duty must lose their pensions.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): The principle generally applicable to public servants who return to public employment after retirement is that the sum they draw from public funds as salary and pension should not exceed the amount of salary at the time of retirement. This usually involves suspension or reduction of the pension for the time being. I regret that I cannot make an exception in favour of teachers.
    Mr. George Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend consult with his colleagues with a view to changing this rule, which was laid down at' a time when there was no acute shortage of teachers? Will he impress upon his colleagues the stupidity of preventing retired people who are still fit from serving in the schools by penalising them if they do so?
    Mr. Westwood: I do not think there is need for the consultation that is suggested, because the suggestion is based upon a misapprehension. I did point out in the. Debate on Scottish education that, through the emergency training scheme and normal channels of recruiting, a sufficient number of teachers to meet the full need of the schools is expected.
    Mr. G. Thomas: For what size of classes?

    Rock Drifter Drills
    Commander Agnewasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Government Purchasing Mission to the U.S.A. in March this year purchased 240 rock drifter drills for use in the Scottish hydro-electric schemes, when a substantial
    230
    number of these machines could have been made in England.
    Mr. Westwood: The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, in pursuance of the Government decision that every effort must be made to increase the electricity generating capacity of the country, requested the Mission to acquire certain equipment, including the rock drifter drills which were urgently required during 1947. On the information then available the Board considered this the only prudent course to take in order to ensure timeous delivery. After discussion with the Advisory Committee on Contractors' Plant, it has been arranged that no further purchases for the hydro-electric schemes will be made outside the United Kingdom until the Committee has considered whether the plant can be provided in this country by the date required.
    Commander Agnew: As I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken the responsibility for this Question, although the Question was originally addressed by me to the Minister of Supply, may I ask him why it was that he, as planner of this enterprise, failed to co ordinate the activities of his Department with those of the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Supply, so that the two firms in Cornwall that have made this sort of implement for many years were not even consulted as to their ability to deliver this order before the order was placed, with the result that a totally unnecessary expenditure of 170,000 dollars was incurred?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a very long supplementary question.
    Mr. Westwood: I am credited with many things so far as Scotland is concerned, but this is the first time I have been credited with being the planner of the hydro-electric scheme. I certainly do not accept that, but I accept responsibility for doing what was best in the circumstances, and I have now assured the House, on the facts at my disposal, that there will be no orders abroad until we have discovered whether we can obtain supplies from our own resources.

    Housing
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the housing achievements of Perth compared with the housing achievements of other large Scots

    231
    cities since the end of the war; if he is aware that the Perth first target figures are expected to be reached during this year; and if he will do anything to organise similar achievements in other cities.
    Mr. Westwood: I would refer the hon. Member to the appendix to the Housing Return published each month, which gives details of the progress made by individual housing authorities. I am sure that local authorities generally are anxious to expedite the completion of houses, and it is the aim of the 1947 programme formulated by the Government to assist them to complete the largest possible number this year.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving an answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) about the excellent work that is being done in housing in Perth, that great Tory strong hold in Scotland?
    Mr. Westwood: My difficulty, as one responsible for the working of all the local authorities in Scotland, is to see that I do not give too much praise to one for fear that I fall out with some of the others.
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether local authorities whose housing progress includes houses at first-floor level are prohibited from finishing these this winter; whether compensation will be paid for deterioration; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Westwood: I would refer to the answers given to similar questions by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) on 8th July, and the hon. Members for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) on 15th July. Local authorities are not prohibited from finishing any houses, at whatever stage of construction, if labour and materials are available. It is the aim of the 1947 housing programme to complete the largest possible number of houses this year.
    Mrs. Mann: Does my right hon. Friend give preference to cities like Perth as against burghs like Coatbridge, where housing conditions are very much more appalling?
    Mr. Westwood: No. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have no "step-children." I do my best to see that fairness is done by all the local authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that these local authorities were encouraged to go ahead with big housing programmes, and that those housing programmes were cut; will he not reconsider the question of meeting the financial losses which these local authorities have incurred as a consequence of having to maintain these expenses; and does he not know of resolutions which have been passed by many local authorities in regard to this matter?
    Commander Galbraith: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the materials in short supply are issued in accordance with a priority which agrees with the date on which the original building licence was granted?
    Mr. Westwood: That is the general principle on which we work.
    Mr. Scollan: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there are a number of buildings which have been built right up to the eaves by the Glasgow Corporation, but which have been stopped for lack of materials and are, therefore, bound to deteriorate; and are they to get no compensation for that deterioration?
    Mr. Westwood: That does not arise out of the Question which I have answered.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses completed in Scotland by local authorities in the inter-war years, and the number completed by private enterprise for sale and to let.
    Mr. Westwood: The number of houses completed in the inter-war years by local authorities was 227,295. The number completed by private enterprise was 109,878, of which 8,207 were built for letting with assistance under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924. No precise information is available, but it is thought that the majority of the balance of private enterprise houses were built for sale.
    Mrs. Mann: In view of those figures and the constant reiteration by certain people that we should engage private enterprise

    233
    again, will my right hon. Friend see that each Member of the Opposition has two copies of that reply?
    Mr. West wood: I have always believed that if private enterprise had made a success of dealing with Scotland's housing problem, the Secretary of State for Scotland would not have half as many troubles as he has at the present time.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again into the rating problem in Scotland in order that private enterprise may have a fair deal?
    Mr. Westwood: Again, that does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

    Regional Hospital Boards (Areas)
    Sir John Graham Kerrasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give the assurance that, in delimiting the areas assigned to the regional hospital boards, care will be taken to ensure that each shall include a population proportional to the needs of the particular medical school as regards clinical material, and as regards hospital accommodation necessary to provide an adequate number of the resident appointments demanded by the new Health Service arrangements before registration as qualified independent practitioners.
    Mr. Westwood: The National Health Service (Scotland) (Determination of Areas of Regional Hospital Boards) Order 1947, fixing these areas was made on 25th June and laid before Parliament on 27th June. In settling the terms of that Order I had fully in mind the needs of clinical teaching, as represented to me by the universities. As I explained in a letter I wrote to the Acting Principal of Edinburgh University on 23rd July, of which the hon. Member has a copy, clinical teaching is not, in my opinion, prejudiced by the provisions of the Order.
    Sir J. Graham Kerr: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no truth in a statement which I have seen that, of the two chief Scottish medical schools, with approximately equal numbers of students, one has been allocated a population of approximately three million and the other a population of approximately one million?
    Mr. Westwood: I can only give the assurance that, in looking into the whole problem associated with the new organisation necessary, I have at least given the fullest consideration to all the representations made to me. I have made my decisions having regard to what I think is in the best interests of Scotland, and without any prejudice to the clinical teaching of the respective universities.
    Sir J. Graham Kerr: Is the Minister aware that the success of any pubic health service, however carefully it may be planned, is, in the end, dependent entirely upon the training given in the medical schools?
    Mr. Westwood: Yes, Sir. I am in entire agreement with the point just made by the hon. Member.

  DISABILITY PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Pensions the numbers of those in receipt of disability pensions and allowances, by grades, from the maximum downwards, and the amount paid in each grade.
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. John Hynd): As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.,
  Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister give an assurance that those figures justify his not bringing the matter before the advisory committee again?
  Mr. Hynd: The hon. Member should judge that from the figures given in the statement.
  Following is the statement:
  (1) The figures include pensions for both the 1914 and 1939 wars. In the latter case, Mercantile Marine and Civilian war pensions are included.
  (2) Column E gives the total number of pensioners assessed at the various degrees of disablement. Columns C and D give the appropriate rates for a single man and a married man with two children, respectively. In all cases the rates shown are those applicable to basic ranks in the Services (e. g., private soldier in the Army); higher rates are payable for higher rank.
  (3) In certain cases there are additional allowances for wear and tear of clothing or education of children.
  (4) Disablement pensions and allowances are free of income tax.

  A.

  B.

  C.

  D.

  E.

  Degree of Disablement

  —

  Single Man

  Married with 2 children

  Approximate with number in payment

  Percentage.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  100

  With unemployability supplement and maximum constant attendance allowance.

  5

  5

  0

  6

  16

  0

  50,650

  100

  With unemployability supplement but without constant attendance allowance.

  3

  5

  0

  4

  16

  0

  100

  Without unemployability supplement or constant attendance allowance.

  2

  5

  0

  3

  10

  0

  90

  With unemployability supplement

  3

  0

  6

  4

  11

  6

  2,900

  90

  With hardship allowance*

  2

  5

  0

  3

  7

  6

  90

  Without unemployability supplement or hardship allowance.

  2

  0

  6

  3

  3

  0

  80

  With unemployability supplement

  2

  16

  0

  4

  7

  0

  18,950

  80

  With hardship allowance*

  2

  5

  0

  3

  5

  0

  80

  Without unemployability supplement or hardship allowance.

  1

  16

  0

  2

  16

  0

  70

  With unemployability supplement

  2

  11

  6

  4

  2

  6

  28,550

  70

  With hardship allowance*

  2

  2

  9

  3

  0

  3

  70

  Without unemployability supplement or hardship allowance.

  1

  11

  6

  2

  9

  0

  †60

  With hardship allowance*

  1

  18

  3

  2

  13

  3

  42,450

  †60

  Without hardship allowance

  1

  7

  0

  2

  2

  0

  †50

  With hardship allowance

  1

  13

  9

  2

  6

  3

  65,650

  †50

  Without hardship allowance

  1

  2

  6

  1

  15

  0

  40

  With hardship allowance*

  1

  9

  3

  1

  19

  3

  81,650

  40

  Without hardship allowance

  18

  0

  1

  8

  0

  30

  With hardship allowance*

  1

  4

  9

  1

  12

  3

  157,700

  30

  Without hardship allowance

  13

  6

  1

  1

  0

  20

  With hardship allowance*

  1

  0

  3

  1

  5

  3

  234,100

  20

  Without hardship allowance

  9

  0

  14

  0

  Less than 20 percent

  Varying amounts

  Varying amounts

  84,050

  * If a pensioner's disablement due to service in; the 1939 World War is assessed at less than 100 per cent. and, in consequence of that disablement, he is permanently incapable of resuming his former occupation and incapable of following or being trained for one of equivalent standard, he may be granted a special hardship allowance of 11s. 3d. a week. The allowance together with his pension may not, however, exceed the rate of pension payable if his disablement were assessed at 100 per cent.

  † In a small number of cases of 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. disablement the unemployability supplement has been granted.

  (5) The estimated annual cost of these pensions, including the various allowances and supplements, is about £50,000,000.

  POLISH RESETTLEMENT CORPS (COST)
  Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for War what are the pay and allowances payable to members of the Polish Resettlement Corps holding, respectively, the rank of sergeant, first-lieutenant and captain; what family allowances are payable; and what is the estimated cost per head of food and accommodation.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): As the answer contains many figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Beswick: In common with many other hon. Members, I have said that we should help those Poles who helped us in the fight against the common enemy, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that there are many abuses of the present situation? The total cost to the taxpayer is now running at the rate of £1,340,000 per month, apart from the cost of administration and——
  Mr. Speaker: The Question on the Order Paper asks what are the rates of pay and allowances, but the hon. Member is now making further deductions and asking further questions. The original Question was a straightforward one and received a straightforward answer.
  Mr. Beswick: I was about to ask: When sums of money are being paid out to members of the Corps, according to the list my right hon. Friend is going to circulate, will he see that those members of the Polish Forces are not allowed to engage, for example, in outside businesses as well as draw very substantial sums of public money?
  Mr. Bellenger: Yes, certainly, so far as I can. I will take every step to stop them taking part in business, which is not what

  ——

  Lodging Allowance.

  London Allowance (For married men living with their families in lodgings)

  If place of duty is within 10 miles of Charing Cross.

  All Others.

  Marriage Allowance

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Sergeant

  …

  3

  4

  2

  10

  40

  0

  1

  3

  (a week)

  Lieutenant

  …

  12

  6

  9

  0

  12

  16

  3

  6

  Captain

  …

  12

  6

  9

  0

  12

  16

  3

  6

  they are being paid for by the British taxpayer.
  Following is the answer:
  The rates of pay are:

  Rank.

  Pay.

  *After 3 years (daily).

  *After 4 years (daily).

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Sergeant

  6

  8

  7

  9

  8

  0

  Lieutenant

  14

  6

  17

  6

  —

  (After 3 years in the rank)

  Captain

  21

  0

  —

  —

  * These increments are applicable only to those who had completed the specified number of years' service in the Polish Land Forces while under British Command on or before 1st July. 1946. Service subsequent to that date—whether in the Polish Land Forces or the Polish Resettlement Corps—does not qualify for these higher rates.

  Allowances are issuable as follows:
  Members of the Polish Resettlement Corps are normally provided with accommodation or with billets. When neither of these can be provided, lodging allowance under normal rules is admissible. Lodging allowance is issued to single men, and to married men separated from their families by the exigencies of the Service or absence of suitable accommodation. Marriage allowance is admissible under normal conditions; it is not issued if the family is accommodated and fed in camp or the wife is a member of the Services. London allowance is admissible to married members when living with their families otherwise than in War Department quarters, and whose place of duty is within 10 miles of Charing Cross.
  The rates of these allowances for members of the Polish Resettlement Corps are:
  All rates are daily except where otherwise stated.
  The estimated cost per head of food is when rations are provided in kind is. 5½d. a day, representing the cost of the ration as delivered to the unit uncooked, and when rations are not provided in kind 3s. 2d a day, ration allowance, and of accommodation 1s. 3d. a day.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Printed Matter (Paper Supply)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War whether a reduction has been effected in the amount of paper made available for the publication "Soldier," issued by his Department, proportionate to the reduction imposed by His Majesty's Government on daily newspapers.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that this publication is now an affair of 48 pages; and is it not a little unfair that it should be permitted to use paper on this scale when the popular Press is reduced to four pages?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think so. It serves a very useful purpose. At any rate, there is no discrimination between this publication and other publications of a similar nature run by private enterprise.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is no one class of newspaper which is more appreciated by men in the Forces than their local newspaper; and would he not consider using some of the paper allocated to this publication to bring the local newspapers back to something more nearly approximating to their normal size?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, I do not think I could do that, because the allocation of this paper comes from the Control Commission for Germany. I would say that this publication is very greatly appreciated by members of the Forces.
    Sir T. Moore: How is paper obtained for a publication which was not published in 1939, before the war, when such a prohibition applies to all civilian publications?
    Mr. Bellenger: That question is much too technical for me to answer. I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member apply to the President of the Board of Trade, who knows the answer.
    Sir T. Moore: But it is the Secretary of State for War who publishes this publication.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a reduction in the purchases by his Department of the publications of the Bureau of Current Affairs, proportionate to the reductions in newsprint imposed by His Majesty's Government on the daily newspapers.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, but in view of the continuing shortage in the supply of paper special instructions have been issued in the War Office that every effort is to be made to reduce demands for printed matter, including instructional literature of this kind.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow his natural modesty to prevent him from conveying his own good example to his colleagues, with particular reference to the Minister of Fuel and Power?
    Mr. Bellenger: No. I would prefer that hon. Members opposite made. those references to my colleagues.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Minister ensure that all the copies of these publications which are supplied are displayed to the best advantage, and are not tucked away in orderly rooms and other places?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I am constantly trying to see that all publications like these are used to the best possible advantage by the troops.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that if he gets as many attacks and criticisms from hon. Members opposite as the Minister of Fuel and Power does, he will be a very popular man with the working classes?

    War Graves
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for War if he will report progress in the matter of dealing with war graves by his Department and the War Graves Commission.
    Mr. Bellenger: Progress in dealing with War Graves may be said to be generally satisfactory. All cemeteries and graves in the Middle East, Italy and North Africa have been handed over by the Army Graves Services to the Imperial War Graves Commission for maintenance. In addition, there are some 80,000 graves in the United Kingdom which have been registered and maintained by the Imperial War Graves Commission from the outset. In France and the Low Countries, the Imperial War Graves Commission have accepted the care of some 35,000 graves, and many more cemeteries in these countries and in the British zone of Germany will be ready for transfer by the Army Graves Service during the next few months. In India and the Far East, measures are being taken by the Imperial War Graves Commission to take over the cemeteries in these areas in the near future.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he thinks that bodies like the British Legion may, with advantage to bereaved relatives, arrange pilgrimages or missions to these cemeteries?
    Mr. Bellenger: I thought the hon. Member knew that we are now engaged in conversations with the British Legion, in which he occupies a very important position, and certain other voluntary societies, to achieve that end.
    Mr. Thomas Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a further announcement regarding facilities for visits to war cemeteries of relatives of men killed during the war; or, if impracticable at present, when he expects a scheme will be possible, so that parents and relatives can have the consolation of looking forward to making such visits in the future.
    Mr. Bellenger: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert) on 22nd July, to which I have at present nothing to add.

    Requisitioned Land, Plymouth
    Mr. Medlandasked the Secretary of State for War to what purpose the land surrounding Agaton Fort, Plymouth, in the ownership of his Department and amounting to 12½ acres, is being used; if he is aware that the city council has
    242
    for the past 18 months been trying, with the support of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education, to come to an arrangement about its future use, and that the delay of his Department is holding up the building of some 100 houses; and if he will expedite its release.
    Mr. Bellenger: This land is let for grazing. I am aware that the Plymouth city council wish to acquire it, but I regret that I cannot agree to make it available, as it will most probably be required for War Department buildings.
    Mr. Medland: Is the Secretary of State aware that this fort was built for defence in the Napoleonic wars, that it was never used then because the enemy did not come that way, that it is not being used now, and that it would be much better used for housing purposes? Will he please show a little common sense in regard to its use?
    Mr. Bellenger: I can certainly give the assurance asked for in the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.
    Mr. Medland: The right hon. Gentleman has not shown much of it.
    Mr. Bellenger: I would remind my hon. Friend that the Question deals, not with the fort, but with the land surrounding it, where we may want to build houses for soldiers.
    Mr. Medland: We would do that better than the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Does not that answer make the original answer even more imbecile?

    Leave (M.E.L.F. and C.M.F.)
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that men who have qualified for 30 days' leave through service in M.E.F. are not cut down to 19 days because of being transferred to C.M.F. before leave is granted.
    Mr. Bellenger: Men serving in M.E.L.F. are eligible for 30 days' leave in the United Kingdom once only during the overseas tour, provided they will still have four months to serve after returning to M.E.L.F. Men in C.M.F., however, get 38 days' leave in the United Kingdom each year, this leave being taken 19 days at a time. The leave in the United Kingdom of men transferred from M.E.L.F. to C.M.F. is therefore increased and not decreased.
    Mr. Mathers: As I had some difficulty in following the right hon. Gentleman's answer because I am not near enough to the amplifier, may I ask does he mean that arrangements are in force to prevent this anomaly from taking place?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, it means that those who are far away from this country can get only one leave of 30 days, and that those who are nearer get two leaves a year, each of 19 days, making a total of 38 days.

    Golf Course, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a substantial part of King's Links Corporation Golf Course, Aberdeen, though no longer used by the military authorities, is still under their control; that it is used by four clubs with a combined membership of over 2,000 and hundreds of unattached players; that it is a seaside links to which the public have access; that it is encumbered by masses of broken barbed wire and other things which are dangerous to the players and public who resort there; and if he will have it cleared immediately and restored to its former condition suitable for golf championships.
    Mr. Bellenger: The area on this golf course held by my Department contains a hutted camp and some additional land. The camp is required for futher military use. The additional land is no longer required by my Department, and the possibility of clearing it is being investigated.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this site is required, particularly during the summer months, for the use of visitors but that it is now cluttered up with huts which could be used for housing civilians? Will he see that these huts are removed so that people can live in them and enjoy the amenities of life?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. I said that the huts are required by my Department. As soon as the land is cleared, it can be given back. If the hon. and learned Member can help in finding labour to clear the land, we should be prepared to pay for it.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that these huts, which would accommodate several families, have been occupied by only two men for months past?
    Mr. Bellenger: I will look into that.

    Central Moribund Accounts Office (Duties)
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Secretary of State for War what are the duties of the officer i/c Central Moribund Accounts
    Mr. Bellenger: The Central Moribund Accounts Office has been set up to maintain and administer the accounts of all non-effective soldiers, that is, soldiers released from the Service, discharged unfit, or who have died.
    Mr. Mitchison: How does the right hon. Gentleman decide when an account is dead?
    Mr. Bellenger: When it is extinguished.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many persons are employed under the officer-in-charge of this Department?
    Mr. Bellenger: I could not do that without notice, but it is not a large number.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the title of this appointment is not the new title of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Bellenger: If hon. Members will look at this matter in a serious way, they will understand that the whole purpose of creating this Department is to relieve the Pay Office of a lot of matter which will disappear in a short space of time. We do not want to clutter up the living tiles with what we consider to be dead or nearly dead matter.

    Civilian Clothing (Cash Allowances)
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the cash allowance issued by the officer in charge of Central Moribund Accounts in lieu of civilian clothing on demobilisation is £2 15s. 1od.; how that sum is arrived at; and whether he is satisfied that it is an adequate equivalent of the suit of clothing, shoes, shirt, hat and other articles issued as civilian clothing on demobilisation.
    Mr. Bellenger: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott), on 19th November, 1946, of which I am sending him a copy. In the event of an application from

    245
    a man who was discharged before 16th October, 1944, without receiving either clothing or a cash grant in lieu, the officer in charge. Central Moribund Accounts, would issue a cash allowance based on the wholesale price of the garments at the time of the man's discharge.
    Mr. Mitchison: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where we can get these goods for this price?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think anywhere, but if my hon. and learned Friend had been in the last House, he would have known that on many occasions we raised this issue of the small cash allowance. It was only by the action of a previous Government that we got it increased in 1944. There has to be a date line drawn somewhere, and it was decided to make it 1944.
    Mr. Mitchison: If a discharged soldier was not in the last House, how is he to get these clothes with this money?

    Ordnance Depot, Thatcham
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for War when the residents of Thatcham, Berkshire, may expect to re gain the use of the footpath closed during the war for the purpose of an ordnance depot; and if a decision has now been reached about the future of this depot.
    Mr. Bellenger: I regret that I am not yet able to give a decision on the future of this depot, and that until this question has been settled the reopening of the foot path cannot be considered.
    Mr. Hurd: While the right hon. Gentleman is making up his mind, can he not allow the people of Thatcham an alternative right of way to get to and from their jobs in the mornings and evenings?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think that matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Hurd: It has been under consideration for two years.
    Mr. Medland: That is not long.

    Barton Stacey Camp (Discipline)
    Mr. Donnerasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to repeated burglaries at Longparish, Hampshire, by soldiers identified as coming from Barton Staceycamp;
    246
    that camp officers disclaim responsibility on the grounds that the matter is one for the local police; and whether, in view of the disquiet throughout the neighbourhood, he will take steps to re-establish discipline and control of personnel, particularly at night.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I was not aware of these incidents. I am making immediate inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Donner: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that the officer in charge has said that nothing less than six policemen are required to maintain security in the village under present conditions, and that there is not one policeman there at the present time?
    Mr. Bellenger: I am not responsible for the police, and I would not like to form an opinion on these allegations until I have investigated them.

    Senior Training Corps
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement upon the future role and conditions of service of the Senior Training Corps in amplification of the Government's policy upon the future of the Cadet Forces.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the future of the Senior Training Corps, but I hope that an announcement will be made in the near future.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been pressing for this information for over a year? We have been told at varying times to await decisions about compulsory military service, liability for auxiliary service, and the future of the Territorial Army. As all these things have now been decided, when can we expect a decision on this matter?
    Mr. Bellenger: To a certain extent it bears on the composition of those at the universities. At present, most of them have no need for any further training, as they are ex-Service men, and a decision is not so urgent as it would appear to be. Within the next year, according to the composition of the university students, we shall make a decision.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend see that their service does not compete with the academic years?

    Casualties
    Brigadier Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers and men of the British Army have been killed,

    BRITISH ARMY (MALE OFFICERS AND OTHER RANKS)

    Casualties since VJ-Day (14 th August, 1945) to 30th June, 1947 (latest date for which figures are available).

    1. Deaths (all causes):

    (a) From 1st August, 1945, to 31st January, 1947

    22,404

    (b) From 1st February, 1947, to 30th June, 1947

    840

    (c) Total of deaths (all causes) reported as struck off strength from 1st August, 1945 (nearest date to VJ-Day) to 30th June, 1947

    23,244

    Reported in the period mentioned irrespective of the date when they occurred and may therefore include deaths which occurred earlier. Figures for the period Ist-I4th August, 1945, cannot be separated without considerable difficulty.

    2. The only precise information readily available on battle casualties is as follows:

    Covering period.

    Officers.

    Other Ranks.

    All Ranks.

    (a) Killed and died of wounds.

    Palestine

    1st August, 1945 to 30th June,

    15

    64

    79

    Java and Sumatra

    1947 1st October, 1945 to 9th November, 1946.

    38

    22

    5°

    43

    86

    129

    These figures are included in the totals of deaths from all causes given above.

    (b) Wounded

    Palestine

    1st August, 1945, to 30th June, 1947

    24

    156

    180

    Java and Sumatra

    1st October, 1945, to 9th November, 1946.

    63

    62

    125

    87

    218

    305

    (c) Missing

    Palestine

    1st August, 1945, to 30th June, 1947

    None reported

    Java and Sumatra

    1st October, 1945,10 9th November, 1946.

    6

    14

    20

    No information is readily available as to the numbers kidnapped.
    With regard to the last part of the Question, figures for the period 1st January, 1947 to 30th June, 1947. in respect of Palestine only (no other date available) are as follow:

    Office.

    Other Ranks.

    All Ranks.

    (a) Killed and died of wounds

    …

    …

    …

    …

    7

    21

    28

    (b) Wounded

    …

    …

    …

    …

    10

    100

    110

    17

    121

    138

    wounded and kidnapped in the period from VJ-Day until 28th July, 1947;and how many in each case since 1st January 1947.
    Mr. Bellenger: I will permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the details:

    Motor Vehicles, Germany
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet completed the hand-over to the Ministry of Supply of the 10,000 motor vehicles referred to on page 31 of the May, 1947, Report of the Control Commission for Germany; and when he expects to complete his plans for disposing of the remainder.
    Mr. Bellenger: Of the 10,000 vehicles which, at the end of May, were in course of inspection and hand-over to the Ministry of Supply, only some 600 remain on Army charge. These will be in the hands of the Ministry of Supply within the next few weeks. As a result of the reduction in the strength of the Army of the Rhine, a further 6,000 vehicles are now undergoing final inspection and segregation before handing over to the Ministry of Supply for disposal.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that handing over these vehicles to the Ministry of Supply is no guarantee that anything further will be heard of them?

    Territorial Units (Equipment)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for War how many Territorial infantry battalions are not yet complete to peace establishment in weapons and transport.
    Mr. Bellenger: Commanding officers of all Territorial units have been instructed that they should not demand more transport or equipment than they can handle, house, and maintain. At present, no unit could maintain its complete peace equipment. Until units have obtained a sufficient number of recruits and, in most cases, additional buildings have been provided, the full peace scale of equipment and vehicles will not be issued.
    Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many units which have sufficient recruits to maintain some equipment, that there are units today that have not one carrier, that have one anti-tank gun with nothing to pull it, and not sufficient wireless apparatus to carry out a skeleton exercise without borrowing from another unit? Does he not agree that three months after recruiting has opened for the Territorial Army this is disgraceful?
    Mr. Bellenger: Where there are recruits in units, they will get sufficient equipment for their purpose.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the equipment is at least up to date, since the equipment being issued at present was obsolete in 1942?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should not be surprised if, during the next two or three years, a certain amount of Army equipment became obsolete at the pace we are moving nowadays, but the Territorial Army will be equipped with the same equipment as the Regular Army.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the Territorial Army is incomparably better equipped than it was at the time of Munich, after many years of Conservative government?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, very much better equipped, as many Members who were in the House then will recollect.
    Mr. Eden: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will recollect the votes he cast against the provision of that equipment?
    Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman has been a bit hasty in putting that question to me. I do not think that I voted on that issue.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the North-West, where units are struggling to be come fully established, recruiting has been retarded because there is no modern equipment?
    Mr. Bellenger: I would not accept that for one moment. I can assure the House that there will be no shortage of equipment for the Territorial Army, even if they recruit up to the ceiling. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows of any particular case let him bring it to me, and I will look into it.

  POLISH FORCES (REPATRIATION)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for War the number of Poles now in the Polish land forces in this country who have refused either to be repatriated to Poland or to join the Polish Resettlement Corps; and how many of this category have been sent to the Continent.
  Mr. Bellenger: About 5,000 and 105 respectively.
  Mr. Piratin: As those figures seem to be about the same as we were given a month or so ago, can the right hon. Gentleman say what further progress he expects to make, and how much longer the public exchequer will have to pay these people, who neither work nor seem to want to work?
  Mr. Bellenger: I am very optimistic about being able to persuade recalcitrant Poles either to go back to Poland or to join the Polish Resettlement Corps. If the hon. Gentleman will put another Question in a month's time, perhaps he will get some better figures.
  Mr. Piratin: In another month's time we shall be in Recess. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take a decision about these people, so that we may be certain that the public Exchequer will not have to maintain them? These people should be given no better rights than those who will not work, and who have to go into public institutions. If they were offered the same rights as British civilians, they might change their attitude.
  Mr. Bellenger: I do not want these Poles on my hands longer than is necessary. If the hon. Member will refer to an answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently, he will see that it is necessary to make deportation orders if these Poles will not join the Resettlement Corps or go back to Poland. We are dealing with these cases.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that none of them will be forcibly sent back, and can he tell us how many have refused to accept work?
  Mr. Bellenger: I cannot give an assurance of that kind, but these Poles cannot remain on British benevolence indefinitely.
  Mr. Gallacher: We do not want them.
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for War how many Poles are stationed outside the United Kingdom; how many of these desire to be repatriated to Poland; how many have entered the Polish Resettlement Corps and how many refuse to do either; and when does he expect that all these Poles
  252
  will be returned to this country or repatriated.
  Mr. Bellenger: Approximately 13,500 Poles are stationed outside the United Kingdom. Some 2,000 of these are awaiting repatriation. None have joined the Polish Resettlement Corps, as it is possible to do this only in the United Kingdom. About 500 have stated that they will neither join the Polish Resettlement Corps nor return to Poland, but it is not yet clear how many of the balance will be willing to join the Polish Resettlement Corps, as in many cases they have not yet been asked. I hope that all members of the Polish Forces at present stationed abroad will have been either repatriated to Poland, resettled abroad, or brought to this country by the end of this year.
  Mr. Piratin: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the House that there are about 10,000 more, in addition to the 5,000 in this country, who will neither work nor go back to Poland; and that we now have a total of 15,000?
  Mr. Bellenger: If the hon. Member will read my answer, he will see that he has misconstrued what I said. The figures are nothing like what he has suggested.

  ECONOMIC SITUATION (INFORMATION)
  Mr. Osborneasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that figures relating to the country's economic position will not be divulged to outside bodies, such as the National Council of Labour and the T.U.C., by any member of the Cabinet before they are made available to Parliament.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to keep Parliament and both sides of industry fully informed about the country's economic position. But I certainly cannot give an assurance about bodies outside Parliament of such a restricting nature as the hon. Member proposes.
  Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that "The Times" last Wednesday, said that the Chancellor gave detailed information to the National Council of Labour that had not been published to this House, and does he not

  253
  think it derogatory to the standing of this ancient and honourable House that it should be turned by the Chancellor into a sub-committee of the Socialist Party?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member has any question to put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had better put it to him. I am not prepared to rely on statements in newspapers. I see many startling matters of information about myself which are totally inaccurate.
  Mr. Walkden: Does not my right hon. Friend recall that in 1943 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) gave us a tremendous amount of information, when the expenses of delegates from the mining world were paid to come to the Central Hall. Westminster, and get all the figures they wanted in the effort to get more coal? What does it matter if my right hon. Friend gives figures about coal, exports, or textiles so long as we get the stuff?
  The Prime Minister: Hon. Members must make up their minds what they want. If they want a Government that carries on by a strictly bureaucratic method, and has no intercourse with outside bodies, they can take it that way; but if they want a Government which, as is our practice, consults outside bodies and employers and employees, it is ridiculous to think that every time Ministers open their mouths they must see whether or not a statement has been made in the House.
  Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman does not deny that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave that information last Wednesday?
  The Prime Minister: I gave no information. If the hon. Gentleman wants to challenge the Chancellor of the Exchequer, let him challenge him.

  FOREIGN TOURISTS (VISAS)
  Mr. Teelingasked the Prime Minister what agreement has been reached between the Treasury and the Ministry of Food with regard to the period for which foreign tourists are to be allowed this year to enter the United Kingdom; what instructions have been given on this
  254
  matter to those issuing visas abroad; and what Minister is actually responsible for making a final decision on this matter.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food is not concerned with the period for which foreign tourists may enter the United Kingdom, but makes provision for them to obtain food whatever the length of stay.
  As regards the nationals of many European countries, visas for journeys to the United Kingdom are no longer required. As regards nationals of other countries, if an applicant wants to come to this country for a period not exceeding six months, the Passport Control Officer is authorised to grant him a visa without reference to the Home Office. The visa is authority for the journey and does not govern the length of his stay here. The length of stay is in the first instance determined in each case by the Immigration Officer in the light of the information given by the foreigner as to the object of his visit. The Minister responsible for dealing with any applications for extensions of stay is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is still a certain amount of confusion abroad amongst those who are trying to get people to come to this country, and uncertainty as to which Ministers want them to come and which do not? Does he also realise that, having appointed the Tourist Board under the Board of Trade, that ought to be the body not only to deal with everyone coming from abroad, but to see that a muddle, such as occurred in connection with the Norwegian children during the last few days, which does great damage to this country, does not go on?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question with regard to the Norwegian children, which does not come directly under my notice. I have answered the specific Question which the hon. Gentleman has put to me.
  Mr. Teeling: If vast numbers of people come from countries where visas are not required, is not the Tourist Board responsible for making sure that they are properly looked after?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I should require notice of that question.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Dollar Reserves
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the drain on our dollar reserves has increased since 15th July.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): There has been no substantial change in the drain during the fortnight since 15th July compared with the immediately preceding period. Arrangements with a number of countries for the transferability of sterling were, of course, in operation before 15th July.

    Tobacco Duty (Concession)
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state when the concessions on cigarettes and tobacco already promised are likely to commence.
    Mr. Dalton: As soon as the necessary printing and other arrangements can be completed.
    Sir F. Sanderson: In view of the fact that it is three months since the Budget, is the Chancellor able to say whether he will be able to give notice of these concessions before the House rises for the Recess?
    Mr. Dalton: I do not want to name a date, because I do not want to cause disappointment among old people, if it cannot be firmly held. After all, the Finance Bill is hardly yet law. It was not possible to put these concessions into final preparation until the House approved the new Clause which I put down on the Report stage. I can assure the House that there is no intention to delay, but I would rather not name a date.

    Nationalised Industries (Compensation)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to prevent the compensation to owners of industries about to be nationalised being vitiated by the recent fall in the value of Government securities, exemplified by the present price of 91¼ for the 2½ per cent. Treasury Stock issued last October
    Mr. Dalton: The terms of compensation will be settled when the time comes, having regard to the price of Government securities at that time.

    Foreign Currency Allowances
    Mr. Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much foreign currency has been applied for, during the first six months of this year, for holiday expenditure abroad; and how many people he estimates have gone abroad on holiday during that time.
    Mr. Dalton: About £11½ million for a quarter of a million people.
    Mr. Teeling: In view of the fact that it takes a long time for holiday associations to prepare dates to send people abroad, could he give any indication whether he thinks this is too great a sum, in view of the fact that many people are now preparing for their winter holidays abroad?
    Mr. Dalton: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what is coming along.

    Anglo-Iranian Oil Company
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the total value of the shares in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company owned by the nation has risen since 1st January.
    Mr. Dalton: By about £49 million at present market prices.

    Sterling Convertibility
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with what countries arrangements have been concluded whereby sterling received by them from the International Fund becomes convertible; and whether such arrangements apply also to all sterling-area currencies.
    Mr. Dalton: No such arrangements are needed, since sterling received from the Fund, is not distinguished from other sterling currently accruing.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does that mean that all the sterling we have made available to the International Monetary Fund is convertible; and does it further mean that all currencies within the sterling area are ex-changeable first, into sterling, and, secondly, into any other currency?
    Mr. Dalton: I have tried to put the answer very plainly to the hon. Gentleman's Question. No special problem arises with regard to moneys drawn from the Fund as distinct from the general problem of sterling currently accruing. Sterling drawn from the fund is sterling currently accruing.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does this mean that in addition to sterling currently accruable, all sums drawn from the International Monetary Fund either in sterling or sterling area currencies are convertible?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, certainly.

    Anglo-Uruguayan Payments Agreement
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason no counterclaims were made by His Majesty's Government against the sterling balances held by Uruguay before the payments agreement dated 15th July, 1947, was signed.
    Mr. Dalton: As in other cases, I have stated that His Majesty's Government reserve their position with regard to an adjustment of all sterling balances accumulated under war-time conditions.
    Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre: His Majesty's Government from this answer seem always to be reserving their position; and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the categorical assurances he has given this House respecting counterclaims, whether such assurances will be translated into action or for ever remain on the basis of "reserving their position"?
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has formed an estimate for the current financial year of the liability of convertibility assumed by His Majesty's Government under the Anglo-Uruguayan Payments Agreement.
    Mr. Dalton: It is expected that payments under this Agreement will approximately balance.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Clothing Coupons (Foreign Tourists)
    Mr. Thomas Macphersonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for tourists and visitors to this country to be issued with a supply of clothing coupons in order to assist in the export drive and at the same time give the retail trade an opportunity of participating in this business.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): Retailers are allowed to accept orders from over
    258
    seas visitors for delivery overseas, without the surrender of coupons, but I do not think I should be justified in giving coupons to foreign tourists.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the formalities are so formidable that very few such exports take place? Will he try to simplify the formalities?
    Mr. Belcher: While we try to simplify the formalities, they must, by the nature of things, be rather formidable. It is necessary in some cases to require export licences. We are making every effort to do our best for the people to go to retailers to buy goods to be delivered to ships or aeroplanes.
    Mr. Frank Byers: What is the point of this? Is it not true that when a foreign tourist buys clothing in this country, it is equivalent to helping the export drive, and that this is stopping the export drive. Cannot it be looked at again?
    Mr. Keeling: The present system is hopeless.
    Mr. Belcher: We are not necessarily stopping the export drive if we refuse to give coupons to overseas visitors, because we do not know what is going to happen to the coupons.

    U.S. Printed Matter (Imports)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the President of the Board of Trade under what arrangement U.S. fiction is imported into this country; and what he estimates will be its cost to us in a whole year.
    Mr. Belcher: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full statement on this matter which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) on 17th April last. The total value of books of all kinds and other printed matter for reading purposes imported from the U.S.A. during the first six months of 1947 was approximately £689,000. I am unable at present to give any estimate of the value of the fiction included in this total.
    Mr. Mikardo: Does that figure include printed matter which could hardly be described as being for reading, but is presumably intended for morons who can follow sensational stories only in pictures?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock and that the Proceedings on
Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 109.

Division No. 342.]

AYES.

[3.30 p.m.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Foot, M. M.

Mathers, G.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Forman, J. C.

Medland, H. M.

Alpass, J. H.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Melish, R. J.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Gallacher, W.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Attewell, H C.

Ganley, Mrs C. S.

Mikardo, Ian

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mitchison, G. R

Awbery, S. S.

Gilzean, A.

Moody, A S.

Ayles, W. H.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Morley, R.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Greenwood, A. V. J. (Heywood)

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Bacon, Miss A.

Grenfell, D. R

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Balfour, A.

Grey, C. F.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Barton, C.

Grierson, E.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, E.)

Battley, J. R.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Guest, Dr L Haden

Moyle, A.

Belcher, J. W.

Gunter, R J

Murray, J. D.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J.

Guy, W. H.

Nally, W.

Benson, G.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Beswick, F.

Hall, W. G.

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Bing, G H. C.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Binns, J.

Hardy, E. A.

Noel-Baker, capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Blackburn, A. R.

Harrison, J.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Blyton, W. R.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Oldfield, W. H.

Boardman, H.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Orbach, M.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Herbison, Miss M.

Paget, R. T

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Hicks G

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Bramall, E. A.

Holman, P.

Parkin, B. T.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

House, G.

Pearson, A.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hoy, J.

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Brown, George (Belper)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Brown, T. J, (Ince)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, M. Philips

Buchanan, G.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Pritt, D. N.

Burden, T. W.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Proctor, W T

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)

Pryde, D. J

Byers, Frank

Irving, W. J.

Randall, H E

Carmichael, James

Janner, B.

Ranger, J.

Champion, A. J.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Rankin, J

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Reeves, J

Cocks, F. S.,

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Rhodes, H

Coldrick, W

Keenan, W.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Collick, P

Key, C. W.

Robens, A.

Collindridge, F.

Kinley, J.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Colman, Miss G M

Kirby, B. V.

Royle, C

Corlett, Dr. J.

Kirkwood, D

Scollan, T.

Corvedale, Viscount

Lang, G.

Scott-Elliot, W

Cove, W. G.

Lavers, S.

Segal, Dr. S.

Crawley, A

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J

Sharp, Granville

Daines, P.

Leslie, J. R.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Levy, B. W.

Skeffington, A. M.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lewis, A W J. (Upton).

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Skinnard, F. W.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Unjv.)

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W)

Lipson, D. L

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Davies, S. O (Merthyr)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Snow, Capt J W

Deer, G.

Logan, D. G.

Sparks, J. A

Delargy, H. J.

Lyne, A W

Stamford, W

Diamond, J.

McAdam, W.

Stephon C.

Dodds, N. N.

McAllister, G

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Driberg, T. E. N.

McEntee, V. La T.

Stross, Dr. B.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

McGhee, H. G

Stubbs, A. E.

Dumpleton, C. W

McGovern, J.

Swingler, S.

Durbin, E. F. M

Mack, J. D.

Sylvester, G O.

Dye, S.

McKay, J (Wallsend)

Symonds, A. L.

Edelman, M.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

McKinlay, A. S.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Maclean, N (Govan)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

McLeavy, F.

Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Ewart, R

Mallalieu, J. P. W

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

Farthing, W. J.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Fernyhough, E.

Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

Thurtle, Ernest

Tiffany, S.

Watkins, T. E.

Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)

Timmons, J.

Watson, W. M.

Williams, W R. (Heston)

Titterington, M. F.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Wilson, J. H.

Tolley, L.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Woods, G. S.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Wyatt, W.

Viant, S. P.

While, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Yates, V. F.

Wadsworth, G

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Walkden, E.

Wilkins, W A.

Walker, G. H.

Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Poole, O. B- S. (Oswestry)

Baldwin, A. E

Hollis, M. C.

Prescott, Stanley

Barlow, Sir J

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Baxter, A. B.

Hope, Lord J.

Raikes, H. V.

Beechman, N. A.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Ramsay, Major S.

Birch, Nigel

Hurd, A.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Boothby, R.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Roberts, Maj P. G (Ecclesall)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Keeling, E. H.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Ropner, Col. L

Bullock Capt. M

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Carson, E.

Lennox-Boyd, A T.

Sanderson Sir F.

Challen, C.

Lindsay, M (Solihull)

Scott, Lord W.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Smith. E. P. (Ashford)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Snadden, W. M.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Spence, H. R.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Stoddart-Scott, Col M.

Denner, Sqn.-Ldr P. W

Mackeson, Brig. H R.

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Dower, Lt.-Col A V. G. (Penrith)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Drewe, C

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Sutcliffe, H

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Manningham-Buller, R E.

Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Marlowe, A. A. H

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Marsden, Capt. A

Teeling, William

Errell, F. J.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr E L.

Mellor, Sir J.

Touche, G C.

Fletcher, W (Bury)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Turton, R. H

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Vane, W. M. F.

Gammans, L. D.

Morrison, Rt Hon. W S. (Cirencester)

Williams, C (Torquay)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Nield, B (Chester)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Grant, Lady

Orr-Ewing I. L.

Grimston, R. V.

Osborne, C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Hare, Hon J H (Woodbridge)

Peake, Rt Hon. O.

Major Conant and

Haughton, S. G.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

Head, Brig. A H

Pickthorn, K.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1947–48
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Colonial administration for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, namely:

    Civil Estimates, 1947–48

    Class I., Vote 8, Colonial Office

    £10

    Class II., Vote 9, Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

    £10

    Class II., Vote 10, West African Produce Control Board

    £10

    Class II., Vote 11, Development and Welfare (Colonies, &c.)

    £10

    Class X., Vote 3, Ministry of Food

    £10

    £50"

    —[Mr. Creech Jones.]

  COLONIAL AFFAIRS
  3.41 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The Colonial Secretary has a peculiar difficulty today in addressing the Committee, because, in the aftermath of war, all colonial territories have been anxious that their affairs should receive the close attention of the British Government, and the last few years have been years of unparalleled activity. I have tried to put the Committee in possession of a great deal of information regarding colonial development and policy over the last decade, and hon. Members will have in then-possession a report on the working of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, a report on the research committees which have been examining many of the difficult problems with respect to colonial administration and the problems of the territories, and also a review of the years since the last report was published for the information of the House, 1939 to 1947. There is a further report available to hon. Members on the West Indies in regard to development work in that part of the world. I think it will be generally agreed that these documents represent a creditable record of effort and of solid
  264
  achievement over recent years, and I would like, at the outset, to pay my tribute, and I am sure my predecessors in office would also desire so to do, to our colonial services and the staff of our Colonial Office for the excellent work which they have done over the last decade.
  The period since the war has been one of special difficulty, because of the troubled background in almost all regions of the world. We have had, in the Colonial Empire, to transform the territories back to normal peace-time conditions, to adjust their individual economies, to absorb their military forces, to restore the ravages of war, to review the colonial services, to cope with neglect and disturbance and grievances, to satisfy the claims of nationalism and expanding freedom, to discuss the highly controversial problems of international policy, to deal with planning in conditions of fluctuating economies and to make practical demonstrations, in spite of the shortages of manpower, materials and skills, of our desire to serve the colonial peoples in peace as in war.
  It will be appreciated by the Committee that colonial progress is not a matter merely of directives from the Colonial Office or the Government of the day. We have to get implemented in our territories our principles and policies, it is true, but, at the same time, in all our efforts, we have to remember that our territories are advancing to some degree of responsible self-government, and, accordingly, we cannot impose our will. We have to persuade them to build up their own institutions with the acceptance of the sound policies which we feel will make for the betterment of the colonial territories. If the Colonial Office is to perform its important services, it is essential that it should have the requisite knowledge for the work in hand, and our object is to transform the dependencies in the Colonial Empire to responsibility, and to exercise a trust so that each blossoms into a partnership of disinterested service and friendship. We try to give what practical aid we can in achieving the social happiness and well-being of the colonial peoples, and, at the same time, to help the colonial peoples to make their contribution to the larger life of mankind itself.
  With that in view, over the past years, we have tried to improve our organisation

  265
  at the centre of Government here in London, and, in the past year, we have strengthened our advisory machinery, appointed women advisers in nursing, in education and labour, appointed new advisers in the field of co-operation, social services, transport and surveys, and we have developed functional organisation in connection with economic problems, labour co-operation and the welfare of the colonial peoples. In Britain, we have reorganised our public relations department in order that a better service of information may be made available to the British public and to foreign States, and also that some contribution may be made in regard to the relations in the colonial territories themselves. We have carried forward our research arrangements with special committees now covering agriculture, health, economics, social services, fisheries and so on, and here, in passing, may I pay a special tribute in the field of research to Lord Hailey for the contribution he has made unfailingly from his very great knowledge over so vast a field in recent years.
  We have also built up a strong survey organisation, with geologists, surveyors and draughtsmen. Here again I would like to thank the Royal Air Force for the contribution they have made in mapping out regions of the Empire which were hitherto indifferently mapped, thus giving us a great deal of knowledge about geology, water and so on. Finally, we have completed the arrangements for refreshing and renewing colonial staff after the strain and difficulties of the war years.
  Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order, Major Milner. It is really impossible to listen to what the Colonial Secretary is saying because of the humming noise from the amplifiers in the Chamber. Can we have this science turned off somehow? It just makes noises as if we had a high fever, like high-ringing bells.
  The Chairman (Major. Milner): I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member, having suffered from it for the past two days. I will see what can be done.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I was referring to the refresher training of the Colonial Service. We have adopted the proposals of the Devonshire Report and have
  266
  begun to operate the conditions which were set out in the White Paper when that report was published. As a consequence we have had 120 colonial cadets in training at Oxford and Cambridge universities. They have now gone in for and are taking their second course of the first session, and others are taking their first course at London University just now. I would like, because of the excellent work which the Universities have performed in making colonial studies possible to the cadets, to thank them, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, for this important contribution. I would also like to inform the Committee of the excellent quality of the new recruits in the Colonial Service. The teachers of these men and women, the university authorities and all those who are working with them, pay tribute to the very high quality, the energy, the initiative and the intelligence of the men who are now joining the service.
  It is of interest to know that in the general recruitment, by which nearly 3,000 men and women have been brought into the colonial services, a large number of them have come from varying walks of life. They are not men straight from the schools or universities. Among the administrative people only one half of those recruited have come from the universities. At least 40 per cent. have come from the fields of local government, finance, industry and commerce, and so on. The quality of the cadets is, beyond question, very high.
  I would now like to turn to political developments during the past year and to make a number of references to constitutions which we have reshaped. We have entered a phase of colonial history in which there is a widespread demand from the colonial people, or at any rate from the vocal elements of them, for more practical evidence of the sincerity of our oft-proclaimed policy of conferring self-government on the colonial communities. I am convinced that in this modern age, with its forces of nationalism and freedom, its economic changes, its spread of education, and the political and social awakening which is going on, we must adjust ourselves to a much quicker tempo of constitutional development than would have seemed practicable a few years ago. We have to experiment boldly, though not necessarily rashly, and to recognise that

  267
  while the transfer of power to people not fully trained or with adequate experience or traditions to exercise it will lead to mistakes being made, it is only through actual experience in the exercise of responsibility that people can acquire a sense of duty and of service. The process may be a painful one, but the alternative of increasing bitterness and tension in the relationship of the people to the Government would be disastrous.
  I want first, then, to refer to Ceylon. She will shortly move, when her new constitution has come into operation, her new government is set up and a number of outstanding matters with us settled, to fully responsible status within the British Commonwealth of Nations. The new status will differ in no respect from what we have been accustomed to call dominion status. Ceylon will be the first colony to achieve this new status since the relationships between the members of the British Commonwealth were expressly defined by the Imperial Conference of 1926. She will, I am sure, fully enter into the spirit of co-operation which is characteristic of the relationship of members of the British Commonwealth with one another. Here, it would be just that I should take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude to those who have contributed to the success of this development. My thought goes back to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) when he was an official of the Ceylon Government, to Lord Soulbury for his more recent contribution, to Sir Drummond Shiels for the work that he did, and particularly more recently to the Ceylon leaders themselves, Mr. Senanayake and Sir Oliver Goonetilleke.
  As the Committee are aware, the Governor of Cyprus has summoned a constituent assembly to discuss the future constitution of that country. It is unknown as yet what success will meet the invitations which have already been issued, but some substantial progress has been made in Cyprus in economic schemes and in local government. The Governor has our completest confidence in the policy which he is energetically pursuing in that colony. In Mauritius and the Seychelles, the new constitutions are finally drafted and will I hope be agreed, and come into operation very shortly. In regard to Malta, the preparation of the instruments to give Malta responsible government in the domestic sphere, in
  268
  accordance with promises made by His Majesty's Government in 1943, is in an advanced stage. It is hoped that the new constitution will be enacted in time for the first elections to be held in the autumn. During the final stages of drafting, my legal adviser visited Malta for discussion with the constitutional committee of the Malta National Assembly. I am glad to say that all outstanding points have been cleared up in those discussions.
  I would like also to refer to the West Indies, because here again a great deal of political activity is going on and changes of importance are occurring. The Jamaica Legislative Council has already expressed the desire to bring into review the working of the constitution in anticipation of the first five years operation of that constitution. Barbados is engaged in a very interesting experiment in respect of executive government and responsibility to the legislative body. British Honduras has just sent a deputation to London, and I have had the privilege of discussing with them the changes which they feel necessary in their own political arrangements. The discussions between the Leeward and Windward Islands for the union of these groups are still going on, and I hope before very long to be able to announce that success has attended these discussions and that union will become a fact.
  In regard to British Guiana, the franchise has been extended and a commission will shortly be going out to examine there the problems of settlement and questions relating to development. In Trinidad the first Legislative Council on the basis of adult suffrage has been created and they are now looking forward to further changes in their constitutional arrangements. But perhaps the most important development of all, following the circular of my predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), to the West Indian Governments, is the calling together of a conference in September and October to discuss the problem of federation, or at least closer association between the West Indian territories.
  I turn now to the Far East. In Sarawak the administration is steadily winning the confidence of the people. It is giving attention to health and education problems, and steps are now being taken to

  269
  associate the people more closely with the Government, and new local government institutions are being created. In the case of North Borneo the new administration has replaced the Chartered Company, and it is hoped that the arbitration proceedings between the Company and the Government will be heard later this year. In the case of the constitution of Hong Kong, the despatches from and to the Governor, Sir Mark Young, have now been placed in the Library, and the Legislative Council has been modified and a new municipal council, more representative of the people, created.
  The Committee is acquainted with the discussions which have been going on during the past year or so in regard to the future constitution of Malaya. These discussions have been proceeding with the Malays and the non-Malays in the Peninsula, and at last certain conclusions have been reached. They achieved His Majesty's Government's main policy of establishing in Malaya a strong central government and securing the basis of common citizenship among all the peoples who make Malaya their homeland and the centre of their loyalties. I recognise the difficulty of discussing these proposals in the Committee today, and I hope that after the Recess it may be possible, with the consent of the Leader of the House, for an opportunity to be found for the Committee or the House to make observations on these arrangements. I would again like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the Governor-General, to Sir Edward Gent, the Governor of the Malayan Union, and to Sir Harold MacMichael for his early work with regard to the constitution there. I would like to thank them and to pay our tribute to the services they have rendered in bringing about this happy result. At the same time, we would like to express our deep appreciation of the spirit which was brought to this task by the Malays and the rulers of the Malays themselves, as well as the non-Malay communities.
  Singapore will have its new constitution as well. That will come into operation either at the beginning of the year or not later than 1st April, but it is important that I should say, although a statement is included in the White Paper I have recently published, that if at any time after the inauguration of the new constitution the Government of the Federation of Malaya or of Singapore wishes to
  270
  press that Singapore should join the Federation, it will be wholly free to do so and to request formal consideration of this subject. It will then be for the two Governments to agree on appropriate means of examining the proposal. No doubt joint consultative machinery would be devised for the necessary negotiations. This is a matter to be settled primarily by the Governments and peoples of Malaya and Singapore. Clearly, no decision involving a change could be taken without the consent of the Governments and Legislatures of both territories.
  I regret that I have not the time to discuss the remarkable political and constitutional changes which have occurred in Africa during the last few years. There have been changes in the structure of most of the Executives of the colonies there, an increase in responsibility by the inclusion of Africans, a growth of local government and of municipal life, an adaptation of native administration to carry increasing burdens of services which minister to the well-being of the people, and a development of native provincial councils. All this work in the field of constitutional development is going on and great political changes are resulting, but I would say that the problem of local government and the adaptation of native administrations is one of very special difficulty. Next month it is our purpose to hold at Cambridge a conference of colonial officials who are especially concerned with this work in the colonies in order that there shall be an exchange of views on the future development of native administration.
  The time is also ripe for discussion by all concerned in the colonies, with London, on basic problems of administration and development. There are various questions concerned with economic development, social services, the growth of political institutions and problems of local government which call for closer examination and an exchange of views between London and the African Colonies. Accordingly it is our purpose in November of this year to summon a conference in London of the Governors of the African territories in order to exchange ideas, and then in the late spring or early summer of next year to invite to London unofficial members of the Legislative Councils in order to discuss with us some of the problems I have mentioned.

  271
  Before leaving the political problems of Africa, I want to make a passing reference to Colonial Paper No. 210 to which some reference is made in the OFFICIAL REPORT yesterday in reply to a Question put to me on the subject. All of us who know anything at all about the problems of East Africa are conscious of the importance and the urgency of building up some inter-territorial organisation there for the fuller development of the economic needs of that part of the world. Accordingly, it is proposed to set up a central assembly. In the first instance, this experiment will be made for four years, but at least it will permit of some public control in the development of certain services which at present are under the direction of the Governors and are in no real sense answerable directly to public criticism. The final responsibility, of course, for the development of East Africa will continue to rest with His Majesty's Government through the House of Commons, but these proposals will not involve anything in the nature of closer union in. the political sense.
  There has been some misunderstanding and some misrepresentation in regard to the nature of the central assembly of this inter-territorial organisation. As we announced previously in Colonial Paper No. 191, which was the basis of much discussion in East Africa, our purpose was that there should be in the central assembly equal representation of the various communities in that part of Africa, and that they should be equally represented from the three respective territories. That principle we have not abandoned. What we have done, instead of the high commission set up under this scheme appointing four nominated persons to serve on that assembly, is to ask the unofficial members of each Legislative Council to select one of their number to represent the territorial interests of their colony, and he will sit with the three representatives of the respective communities and represent, as against racial demand, territorial needs. I hope that in its final form this scheme will have the goodwill and the full co-operation of all the communities in East Africa.
  I want to pass for a few minutes to the consideration of some of the problems of social development, because if democracy is to be a reality in our colonies, we have
  272
  to do something much more than create suitable political institutions. We have to see that good social life is possible, that there is good health, good facilities for education, good housing and all those conditions which help to build up the life of a people. There has been much criticism in the past about the negligence, about the squalor, the disease, the ignorance and the rest in regard to our colonial territories, and we are all conscious that our task is largely to create in these territories the whole apparatus of modern government and to build up from scratch a whole series of new social services.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: From scratch?
  Mr. Creech Jones: That work cannot be done in a day. It takes a long time to build up, if these conditions are to be of permanent value in the life of these territories. I would say, too, that although we recognise the magnitude of this task and the solidarity of past achievements, we enter into it and shall attempt to discharge it, in no complacent spirit. We try to look at this problem of social growth in all its aspects and try to relate every part of our activity to bringing these things together so that we see the pattern whole.
  I would like to make reference to education and the work during the past year in the field of higher education. I want to thank the universities for the service of many of their vice-chancellors upon the Inter-University Council created last year, and also for their contribution in respect to the Grants Committee which is supervising the financial needs of the university institutions that are being brought into being. As hon. Members know, we are creating in the principal colonial regions a series of university colleges. Already the Principal of the West Indies University College has been appointed and has been at work. The Principal in West Africa has been appointed and is now in Nigeria preparing the way. Developments are occurring in the Gold Coast. We are discussing the future of the University of Hong Kong. We have had a mission to South-East Asia for the purpose of settling the basis of the University in Malaya, and also a commission has gone to Makerere in Uganda in East Africa to develop the higher education institution in order to meet the needs of higher education there.

  273
  It will probably surprise hon. Members to know that there are no fewer than 1,500 colonial students in this country at present, most of them attached to our universities, who are preparing for their life in their own colonies. That means, of course, that there is a considerable demand for higher educational facilities in all our territories, and we have to hasten forward with the provision in the territories if the peoples are to make a satisfactory contribution to the developing life about them. I want to refer also to another aspect of education which is of particular importance at this stage in colonial development. We have had in this country for colonial peoples a study scheme of further education and vocational training, and no fewer than 1,530 colonial people, men and women, have availed themselves of these facilities and are studying professional subjects, trades, and other studies in order to return to their country better fitted to join in the economic life
  Mr. Keeling: Could the Secretary of State say whether either the 1,500 colonial students at universities or the 1,530 having vocational training in elude those at the Inns of Court, or are they additional?
  Mr. Creech Jones: So far as the Inns of Court are concerned, I believe there are about 184 in addition to the numbers I have mentioned. There has been in the colonies, too, a tremendous amount of trade and technical training for ex-Service men on demobilisation from the Army, and they should make a valuable contribution in the days to come to the economic life of those territories.
  Mr. Harrison: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that question of higher education in the colonies, may I ask if the Colonial Office has taken into consideration the possibility of so developing the educational O.C.T.U. on the higher level as to be out of all proportion to the general economic educational facilities that can be developed in the colony generally, and so prove a source of danger to the development of the ordinary life of the colony?
  Mr. Creech Jones: No, the building of the university colleges will be done from moneys provided out of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, but the maintenance of these colleges will undoubtedly
  274
  fall in part on local colonial funds. We hope that with the further economic developments going on in the territories these additional costs can be sustained, but higher education development is properly related to the general educational development as a whole.
  Mr. Harrison: I do not think my right hon. Friend has quite appreciated my point. Is there a danger of the development of an educated hierarchy in some of our ill-developed colonies, which in the long run will prove a nuisance in the development of those territories?
  Mr. Creech Jones: No, this point is often put, but, in point of fact, we cannot get very far with the economic development of a colony, or build up its social life, unless we have higher educational institutions. That is to say, we cannot get teachers in secondary schools or primary schools, unless we have higher educational institutions, and all this is part of the education system. There is no danger, I think, of the product of the higher education system getting out of relationship with the other parts of the education system. In the Colonial Development Fund £1 million is also set on one side for the training of colonial civil servants or members of the colonial services who had their origin in the colonies themselves. Our universities here will be receiving men who have not had normal facilities to fit them for administrative and technical work in the colonies in the services to which they belong.
  I must pass over the work which is going forward in regard to primary and secondary education, the build-up of training colleges, and efforts which are being made to extend girls' and women's education. Some of that development is referred to in the White Paper on the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, where the 10-year plans of the respective colonies are discussed. I had also hoped that I could say a few words with regard to what is popularly called mass education. In the past year, in the light of our experience in the colonies, we have issued a further paper to the Colonial Governments indicating more concrete lines of advance in regard to this aspect of education. But I must leave this fascinating subject to the Under-Secretary to deal with at the end of the Debate.
  Squadron Leader Donner: Is this a paper which has been made available, or a new paper, and if it is a new paper, could the right hon. Gentleman indicate what the concrete lines are?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will wait for the Under-Secretary who will make a statement on that. The paper has not been published, but has been sent, of course, to the Colonial Governments.
  I also wish to make passing reference to health. Here again the inadequacy of our health arrangements is freely admitted, and very widely known. Apart from the importance of curative medicine, we attach the greatest importance to preventive medicine, and in the 10-year programmes recently submitted by Colonial Governments, which have been considered by the Colonial Office, a great deal of thought has been given to the improvement of water supplies, sanitation in the villages, nursing services, child welfare and maternity and, of course, of more suitable housing provisions. Today I cannot describe the very considerable schemes of housing development, slum clearance and town planning which have been adopted in many of our territories. Great attention has also been given to the problem of nutrition and by way of illustration of that fact there is the presence in the Gambia of a special team made up of workers in the medical field, in agriculture, and education, combining in an attack on this problem.
  I also wish to refer to the attention given to social welfare. Here again in recent years there has been great development due largely to the impetus of bringing the people over to this country a few years ago to study the work of voluntary societies, and the social services of this country, in order to inspire some of the younger people in the colonies who work with the voluntary organisations in their social services. In almost all our colonies social welfare officers have been appointed, and increasing attention has been given to the needs of youth and adolescents. We are about to appoint a new Adviser on Social Welfare, and an effective committee has been at work on the problems of welfare. One of the sub-committees of that main committee has given very much attention to the treatment of offenders, conditions in
  276
  prisons and the problem of juvenile crime.
  I also wish to refer to the growth of co-operation in the colonies. We owe a great deal to the pioneer work which was done by Strickland and others in Cyprus, Ceylon, and elsewhere, and that work is going forward in East Africa, West Africa, and the West Indies, and most of the colonies today have co-operative departments. Most of the colonies have passed ordinances for the protection and development of co-operative practice, and we have appointed an Adviser and set up an advisory committee to follow the development of co-operation, and to offer advice, and have made arrangements for young men and women from the colonies to come here to study co operation in practice. The co-operative movement here has made arrangements at Loughborough College for special colonial courses to be adapted and brought into operation.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate training these persons in production, distribution, or both, because the co-operative movement in this country is largely a distributive movement; and in the past it has not had a very great success in production?
  Mr. Creech Jones: In these studies we cover the whole field of co-operative practice. It is quite true that the colonies so far have been mainly concerned with production, credit and thrift organisations, but in the range of studies the problems of distribution will be included. At the same time, there is a special demand, particularly in East Africa, from the Africans themselves, that they should learn something of the principles of trade and commerce, and particularly of distribution through co-operative stores.
  I also wish to refer to the growth of the labour departments in the colonies. We have now 19 experienced trade unionists operating in the colonies and they are of great service in trying to get the trade union movement established on firm and proper lines. The Trades Union Congress itself has been of great assistance to us in providing training for some of the local officers, and a more comprehensive scheme, including practical training, is nearing completion with the Trades Union Congress for the better training of trade

  277
  unionists. There has also been a considerable extension in the field of welfare provision. We may claim that in most of our colonies we have today on the statute book, ordinances concerned with wage regulation, conciliation, workmen's compensation, trade union rights and inspection of labour conditions. I know that the Committee will join with me in expressing their deep regret at the passing of Sir Granville Orde Brown. All of us appreciate the contribution he made over a period of years to our knowledge of labour conditions in many of the overseas territories. We have also enjoyed the services of a number of experienced trade unionists in regard to special industrial problems in the colonies. Mr. Dalgleish was able to study the problem of native labour conditions in Northern Rhodesia and the problem of the colour bar there. Mr. Dalley went to Trinidad, and was able to be of some practical assistance to the Labour Department also. The Committee will appreciate how difficult has been the background of this work. With fluctuating prices, a rising cost of living and a certain amount of food shortages, the work in regard to conditions of labour has been exceedingly trying in the past few years, but we are very glad of the remarkable progress already made in regard to labour inspection and labour protection.
  I now turn to economic development. It has become increasingly important to this country that our territories overseas should be more fully developed so that they can make their contribution to the general life of the world in much more ample terms than has been possible up to now. The Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1945, was an important contribution to colonial economic development. It was a marked advance on the limited provision made in 1929 and in 1940. We are conscious today that there are still marked possibilities in the colonies, and that failure to develop them becomes intolerable when those colonies could make some substantial contribution to the present needs of the world. As I have said, the 1945 Act made, in the social and economic field, an important contribution to the well-being of the colonial peoples, and also in laying the foundations upon which future economic development could build. It was necessary that some balance should be preserved as between expenditure on social
  278
  services and economic needs, but it is clear that no line can be drawn between social expenditure and economic expenditure, because social expenditure adds to the efficiency of a people. If education and good health are given to a people, economic production is, as a rule, more effective and much more efficient. We have, however, always to look ahead, so that in the building up of social services there is sufficient economic development going on to sustain the new services which are created in the field of health, education, housing, etc.
  Under the 1945 Act a great deal of work was done in the field of physical planning, surveying, exploration of agricultural development, and planning the development of communications and other utilities. We have been receiving the ten-year programmes from the respective colonies. These have been examined by the Colonial Development and Economic Council, and I would like to thank that council for the work which they have done in the past eight or nine months in bringing to our notice the deficiencies of certain of those programmes, in criticising proposals and in putting up suggestions for the improvement of those plans. Lord Portal was the chairman of that council, and we are indebted to him and all its members, for the work they have done. The 1945 Act made available a sum for loans and grants amounting to £120 million over the next 10 years for social and economic growth, but it should be appreciated that that £120 million was, and is to be, supplemented by local funds, local reserves and local taxation. If we add what it is anticipated can be raised by local efforts, the total sum available for development work is in the neighbourhood of £300 million over the 10 years, that is, £120 million subscribed by Imperial funds plus roughly £180 million which will be created in the colonies out of their own funds and by loans of various kinds.
  For instance, if one looks at the development of Nigeria, it will be seen that the plan is made on the assumption of an expenditure of £55 million, of which only £23 million is to come from funds under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. No less than £15 million will be raised by Nigeria from its own revenue, and £17 million will be raised by way of loans. In the case of Kenya, we anticipate over the ten years an

  279
  expenditure on development plans of £20 million to £21 million. Only £3½ million of that will come from Imperial funds under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. No less than £10 million will come from their own local revenue and reserves, and £7 million from loans which they intend to raise.
  I would ask the Committee to note that the main economic expenditure under the 1945 Act so far is in respect of agricultural development and roads and communications, expenditure on utilities of various kinds, surveys, railways, and so on. There is comparatively little money available for new enterprise, new crops, etc. Today we are making a very big effort in the colonies to increase production in all directions. We have various missions overseas examining production on the spot for the purpose of increasing it and discovering whether new methods can be applied and whether certain public works can be created to make production much more fruitful. We have an inter-departmental committee at work on all primary commodities produced in the colonies. Various commodities are being studied, including tobacco, timber, manilla hemp and so on, for the purpose of seeing what can be done to get increased production from the colonies. Again, we have been pressing all our Colonial Governments to go ahead with new agricultural production of such things as are in short supply here, including linseed and soya beans. We are improving the facilities for the training of our technical staffs in these fields and also we are going ahead with new research organisation.
  Hon. Members are aware that already a big production scheme is on foot in East Africa, concerned with groundnuts. It is anticipated that for food development no less than £50 million will be behind that corporation for the work it has in hand. I made an announcement in the House a few weeks ago that a new corporation, the Colonial Development Corporation, would be created with £100 million behind it.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Does that £100 million include the £50 million already referred to in connection with groundnuts?
  Mr. Creech Jones: No, the £50 million will be behind the Overseas Foodstuffs
  280
  Corporation. It is quite apart from the £100 million which it is now anticipated will be made available for the work of the Development Corporation.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: Can the Minister say what is the optimum target figure, in tonnage, of groundnuts that is being aimed at?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Obviously I cannot answer that question without notice. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will be able to supply that information when he replies to the Debate. In regard to the corporation, all the preliminary work is going forward. Obviously we cannot discuss the corporation today. I hope that a Bill will be introduced in the new Session. At the moment we are doing all we can to encourage existing enterprise. I am certain that the corporation will be able to give additional encouragement and practical aid to both private and public enterprise and itself will be able to finance and undertake important operations. I would also add that, of course, these developments must be designed to improve the economies of territories overseas. We are not approaching this problem of increased production merely in terms of colonial exploitation. We regard the contribution which the corporation will make as important in building up the permanent economies of the territories concerned. What will be done will be done in co-operation with the Colonial Governments. It will be done in harmony with their development schemes, and I hope that it will have the full co-operation of the colonial peoples themselves. Indeed, the fullest consideration will be given to the welfare requirements of the colonial peoples.
  Apart from all this public effort, there is also in our Colonial Empire at present a very considerable amount of other private and public effort which ought to be mentioned. It is of great importance to notice that many of the big private corporations themselves are thinking in large terms in regard to some of the development schemes they are adopting in certain of the territories—Messrs. Tate and Lyle in regard to sugar development in Jamaica; Booker Bros in regard to their development in British Guiana; the United Africa Company in respect to West African timber and, in East Africa, in a number of other respects In addition.

  281
  there is the enterprise of Messrs. Barclay and the Standard Bank of South Africa. All these are indications of the awareness of certain private interests of, the importance of building up sound colonial economies. In addition, on the public side there is the establishment of the Cameroons Corporation which will be responsible not only for the production of bananas, but of other fruits and the possibility of the production of such things as cotton or tobacco in that part of West Africa. Again, there are big schemes for the building up of the manufacture of fertilisers in Tororo, in Uganda. In Kenya they are going forward, with a big agrarian policy. Big experiments are also being made in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia in the production of tung oil. There is a new food yeast factory coming into production in Jamaica, there is a large meat export factory in East Africa, and there are other developments which I could mention.
  In some territories some remarkable discoveries have been made recently and it is hoped before long we can get increased lead production from Tanganyika. We have agreed to the construction of a railway in order to facilitate the opening up of the mines for lead. Further, there is the very remarkable discovery of diamonds in Tanganyika. In this connection, I would like to add that, following conversations between the Tanganyika Government, the Tanganyika diamond producing companies and the Diamond Trading Company Limited and Diamond Corporation, the two last named companies have agreed to buy from Tanganyika producers in 1947 and each of the following four years a quantity of diamonds equal to 10 per cent. of their net sales in the year in question. The share of each Tanganyika producer in this contract will be proportionate to his production in 1946. Tanganyika producers have undertaken in consideration of this agreement not to sell diamonds to any other purchasers. There are other matters with which I would like to deal——
  Mr. Keeling: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of economic development, perhaps he will answer a question. He said that one of the main purposes of this development, especially the two big corporations, was to further the economic welfare of the colonies. Does that mean that fair prices
  282
  —that is to say, world prices—will be paid by the Ministry of Food and other Departments of the Government who buy these products in bulk.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated a point which I was about to develop. Before doing that I wanted to say that there are other matters on the economic side which I wish I had time to develop and which are concerned with the railway system of Rhodesia, the mining royalties of Nigeria, the building up of great power stations, the development of power in East Africa, Malaya and the Gold Coast, and other problems associated with production generally in the field of water and electricity. I ought also to make it clear that there are other sums available for the development of particular crops. As the result of the buying schemes in a number of colonies sums have accumulated which can now be turned to account for improved production and the improvement of conditions of the primary producers and their village life. That is true in respect of the considerable surplus available in the case of cocoa, cotton, coffee and a number of other commodities where considerable surpluses are now available for the use of the producers.
  If production goes forward it is obviously important that we should be able to guarantee reasonable prices and markets to those who are encouraged to expand production. We have given much thought to this problem and while, because the time has gone, I am unable to give details of the various schemes we have worked out in respect of colonial commodities, I want to assure the Committee that this vital matter has received our fullest consideration in recent months. Indeed, it is of vital importance that if new capital is being sunk in fresh development there should be some reasonable anticipation of a fair return. Accordingly, in the making of contracts in regard to certain commodities we have tried to assure the primary producer a fair price and in many cases a certain market over a set period. Sometimes, too, there are various devices for maintaining a price level—stabilisation funds and so on—but I have not time to go into that just now. There are other matters I should have liked to tell the Committee about economic development. It is of such importance that it is a pity that we have

  283
  so little time to do justice to this aspect of colonial administration.
  In conclusion, I would say a word concerning our inter-territorial relations inside the Empire and our international collaboration with other powers. I have been unable to inform the Committee of the work which has been done in connection with the international specialised organisations—food, health, trade, education, labour, and so on. Nor can I discuss the work of the Caribbean Commission, or the creation of a new regional council in the South Pacific, or the work of the Central African Council and the West African Council. All these bodies are doing excellent work, but during the last year or so we have developed new contacts with the colonial powers in Europe on the subjects of colonial administration and technical co-operation. We have been developing, as I have said, direct collaboration with the other colonial powers, and an important step forward in our co-operation with France and Belgium in African affairs was taken at a meeting in Paris between representatives of the three Governments towards the end of May. Agreement was reached on a three-years programme of conferences in technical matters between the British, French and Belgian Colonial Governments in Africa. A programme of eight such conferences of technical experts has been agreed on to take place in various African centres—British, French and Belgian.
  Some of these conferences will be preceded by meetings in London, Paris or Brussels, to prepare the ground for the conferences in Africa. As the result of these conferences, which range over soil conservation, forestry, rural economy, nutrition, labour, education and health, the problems of the tse-tse fly, trypanosomiasis and rinderpest, and so on, international collaboration is already working splendidly. Participation in the conferences in Africa will not be confined to the United Kingdom, France and Belgium. Other countries which are directly concerned with the subjects under discussion will continue to be invited, and we shall arrange to include Africans themselves among our representatives wherever practicable. The programme drawn up in Paris is to be spaced over the years 1947–1950. The Paris meeting revealed a large measure of identity of views between the Colonial Ministries of the three
  284
  powers concerned. This development is of particular interest, not only because of the needs of the larger world outside these colonies, but also because of the importance of closer collaboration in Africa for colonial development, and also the special needs of Western Europe in the light of the recent conference which took place in Paris.
  My last word is that however comprehensive our planning may be in regard to colonial development, whatever enthusiasm and zeal we bring to the task, we cannot get far unless we have the co-operation and the understanding of the colonial peoples themselves. With the growth of responsibility in our overseas territories it becomes increasingly important that everything possible should be done to help the colonial peoples to an appreciation of our own disinterested service on their behalf. That is a problem of public relations as well as of the colonial service. We believe that we are not in our territories for our own limited material advantage. We are there in the general service of the colonial peoples. We hope that there will be a common appreciation and understanding of our efforts. With the recent developments of our public relations department in the Colonial Office, it is our hope that our schemes and plans will be recognised as designed to that end and we shall secure greater understanding with the colonial peoples. It is not only that they themselves are demanding their place in the sun; it is that we have the privilege and the honour of helping them forward to that realisation. They are able by our service to make a contribution to the larger life of mankind.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the careful, indeed relentless, survey of Colonial affairs which he has given. If, occasionally, there has been some obscurity about his chronology and it has not been possible to determine quite accurately whether the development to which he refers belonged to the year we are discussing, to the two years of this Government, or may even, perchance, draw their origin from a still earlier period, we on this side will have no complaint. I should particularly like to congratulate him on an eloquent peroration. It is the first time that I

  285
  have heard in this Chamber a peroration based upon a change in the public relations department of a Ministry. I am not under the same obligation as the Secretary of State to go so carefully over the whole field of Colonial policy, and I want, therefore, to exercise the power of selection, which is always a very difficult task when there is so much from which to choose.
  There is one matter, however, in which I shall imitate the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State, no doubt with intention, made a speech of no inconsiderable length on Colonial affairs without mentioning the word "Palestine." It is not my intention to discuss that matter today. I agree that one cannot really discuss security without policy, just as one cannot discuss policy pending the meeting of the United Nations organisation. From the right hon. Gentleman's silence, I am assuming that he had no further information than that which we already know to give to the Committee on certain distressing incidents of which we are all aware today. Although I think that it is the general wish of my hon. Friends not to discuss this matter, they and the whole Committee, I am sure, would like to join with me in saying that this Committee watches with anxiety and with sympathy the position of our men in Palestine, and that we regard with horror the dangers to which they are, I think, quite unnecessarily exposed. Nor shall I attempt to deal with the question of Malaya. We depend upon the right hon. 'Gentleman's promise that in the next Session an opportunity will be provided for us to discuss this rather specialised matter, which I think needs discussing. From a cursory glance at the new proposals—although I am by no means averse to them—it would appear that they depart very considerably from the fundamental principles which were laid down only a year ago.
  I should, however, like to say one word, as, indeed, the right hon. Gentle man did, about the proposals for the two development corporations. It would clearly be out of Order for me to discuss them in detail, as they are the subject of legislation, and no doubt we shall have a proper opportunity of doing so in the next Session. At the same time, it is very difficult to discuss—and most of us want to—the economic problems of the
  286
  colonial territories without some reference to them. There are only one or two quite broad matters to which I want to refer. In the first place, we must realise that these new proposals are quite different in character, though they may well be complementary, from those of the Colonial Welfare and Development Fund. That fund was a free gift from the people of this country to the colonies, to be used directly and solely for the benefit of the colonies, although, no doubt, indirectly, through the improvement of colonial conditions, they will redound to the advantage of this country.
  These new proposals involve a large sum in loans, the primary purpose of which is to help the consumers in this country, though, undoubtedly, if this money is carefully spent, it will have the secondary effect of helping the territories in which these schemes are to be executed. That difference involves certain dangers, and when the appropriate time comes the House will have to discuss in great detail the safeguards which are to be provided against what the right hon. Gentleman terms "exploitation," because exploitation can come just as well from a Government Department in another country as it can from the fabulous monster of private enterprise.
  Secondly, I should like to make this point. We on this side of the Committee are entirely in favour of these corporations; we hope they will succeed. We realise, and, indeed, all hon. Members must realise, that in this matter success does not depend upon saying that there is a certain amount of money or credit behind the corporations. What matters is what priorities are to be given them for the capital goods and the skilled advice which will be necessary for the development. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to take a high place in the queue, and that he will not allow himself to be pushed out by more vociferous Ministers. At the same time, we should give every credit to the Government for what they have done, and we should be grateful to them. It may be true that the original idea did not originate with them—that the ground nuts scheme was thought of by executives of the United African Company, then employed by the Ministry of Food, and that the original plan for the Colonial Development Corporations came from the

  287
  Economic Council under the chairmanship of Lord Portal. But the Government took up both ideas, and are prepared to push them through against the risk.
  At the same time, it is only fair to make it plain that the conditions which make this new venture possible today never existed in the past. For instance, we all know that during the war the labour, the transport and the machinery would not have been available for a scheme of this character. But to have spent £50 million before the war in making available a further supply of groundnuts at a cost which, in those days, would not have been the lowest world cost of production, would simply have been throwing money down the drain at a time when our chief anxiety was to find a market for the existing products of West Africa in face of the growing competition from the Dutch East Indies.
  There has been a complete change in the economic condition of the world which has made these schemes possible. Indeed, so long as the conditions of scarcity exist, these schemes would appear assured of success. I am sure that, in launching them, those responsible for the corporations will always bear in mind that, some time or other, these conditions may change, and will not venture too far upon production which may appear economic today, but which could not survive when lower postwar costs of production are restored. I now give the right hon. Gentleman notice of a fact which, I hope will be agreeable to him—that, when this Bill comes before the House, we on this side intend to oppose the responsibility of the Ministry of Food for one part of this programme. We do not think it right that the responsibility for executing this programme should depend upon the Ministry of the ultimate consumer. It would obviously create tremendous difficulties if, inside a colonial territory, a particular Ministry, such as the Ministry of Food, were responsible for the production end, while the Colonial Secretary still remained responsible for the effects of that production upon the welfare of the colonial people. We believe that not only the Colonial Development Corporation, but also the Food Corporation should be responsible,
  288
  not to an alien department, but to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, therefore, will have in his hands both the responsibility for the production, and also the powers to provide the safeguards.
  I want, if I may, to follow the right hon. Gentleman's plan in dealing quite briefly with the three main items into which the annual report on the Colonies has been divided. Incidentally, may I say that we on this side of the Committee postponed this discussion until that report was published. Now that it is published, I am not sure that I feel it was worth while postponing the discussion. It is something to have any report published after the lapse of the war years, but I hope that this report is not going to be the model for future years, because, quite frankly, it is not particularly informative, and anyone who has taken an interest in colonial affairs would find that he had already received all the information contained in it from speeches which have been made, from questions that have been answered, or from papers that have already been circulated. If the right hon. Gentleman would just compare the Annual Report on the Colonies with the paper issued at the same time by the West Indian Commission—Sir John Macpherson's Commission—I think he will realise the difference in the two. I hope it is the latter that he will take as a model for next year's report.
  Mr. Creech Jones: it is intended to have a rota of reports covering the various regions of the Colonial Empire. One year there will be a report dealing with the West Indies, another year the African Colonies, another year South East Asia and so on, so that there will be regional reports supplementary to- the Colonial Office Report.
  Mr. Stanley: I am very glad to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman. That will be very valuable; but, of course, it will take quite a long time for any region's turn to come round.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Every four years.
  Mr. Stanley: That does not seem to me to exclude the necessity for making more informative the Annual Report which, three out of every four years, will be the only information we shall get on three-quarters of the Colonial Empire.

  289
  May I now follow the right hon. Gentleman's example in dealing briefly with the political, social and economic divisions of this report? I read the political part of the report with Considerable care, and I must confess that, having listened today to the rather high-flown sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman on the political side when he talked of the need for a quickening tempo and bold experiment, I did not find it easy to reconcile that with the actual record of the last two years. I have taken that period as being one of a lull—a period of assimilation. The preceding period had, for various reasons, been a period of rapid constitutional advance. We cannot give new constitutions to the same colony every month; we have to make certain that we are on the right lines. We have to give experience and develop a sense of responsibility in the people concerned. In fact, after any period of constitutional advance, there must always be a period of assimilation, and I have regarded the two years which are dealt with in the second part of this Report as such a period of assimilation. Indeed, compared with the big departures in Jamaica, the Gold Coast and Nigeria, the announcements which the right hon. Gentleman made today were not of spectacular importance. However, there are one or two matters to which I should like to refer.
  There is, first of all, the question of Ceylon. I confess that when the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement on that subject a few weeks ago, I did not find it very easy to understand exactly what was meant, because in the course of that announcement the term "Dominion status" was never used. However, it has been used today by the right hon. Gentleman, and I understand, therefore, that the effect is that, that whereas under the previous constitution—a constitution which was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and which is now going to be altered without ever having come into effect—matters of defence and foreign relations were to be dealt with by legislation, they are now to be dealt with by treaty. I would like to know whether any progress has been made in treaty negotiations with the present Ceylon Ministers, in order that we may know what will be the conditions both of foreign relations and defence under this new provision.
  290
  Next I would like to refer to Paper 210 to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. All of us who are interested in East Africa must realise the vital and urgent need for some measure of co-operation between the territories. It is impossible to return to the prewar situation which, in view of modern economic problems and modern rapidity of communication, is completely out of date. The wartime arrangements, although they worked fairly well during the war, could only function in conditions of crisis which war brings. Therefore, it was vital that in peacetime there should be some new proposals. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman is able to announce that Paper 210 has had a better reception than Paper 191, and that he hopes it will now be acceptable to all. He has made considerable changes in the new paper and, as is usual when such changes are made, the result appears to have been that the people who supported Paper 191, now oppose Paper 210, and the people who opposed Paper 191, now support Paper 210; but, apparently, he is convinced that on this occasion the support is more formidable than the opposition, and he is, therefore, prepared to go on with the scheme. I am sure that all in this Committee wish the scheme the greatest of success. So much for what I have time to say, though not what I would like to say, on the political side.
  I now wish to say a few words on the social side. Although I do not think he meant it, I thought the right hon. Gentleman was a little ungracious when he referred to the work of other members-past and present—of the Colonial Service, and said that on the social side he had to build up from scratch.
  Mr. Creech Jones Mr. Creech Jones indicated dissent.
  Mr. Stanley: I took the words down at the time. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman meant them in that way, because later on he went on to speak of the solidity of past achievements. I hope he did not mean to convey what he certainly conveyed to me and to other hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I think the right hon. Gentleman rather misunderstood what I was trying to say. I may not have said it clearly. What I wanted to make clear to the Committee was that it was very easy for accusations of negligence in past years to be hurled at the

  291
  British Colonial administrations, but that although a great deal of work had already been done, there was a vast amount of work still waiting to be done, and we were still in the elementary stages in many of the services which are regarded as vital.
  Mr. Stanley: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The word "scratch" is such a striking word that it remains in my memory. However, it might be possible to make any necessary correction, which I believe is sometimes done by Ministers. I would like to deal with many of the social questions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, such as health, co-operation, trade unions, social welfare and so on. There is not one of those important subjects upon which some conference had not been summoned or some adviser had not been appointed, and I sincerely hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will say whether health has improved, whether co operation is progressing and whether trade unions are functioning more satisfactorily in some areas than they did in the past. The right hon. Gentleman really must not refer me to the report, because it is just this kind of subject of which it tells us absolutely nothing. It is only in this Debate that we shall hope to learn something of it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman when he replies will be a little more expansive on it.
  I want to say a few words on education, not because I take that as being necessarily the most important, although it is certainly the part, of the social services, in which I have always taken the greatest personal interest. I had intended to say something on mass education, but it is a little difficult to do that in view of the fact that we are told that a statement is to be made at the end of the Debate by the Under-Secretary of State. I only hope that he will, in the course of that statement, be able to tell us that now, some three years after the publication of the report on mass education, effective steps are being taken to implement its recommendations. I, therefore, shall confine myself to a few words on the question of higher education. I thought that the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) made a very pertinent interjection when he pointed out the danger of developing higher education beyond the capacity of the
  292
  lower stages of education to support it. That is a danger that has always to be kept in mind.
  On the other hand, I think that there is a very great danger in having the increasing call for higher education in the Colonies—a call which must increase as we improve their political, social, and economic status—met solely from the universities of this country. The figure of 1,500 is in some ways an appalling figure, because I cannot believe that there is healthy development in Colonial territory—or, rather, a group of Colonial territories—so long as they are forced to seek their higher education outside their regions. It would be as if everybody in this country had to find his higher education at the Sorbonne or Harvard, where he would have excellent education, but where he would miss the whole feeling of home environment—the feeling that it was part of his own. That one can get only in a university in one's own country or region. Nor do I believe that the age at which many of these people go, not only to a new climate, a new country, a new education, but a wholly new social conception, a wholly new tradition, wholly new conventions, wholly new manners—I cannot believe that that age is the best age for making a great experiment of that kind; and it seems to me that the help we can give in this country in the way of higher education to the Colonies in the future will have to lie far more in the range of postgraduate education than in the range of undergraduate education.
  So it was with some disappointment that I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say on this matter. He referred to a discussion somewhere, to a mission somewhere else, to a commission which had gone to, I think, Makerere. But, behind the mission and commission there was a significant omission, and that was to tell us whether in the last two years in any of the projected new universities any building has been built or started. Have any staff been appointed or recruited? Have any new students been enrolled? In other words, is there yet any practical result of the arduous labours which he himself undertook four years ago in West Africa? Perhaps, the Under-Secretary will tell us something of the bricks and mortar, the staff and student side of this problem.

  293
  I want to say a few words on the economic problem. The right hon. Gentleman had many interesting things to tell us on this subject, but he did not, in the careful survey he had to give of actual developments, have time to deal with the broad problems which are facing all colonial administrations on the economic side, and I do hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to devote some of his time to that tonight. In discussing the economics of a colony today one would always put first agriculture, before the other component parts of its economy, industry and mining; because, in the vast majority of colonial territories, it is still on agriculture that the population in the main depend, and good or bad agriculture will be what chiefly determines good or bad standards of life for that population. It is in agriculture that, I think, every student of colonial (natters will admit we have reached the most critical time. There was for many years a belief among those interested in colonial agriculture that it would be quite possible to maintain the existing systems of land tenure, and of social relationship, the whole tradition that had been built up in the past, and yet by new agricultural education, by careful progress, so to improve agriculture in the colonies, even on those old traditional lines, that the standard of life could not only be maintained but be improved. I am afraid that that is now recognised by most people to be an illusion.
  During my time at the Colonial Office I realised that, as far, at any rate, as the export trade was concerned, when it came to the production of crops to go to the world market. But I still believed that as far as subsistence agriculture was concerned, it could work; and so long as it could work, that it would avoid all the ill will and misunderstandings which arise if we once begin to tamper with the traditional land tenure systems of the various peoples. But many of us now—I think nearly all of us—are coming to the conclusion that it is not new wealth of the colonial peoples, it is not improved standards of life, it is their actual subsistence, their security from starvation, which depend on the possibility of introducing a wholly new agricultural system. Alas, the progress of erosion, of loss of soil fertility, has gone far quicker than any advantage which it is has been possible to gain
  294
  from improved education and from new methods.
  I want to ask the hon. Gentleman it he has thought out the answer to that problem. What are the new proposals? The groundnut schemes are not the answer. They depend on taking people to a new bit of land on which there are no inhabitants at all, or very few, and by agriculture there to give a livelihood to a limited.—a very limited—number, of new inhabitants. But that is not the answer at all for places like the Kikuyu Reserve, the eastern province of Nigeria; no answer to the places of teeming millions where the land is becoming rapidly exhausted. There were proposals in my time for dealing on a basis of co-operative management plus individual ownership with, at any rate, the palm oil industry of Nigeria. I should be glad to know how those experiments have gone, and also what further plans are projected.
  I now turn to industry. I do not believe there is any opportunity at the moment for vast industrialisation of colonial territories, turning them into a sort of Black Country; they have not the location of minerals, the location of markets, and the particular skill of the industrial population which would lead to any such agglomeration. But I have always believed that there was a future for secondary industries—industries based on the processes of the local products, or fitted to meet the particular local markets. This report is singularly silent on the progress of such secondary industries during the last two years. There is quite a lot in it about development commissions being set up, but nothing about factories being set up. I should be glad if the Under-Secretary could tell us what has been the progress in the last two years. Are there today more factories in the Colonial Empire than there were two years ago, or, as I believe, are there less? My information is that some of the factories such as the vegetable canning factory in Kenya—which were set up for war purposes have since had to close down, and no corresponding new development has taken their place.
  Finally, mining. The right hon. Gentleman is the author of some new mining regulations, some of which are comparatively harmless, and some of which are designed to bring the not very successful ideologies of this country into the colonial

  295
  territories. Yet, it is not only not very wise but perhaps not very fruitful to urge the nationalisation of the actual mining industry. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's experience is the same as mine, but certainly in my time the fact that the coal at Enugu was the property of the Nigerian Government did not seem to save them from quite as much industrial trouble as any establishments belonging to private industry. Then again, I think it is going a bit far to nationalise prospecting. I cannot think that prospecting for minerals is a trade which is particularly suitable for the filling in of forms in triplicate, and for reference back to higher authorities. The Colonial Secretary referred to the lead and diamond finds in Tanganyika. They were the finds of the old-fashioned prospector, and I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to refer with pride to developments of that kind had it depended upon a Government office to find them.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many of the most fruitful colonial mines were discovered by Government geologists?
  Mr. Stanley: That certainly is not the case in Tanganyika. Nor, on the whole, has it been the case. Obviously, prospectors have been able to go beforehand to Government geologists for information about the geological formation of areas. I challenge the Under-Secretary to deal with this when he replies. He will have plenty of time to look it up before doing so. Will he look at the gold mining industry in the Ashanti, the copper industry in Northern Rhodesia, and the tin mines in Bauchi, and tell us whether they were discovered by Government officials or by individual prospectors? The right hon. Gentleman has talked about geologists. That is one way in which the Government can really help, by pressing on with the geological survey. I listened with great care to what he said about it this afternoon, but it struck me that what he said I could have said two years ago.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Oh, no.
  Mr. Stanley: Well, I could have said we had the R.A.F.; I could have said that we had a geological committee; I could have said we had an arrangement with the
  296
  R.A.F. for the surveys to be made. All that remains now is for the Under-Secretary to tell us what the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us, namely, what surveys have been made during the last two years. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make good that omission.
  Being in the unfortunate position of having no public relations department, I have to look elsewhere for a peroration or else go without one. I think I shall adopt the latter course, merely saying that the importance of the Colonial Empire to this country is greater today than ever it was. Modern developments have made its economic, its strategic and its political worth to us far greater. At the same time as its importance is greater, its problems are more difficult, because the more progress the more complex the situation becomes and the more difficult are the problems they and we have to meet. It is of immense importance to the people of this country, as well as to the people of the colonies themselves, that we should, within these next few critical years, solve some of those complex problems. They can, I think, be solved but it will take from us and from them all the qualities of statesmanship. In this particular case I believe those qualities to be, first, patience, because it is no good thinking that the result of years can be upset in a day; second, firmness, because we must go on the lines which we believe right and not on the lines on which we are driven by vociferous opposition in this quarter or another; and, finally, sympathy, because we must convey to the colonial people that the brave words we' use about the future of colonial territories are words which we sincerely mean, and that it is our purpose, with the best will in the world, to do all we can to translate words into action.
  5.37 p.m.
  Dr. Haden Guest: I am fortunate in being able to follow the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) with whom, in the past, I have very often agreed on the main points. I am glad to note that today he has laid down a challenge to the Socialist Government by decrying the Socialist policy adumbrated by the Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Member for West Bristol has very carefully pointed out that it is not desirable to have nationalisation of the mines. He

  297
  says it is very difficult indeed to carry on agriculture on traditional lines, but he does not say how it is to be carried on, without detriment to the welfare of the people concerned, unless it is conducted on traditional lines. That, I agree, is a matter which has to be left to the future, but it must be carried on for the benefit of the people as a whole and not for the benefit of those who wish to exploit the land, even for the very desirable purpose of providing food for this country, or for the purpose of providing an export industry with materials to enable it to function in colonial areas.
  I must say, I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has thrown down this definitely Tory and anti-Socialist challenge with regard to the Government's policy. However, I must agree with him in one thing, and I must protest, if I may, politely, to my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary against the difficulty in which all hon. Members of the Committee find themselves in considering the immensely wide area he has been obliged to deal with in order to cover the report on the Colonial Empire after a very considerable period. It is practically impossible for anybody—and I am sure the right hon. Member for West Bristol will agree with me in this—to cover the whole of this vast subject in a one-day Debate. We really must have more time for this; or, if we cannot get more time, then it must be sectionalised or regionalised, or divided into subjects, so that we can grasp one thing and deal with that fully. I say this because when I was thinking of the possibility of my being privileged to be called in this Debate, I thought I would confine myself to one particular subject, the Far East area, which I visited as recently as January of this year, and where I had an opportunity of seeing very closely at first hand some of the things that were going on. If it were possible to concentrate our Debates more on one area, or one subject, it would be better for the Debate as a whole.
  Having been to Singapore, Malaya and Hong Kong in January this year, and having seen conditions there at first hand, I must congratulate the Colonial Secretary on the vigour of the new movements which have been started—the improvements to Singapore university, the improvement in the economic position in
  298
  Malaya, and the appointment of the trade union advisers in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. With regard to trade union advisers, those who are sent out to places like Malaya, Ceylon or Hong Kong without knowledge of the language which the workers speak, or knowledge of the psychology of the workers, are under a very great handicap indeed in getting any solid work done. It has been a great advantage, I agree, to have these trade union advisers on the spot, and I gained extremely valuable information from them, but I suggest that it would be an advantage if, in addition, we could send Indians, Chinese and Malays to this country to be trained as trade union executive officers, so that they would understand more fully what is the trade union position when they return to their countries. As an example of the difficulties I would point out that in Ceylon there are four different varieties of trade union movements competing one with the other, and all in need of guidance.
  I would also pay a tribute to the work of the administrators whom I saw. They entertained me, and I was in intimate contact with the Governors and lesser officials, who are all doing a splendid job of work in their own ways. The standard of the public service is remarkably good. Many of these men were imprisoned by the Japanese, and one naturally found that their high quality of character had shown itself under these conditions. It was an experience to have lunch with a bishop, presided over by a person of high degree, who told us what it really meant to be hungry. He told us that a man in the same camp in which he was interned spat out a piece of gristle which he, the bishop, picked up and ate because he was so hungry. That gives an idea of the experiences which these men had to go through, and such instances could be multiplied many times. Men who have been through such experiences are in close touch with the realities of the situation, and are doing a good job of work.
  As a result of generations of capitalist development, practically always under Conservative rule or direction, there is now going on in the Far East and elsewhere a definite industrial revolution of a capitalist type, which is having disastrous effects in many ways. It is true that the

  299
  business organisations in the Far East are very good. I flew practically over the whole of the Malay Peninsula, and saw vast rubber estates almost undamaged. I also saw the immense exploitation of the land for the tin mines. The production of rubber and tin means the exploitation of the country's resources for the benefit of Western civilisation, and not for the people of Malaya.
  Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Member aware that at least 50 per cent. of the rubber production in Malaya is in Asiatic hands?
  Dr. Guest: Although I do not contradict the hon. Member, I do not accept offhand his figure of 50 per cent. My point is that this is ordinary capitalist organisation, instead of the Socialist organisation I want to see developed. The hon. Member says "Ha, ha" because he sees the difference, but so do we on this side of the Committee. The democratic development in Malaya and Singapore has been very poor. The economic condition of the masses of the people is miserably low. The administration is good, but it is very expensive, and per haps the Under-Secretary will be able to thrown some light on the problem by telling us why there are so many Governors in Malaya and Singapore. There is the Governor of Singapore, who is a very efficient and able officer. He was imprisoned by the Japanese, and he gave a magnificent example, by his conduct, of how a man should behave under those conditions. There is the Governor of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, who is another man doing splendid work. There is also the Governor-General, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, who lives at Singapore. There is a fourth gentleman. Lord Killearn, who is not a Governor, but does in fact, perform the functions of a Governor. We then have a Governor connected with North Borneo. Why should there not be one Governor-General for the whole of this area with subordinate officials, men of first-class administrative experience, to occupy executive positions wherever necessary? That would cut down a considerable amount of expense. If money were no object, it would not matter so much, but at the present moment money is a prior consideration, and, therefore, administrative expenses ought to be cut
  300
  down. There could be a considerable saving if there were co-ordination.
  I have now reached the point where my congratulations cease. I now come to commiseration with my right hon. Friend, because the job to be done in Malaya and Singapore is absolutely colossal. I want to give a short picture of what I saw of the condition of the people in Singapore. There are four main communities. First, we have a small number of Europeans who economically, socially and politically are all-powerful; second, a large Chinese community; third, an Indian community which is not very large; and, lastly, the Malayan community. The Malays are allergic towards industrialism, and they have my cordial sympathy. These different communities all have their different viewpoints. The English community are thinking about home, this beautiful land, and when they will get their pension. The Indian community are thinking about India and are saving up to buy valuable presents to send to India. The Chinese community are either members of the Kuomintang, or of the Chinese Communist party.
  All of these communities, except the Malays, are thinking about something outside the country, and there is very little co-operation between them at the present time. How it will operate in the future under the new constitution, I do not know; I merely wish it success. But this division of the people is one of the reasons for the disaster which occurred when Singapore fell. As to the conditions of these people, I paid a visit to the large Singapore dockyard, where I saw thousands of Asiatic workers. I asked one of the medical officers what these men were like when they were examined on coming into the service. He said, "We do not examine them then." I asked why, and he replied, "If we did we should get no workers. They all have tuberculosis, and we could not admit them if we examined them." I said that this was nonsense, but after considerable argument I was forced to believe that something like 50 per cent. of the Asiatic workers who were there in January of this year were suffering from tuberculosis as a result of wartime conditions, bad feeding, and so on.
  Conditions there are very bad indeed, because food is deficient and its cost is high.

  301
  I was informed, on the authority of the man who authorises" payment of wages, that the wages of Asiatic labourers employed by the Services in Singapore—which has a population of about one million people—had to be calculated according to the black market price of rice. That is a blot on our colonial administration, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to say what is being done about it. Rice is available in Siam, as I know from what I consider to be absolute first-hand authority. It is being hoarded by the small farmers, but it could be obtained. The difference between the black market and the controlled price is not great. It is disastrous that there should be insufficient food for workers, whose constitution is undermined by tuberculosis because they cannot obtain adequate food. There is opium to be obtained. This, among other things, is smuggled in, and I was told that it was possible to buy practically anything in Singapore if a person has the money. But that does not apply to the ordinary worker.
  Then there is the question of the people employed on the rubber plantation, Chinese, Indians, and others. Comparatively speaking, the Chinese get good wages according to the low standards prevailing, but the Indians receive much less, because they are not so well organised economically and because the agencies connected with the rubber industry—and if there are Members here representing those agencies I hope they will say something on this matter—forbid the Indians' wages to be raised while allowing the Chinese' wages to be higher. It was so difficult on plantations that when managers were ordered not to pay the Indians the wage the Chinese were able to obtain they overcame the situation by falsely entering the names of Indians as Chinese on the pay rolls. This discrimination against Indians is politically undesirable and economically indefensible.
  Conditions of this kind make one realise that we should take steps to control capitalist activities in the Far East in order to prevent capitalist control of labour and economic conditions in this underhand way. I can say on good authority that it is not only a question of there not being good trade union organisation among Indian and Chinese
  302
  labourers, but of resistance put up capitalist owners in some places, to pre vent trade union organisation altogether I have it from one trade union organiser that he was offered personal violence when he attempted to organise some these workers. Being a man of resolution he was able to deal with that matt satisfactorily, but this is a serious point and, certainly, capitalist organisations should be controlled in the interests the general development of our colonial areas.
  I want to say a few words on the subject of Japanese prisoners of war When I was in Kuala Lumpur there was an epidemic of that horrible disease know as scrub typhus. I had never seen this disease, and I went to a camp near Kuala Lumpur where I saw 109 people with this typhus, and others with other diseases. I was given the piece of paper which I have in my hand by a Japanese medical officer, who wrote in English a account of the people who were ill on 7th January, 1947. I have rarely see a more deplorable, badly organised, an insanitary hospital in my life. It was entirely under the control of the Japanese The buildings were inadequate in every possible way. There was no control over the Japanese, who wandered about a they wished. They were as free a German prisoners of war are today in this country. Without the permission of the Secretary of State, they had taken wive unto themselves in Kuala Lumpur, am they visited their families at week-ends I imagine that the majority were engaged in black market activities. There were about 12,000 of these prisoners around Kuala Lumpar, and they were a serious danger to the health of the community Although they were doing some work which was useful, I suggest that it is turn these prisoners were sent home.
  It is necessary to apply in the colonies a very radical Socialist policy. The food problem must be tackled; adequate food must be produced for all the people there who require it. In Malaya, a country with a small population, an enormous amount of land is uncultivated. A great area of land is given to the cultivation of rubber plantations, and only a small area to food. I had a talk with the economic adviser to the Governor of Malaya, who told me that more food plantations were being started. They ought to have first

  303
  priority, to take priority over any further production of rubber. I have referred to trade union organisation and wages, and to plantations, and I hope that the Colonial Secretary will call for a full report unless he has already had one. There should be good wages and good food for all workers. Good food can be grown easily if attention is turned in that direction, instead of in the direction which favours Western capitalism. The public health service should be enlarged, because it is very deficient in Singapore and Malaya. The Director of Medical Services there told me that Singapore, with a population of approximately one million, had 75 medical establishments, excluding the College of. Medicine.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the date?
  Dr. Guest: January of this year. In addition, there is very little hospital accommodation; in fact, so little that a special private institution, has been brought into existence under the control, unofficially, of some naval officers, who look after some of the unfortunate Asiatic sick, contrary to Admiralty regulations, I understand, because they could not bear to see these unfortunate people dying. The hospital is not a place where people are cured; it is a place where people are allowed to die quietly. These are rather grim facts, and they may be paralleled in other parts of our Colonial Empire.
  When we talk about higher education, mass education, and all the finer and better things of life which we hope in future may be extended to the Colonial Empire, let us not forget that unless there is food, clothing and reasonable housing, we cannot build a structure which is well-founded. The housing in Singapore, the streets of which look superficially bright and clean, and the housing in Kuala Lumpur, which looks an attractive town from the. outside, is shocking and abominable. It is not a question of how many people will have beds in a room or how many on the floor of a room; it is a question of whether there is room on the floor of the room for the people to sleep at all. In both Singapore and Kuala Lumpur many people were sleeping outdoors at the time I visited those two towns.
  304
  While I sympathise with the desire to improve the constitutional position of Malaya and other parts of the Colonial Empire, improvement of the constitutional status without an improvement in economic conditions of a drastic character is a very sorry pretence. We want to get real improvement in the economic conditions of the workers. Are economic improvements being made pari passu with these constitutional improvements and are we giving the people not only political but real economic freedom? That, it seems to me, is the important thing. I have never agreed that the colonial people should be treated as inferiors and not be represented by members of their own communities, and that they should be regarded as not being fully responsible for their own development. I believe that it would be very desirable at this stage and would signalise a new development of the Socialist policy of this Government if we invited to a conference in London from all the colonial areas, not only officials and representatives of the Colonial Office, but men and women appointed by the tribes in Nigeria and the Gold Coast, the peoples of Malaya and Singapore, and the peoples of all the countries in which we had colonies; and that these people, elected by their own tribal authorities, should come to this country and speak on equal terms with our colonial representatives here and - the colonial representatives from the colonies. We should have a real colonial conference of a new type. It seems to me that a conference of that type would bring a new life into colonial affairs.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: In what language?
  Dr. Guest: The language of that conference would undoubtedly be like the language of the Asiatic Conference in Delhi this year; it would be English, because English has become an international language. I think that we could at such a conference discuss methods, not of introducing industrial revolution by slow stages, but of avoiding industrial revolution. There is no reason why any colonial people should go through the horrors that have devastated Lancashire and Yorkshire in order to create wealth. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, Lancashire and Yorkshire. I have lived there. There is no reason why we should not skip the interval between the primitive conditions in many of the colonial areas and the

  305
  Socialist conditions in which undoubtedly they will be in the future, under our guidance if we are wise, with our co operation if we are wise; but against us and by independence movements if we are not wise. I urge the calling of such a colonial conference as a first-class measure of statesmanship which, I believe, will signalise a great advance in our Labour Party policy.
  6.5 p.m.
  Squadron-Leader Donner: I agree with the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) that there is much greater leeway to make up in the social and economic field than merely in relation to the machinery of government. That indeed is a point which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) a year ago. I agree with the hon. Member also that time presses this afternoon, and this alone prevents me from following him in detail, as I am tempted to do, because I believe that in a great number of his observations he was misinformed, and that in a great number of others he suffered from too many delusions.
  The Colonial Secretary, in his opening speech, foreshadowed an announcement tonight—an important announcement—concerning developments in the field of mass education. I only regret that that announcement should be made in the last speech of the day and that we are thereby deprived of any opportunity of discussing it. Last year, I ventured to draw attention to the opportunities, as well as to the dangers, which must inevitably follow the introduction and application of the technique of mass education in Africa, unless we take adequate measures to provide suitable literature in proper quantities, in Other words, on a tremendous scale. The Colonial Secretary, winding up the Debate a year ago, was also much pressed for time, and he offered to answer questions put to him by hon. Members individually, which he did by letter, but on account of his impending departure for East Africa, he was unable to answer the particular points I raised in regard to mass education. I venture, therefore, without apology, to raise the problem again, particularly as it is made urgent by references to the experiments now taking place and which appear in the Colonial Report just published.
  306
  There is a vacuum, a mental need, which is being created among the new literates in Africa. I emphasised a year ago that if measures were not taken to satify this new mental need, it would be satisfied by immoral literature and by an African yellow Press, which is in itself immoral. If there was any truth in that assertion a year ago, there is more truth in it today. I would appeal to the Colonial Secretary to deal effectively with this problem before it is too late. No one would wish to see a further spread of the yellow Press in Africa; nor would any of us wish to see the appearance in Africa of those pornographic advertisements, which have for so many years characterised the Indian yellow Press, reproduced perhaps a millionfold in Africa as a principal influence on African minds.
  I ventured a year ago to advocate certain measures to safeguard the untutored African mind from immoral, degrading and seditious influences, and I am confident that the Colonial Secretary will deal with this matter with sympathy and interest. I, therefore, ask him bluntly this question: Is he now prepared to increase substantially the paper allowance for the Christian missionary societies? Those of us who are aware of the magnificent work of such societies as, for instance, the United Society for Christian Literature, ask ourselves why such admirable work should not be stimulated and assisted by Government subsidy. This is a Christian assembly, and it seems to me that such a policy should commend itself to every member of this House. The Government spend hundreds of millions of pounds annually—some of us perhaps think that money has been spent recklessly on occasion—so why should they boggle at a few tens of thousands? If the Government are prepared to swallow the camel, why should they strain at a gnat?
  Again, are they prepared to use the wartime cinema vans which were such a conspicuous success in Kenya and other areas? Are they prepared to resort to this method of dealing with this complicated problem and of reaching and satisfying the African mind? Are the Government prepared to employ experts handling films and broadcasting? Are the Colonial Governments encouraged to employ trained journalists and make official gazettes and newspapers not only more attractive but even readable? Are they

  307
  encouraged to appoint a committee of trained journalists to advise in regard to the problems of news collecting in order that these papers may record facts of interest and events in the lives of these communities? I hope the Colonial Secretary will seize the opportunities which mass education provides in. abundance so that the peoples of Africa will be safeguarded from the debased and poisonous journals which are already springing up both in East and West Africa. After all, there can be no reason why a promoter of a vernacular newspaper in a colonial territory should not be required to deposit a substantial sum which could, if necessary, be impounded by the courts in cases of conviction of grave criminal offences.
  Most of us who have some knowledge of the Colonies recognise to the full the difficulties of this problem, but most of us are satisfied that, given good will and determination, they can be overcome. The background factors themselves constitute a challenge both to Government and to missionary publishing. We have to bear in mind the cumulative effects on the African mind not only of motorcars, radio, planes and migrations covering sometimes hundreds of miles, but the cumulative effect also of Christian missions, native churches and the new outlook of returned soldiers whose mental horizons have been immeasurably widened by wartime experiences. It would be unreal to ignore these things just as it would be unreal to ignore the influences on the African mind of witchcraft, nomadic habits or the tenets of Islam.
  In considering this problem, I am sure that the Colonial Secretary will agree with me that when we survey Africa as a whole, the first impression is perhaps one of the force and violence of the European impact. When we look more closely I think most will agree that we are impressed by what might be described as the resistance of Africa, a resistance derived from the immense variety and localised character of every territory and of almost every tribe. The difference between those tribes is as great as, if not greater than, the differences which exist and divide the family of European nations. Therefore, if one finds oneself in the heart of Africa looking at a village ceremony in a remote vernacular-speaking village one surely recognises at once that one is looking at people for whom
  308
  practically all their values and beliefs, and, indeed, the whole pattern of their lives have been formulated by forces and traditions other than those of Europe. Those concerned in mass education, whether it be Government or missionary publisher, must, take account of age-old beliefs, customs and peoples as they now are and as they differ radically from each other.
  In the educational field the Government must surely steer a middle course, avoiding the danger of disturbing prematurely age-old customs and beliefs to which the native mind is passionately attached, and at the same time avoid the danger of neglecting our fundamental duty of, in the first place, helping the African to adopt the moral values of civilisation, and, in the second place, adjusting himself to that era of change from which he cannot escape. The Government are dealing with a period of ferment and transition which affects the group mind of the African whether it be in Islamic Africa or non-Islamic Africa. It is against this background which I have sketched rather hastily and very inadequately that the new technique of mass education has to be applied.
  I believe that this technique of mass education provides a supreme opportunity to teach the principles of sanitation and personal hygiene, as well as improving the health of millions by striking at the very roots of the greatest evil in the Colonial Empire, namely, disease. At the same time, it provides a wonderful opportunity of prising loose the African mind from many of the disastrous beliefs and cruel practices. There is need for caution in forcing the educational pace, but paradoxically the danger is less if it is fully forced, as it can be by mass education, because in that way it avoids creating a gap between the older and younger generation and removes, therefore, the tensions and strains and stresses which must come into being between an educated younger generation and their unprogressive elders. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State when he winds up to give an assurance that the Government are prepared to face the dangers as well as the opportunities of mass education, and that they are prepared now to take effective measures to satisfy the need of the new literates in Africa for readable matter and provide appropriate and religious literature in adequate quantities.

  309
  I should like to turn briefly to two points in regard to the West Indies. The first is in connection with the shipping facilities between this country and the West Indies. There is no passenger carrying ship regularly available now for the run to Barbados, to Trinidad and the Lower Caribbean. Surely something can be done to improve that deplorable situation?
  The second point I wish to raise is rather more complicated. There seems to me to be a direct conflict of interest between the Colonial Office on the one hand and the Minister of Food on the other arising from this Government's policy of bulk purchase. The Minister of Food buys at the lowest possible price in the interests of the United Kingdom consumer. The Colonial Office theoretically should protect the interests of the colonial producer and ensure that he is not exploited. The Ministry of Food "buys in the lowest possible market. Therefore, it seems to me that it ought to be watched like a hawk by the Colonial Office. That applies very particularly to the West Indies where the cost of living has made life very difficult indeed. The cost of living has increased by 10 or 15 per cent. as a result of the rise in the value of the Canadian dollar. There is another reason why this applies particularly to the West Indies, and that is that the price of their main export commodities there have not been brought into relation to. the price of the imports which the West Indies have to pay.
  It is, therefore, more than ever important that the Colonial Office should ensure that the Minister of Food should take no unfair advantage of the colonial producers whether they be in the West Indies or anywhere else. Unfortunately, the evidence available would appear to show that the Colonial Office in this matter is not an effective watchdog. I would ask the Colonial Secretary to establish a more effective liaison than at present exists between the Colonial Office and the Ministry of Food.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Give an illustration.
  Squadron-Leader Donner: Let me give an illustration of what has occurred in regard to the Grenada cocoa. Negotiations were started and concluded, I think, on 31st October for that portion of the Grenada cocoa crop which was to be sent
  310
  to the United Kingdom. That portion is very nearly half of the total crop which emphasises the importance of this to the Grenada producer.
  The price fixed was virtually the figure at which cocoa had been controlled in the New York market. One week before the price was fixed the New York controls came off and during the week that followed there was very little change in the price. Subsequently the price rose and the difficulty in which the Grenada producers found themselves was that, isolated in their island with far more limited knowledge than that possessed by the Ministry of Food they were not in a position to assess such world factor as would influence price trends. During the period when the cocoa had actually to be delivered to this country the price rose and now stands, I am told, substantially in excess of that paid by the Ministry of Food.
  Dr. Morgan Dr. Morgan (Rochdale) rose——
  Squadron-Leader Donner: May I just complete the argument, and then I will give way? In my submission it is no argument to say that the Grenada growers or merchants went into this contract with their eyes open, and that they gambled on the future price for cocoa and lost, because the point surely is this. Why do not the Colonial Office ensure that the information at the disposal of the Ministry of Food regarding world markets and trends is placed at the disposal of these Grenada growers? This leads me to ask a question to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a reply, since it raises a very important principle and is deserving of a reply. Is it the policy of the Colonial Office that the Minister of Food, negotiating on a bulk purchase basis with our colonial producers, and considering only the interests of the United Kingdom consumer, should take advantage of colonial producers who do not possess comparable knowledge of world trends and factors and, in consequence, conclude deals which are disadvantage to them?
  Dr. Morgan: I happen to know this particular problem very well because Grenada is the island in which I was born and I have many friends among the planters. May I point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that many of

  311
  the cocoa negotiating concerns in these small islands have agencies both in New York and in London, and that every facility and all possible information available in this country were available to these firms through their agencies——
  Mr. Pickthorn: Question.
  Dr. Morgan: Do not say "Question."
  Mr. Pickthorn: Ask a short question quickly and sit down.
  Dr. Morgan: I am not asking a question. I rose to correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman on a point he was making and he gave way.
  Squadron-Leader Donner: May I reply to the hon. Gentleman? I do not accept the contention at all that a particular set of producers in any part of the Colonial Empire can at any time have the full information at their disposal that is available to the Ministry of Food as regards world markets, world trends and all the innumerable factors which influence prices. Even if it were the case, as the hon. Member contends, that in this particular instance the Grenada producers or merchants did have a great deal of information on the subject, that in no way vitiates the principle which I adumbrated just now and in no way undermines the importance of the question I put to the Colonial Secretary as to the principle upon which the Ministry of Food should act in dealing with Colonial producers. According to the information I have, the Colonial Office has so far failed to protect the Colonial producers.
  Dr. Morgan: That is not true.
  Squadron-Leader Donner: The hon. Gentleman says that that is not true, but if he will refer to HANSARD relating to Question time in the House this June with regard to Jamaican oranges, he will see that the producers in Jamaica received 5s. a case and that when freight, insurance and handling is included the cost of such packages to the London Wholesaler was 25s. 4d. a case, and that, these cases were sold by the Ministry of Food to the British consumer at 41s. each. This reveals that in relation to the price at which they are sold in this country there is not only exploitation of
  312
  the grower but a 61 per cent. profit, to the Ministry of Food, which constitutes exploitation of the United Kingdom consumer. It is a price charged to cover bulk purchase losses in other directions. That is a melancholy and a squalid story and one which should not be allowed to be repeated. Indeed, it reminds one of many speeches to which we on this side have listened in the past from hon. Members opposite, usually without any foundation at all, alleging capitalist exploitation of the colonies. Nor is the position made any better when, now that we have clear evidence of exploitation of colonial territories by the Ministry of Food, hon. Gentlemen opposite see fit to remain silent merely because they approve the political complexion of the Government.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: At the beginning of his obviously sincere but at times tendentious remarks, the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) refused to be tempted into replying to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). He will, therefore, excuse me if I show the same resolution and refuse to follow him in the stimulating and provoking remarks which he himself made, but prefer to concentrate on a problem about which I feel better qualified to speak and one which, so far as I can tell, has not engaged the attention of the present Parliament during its lifetime. I refer to the problem of tuberculosis in the Colonial Empire. I can well understand the pride which my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) feel When they refer to the great progress which has been made in health matters in the Colonies since the days immediately before the war, because the progress has without doubt been staggering. But because of the general progress that has been made, there may perhaps be a temptation now to minimise the importance of tuberculosis in the Colonies.
  I do not think that accusation could be levelled against my right hon. Friend. Those of us who had the privilege of hearing him address the Empire Conference on tuberculosis at the beginning of this month are able to appreciate that in the Colonial Secretary we have' a real

  313
  humanitarian and a good Socialist, and what I have to say on this problem is in no way a reflection on the right hon. Gentleman or on his attitude to this matter. I know that he realises its importance, but I am not sure that the Colonial Office or the Colonial Governments are equally seized of its importance, and I feel that tuberculosis in the Empire is essentially a British responsibility, because tuberculosis is a disease of civilisation. Investigation into the problem has shown that although the white races have developed a comparitive immunity to tuberculosis, native races are particularly prone to it, and have a very dangerous tendency to incur it in a most virulent form when they come into contact with the white races. Further, it has been shown that although natives may stand up to it reasonably well in their own natural surroundings, in the more trying conditions of industrial and urban life which at times we have inflicted upon them their resistance to it is almost nonexistent. That is why I say that it is peculiarly a British responsibility.
  Unfortunately, there has never been the same glamour about the fight against tuberculosis that there has been about that against leprosy and malaria, but it. is a much more widespread disease than either of those, and it is one of the principal killing diseases throughout our Empire. There is a very real danger at the present time, with improved communications and the various schemes of Colonial development, that the problem of tuberculosis in the Empire may become worse. Already in the West Indies, one out of every six deaths is attributable to tuberculosis, and on the Gold Coast one out of every 10 deaths is caused by it. In Nigeria, a colony which, the Committee will remember, has 20 million population, there are only 14 beds specifically set aside for the treatment and care of tuberculous patients. That situation can be paralleled in many parts of the Colonial Empire, but we must always remember that health statistics throughout the Empire are, unfortunately, extremely unreliable.
  Many colonies have made advances, as in the case of Ceylon, Aden and Cyprus, but many other parts of the Colonial Empire have made no progress of any importance. I suspect that we in this country cannot be wholly innocent of responsibilty
  314
  for that state of affairs. The return relating to schemes under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts up to March this year shows that out of 107 new welfare schemes only two, relating to the Solomon Islands, and Zanzibar, mention tuberculosis at all, and that there is only one supplementary scheme, in respect of Nigeria, which refers to the disease. The second portion of the return relating to research shows not a single reference to the problem of tuberculosis, although it is true that a number of schemes to be developed will have indirect repercussions upon that problem, such as schemes for the improvement of nutrition and housing, and for industrial research.
  In Cmd. Paper 7151, on Colonial Research, it is shocking to find no reference to tuberculosis—not even in the second annual report of the Colonial Medical Research Committee. In the third document to which I want to refer, Cmd. 7167 on the Colonial Empire, some slight improvement is shown, because a paragraph is devoted to tuberculosis, not, however, to the achievements of the Colonial Office and colonial governors, but mainly to the achievements of the National Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis, a body of which I have the honour to be a member. From these facts it seems that we are not stimulating sufficiently the Colonial Governments into undertaking full responsibility for research into this problem.
  The solution is clearly one for experts, and in drawing attention to the problem I merely want to emphasise the need for both a long term and a short term approach to this important subject. For the long term approach there must be schemes of social improvement of the kind to which the Colonial Secretary referred, such as for improvements in nutrition, the improvement of working conditions and, I hope, in the case of projects like the groundnuts scheme, plans for supervising the health of the workers employed from the very beginning. So far as tuberculosis itself is concerned, clearly there must be far more research than has been conducted in the past and far more schemes of training for nurses and doctors from the colonial territories themselves.
  For the short-term approach it is important that we should have in every colonial territory a specialist tuberculosis

  315
  officer. Let us be clear that a tuberculosis scheme need not be an elaborate and expensive business. It is far more important to start with dispensaries and clinical services than to start with a sanatorium. Formerly, we made a mistake and set up sanatoria first before we knew from clinical research to what extent they would be required or without having the necessary dispensaries in the localities to back up the work of the sanatoria. We also need health visitors throughout the Colonies. I hope that the Colonial Governments when recruiting these visitors will have recourse more and more to people from the islands themselves with a knowledge of local conditions and the superstitions which sometimes exist in these countries.
  The solution of this problem is not altogether simple, but it is up to the Colonial Office and to the Colonial Governments to see that that solution is put into effect. If, as I think he will, my right hon. Friend will stimulate his Department and the Colonial Governments into grappling with the problem of tuberculosis he will earn the gratitude of many millions of colonial people.
  6.35 p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) is not in his place. He dealt with certain aspects of life in Malaya, and I wish to reply to him as best I can. Obviously, he speaks with authority on Malaya. He told us that he had been in Singapore and that he had flown from one end of the country to the other and back again. It is only fair to say that I first visited the country 25 years ago, that I have done so periodically ever since and that I have had close business connections with it throughout. The hon. Member suggested that certain matters were not very well organised in that country. He had seen it from the air. Unfortunately, I have only seen it from the ground.
  He went on to say that on many plantations, a lower status was given to the Indians than to the Chinese and in many cases they were employed at lower wages. I would not agree with that statement. The object on rubber and cocoa-nut plantations is to secure good regular labour and workers who do not come and
  316
  go too quickly, and plantation experience is that Chinese will often do twice or three times the work of Indian labour. It also happens to be a fact that on some estates Chinese labour is available and Indian labour is not. Sometimes very high piecework rates have to be paid to get the work done satisfactorily. Possibly the hon. Member can vouch for members of his profession and can say what they do or do not do. All I can say is that I have never heard of the introduction of fictitious names nor the practice to which he referred, in regard to Indian labour. Before leaving that part of the subject I would like to say that before the war the social services on plantations in Malaya had a far higher standard than was found in similar agricultural estates in other parts of the world. Almost every estate of any size had its hospital, school and crêche, and a whole-time medical attendance and regular visits from doctors. There were also extra meals for young children, and clinics for women expecting children. I hope those social services will be restored as quickly as conditions allow.
  I will deal briefly with two or three other aspects of the matter. Reference has been made to the very great shortage in Malaya of food and of rice in particular. Everyone knows that rice is much more essential to those people than bread is to us. It is the beginning and ending of almost all their food. I see that in February, 1946, owing to a shortage of cereal foods, in Hong Kong the amount per person was reduced from 22 ounces per day to 11 ounces. The ration in India was reduced from 16 ounces to 12 ounces. The Japanese who had surrendered and were in internment camps received ten ounces a day, but in Malaya the amount allocated to people was eight ounces per day of which only 4½ was rice and the remaining 3½ was wheat flour. Wheat flour does not in any way take the place of rice to the Malayans, and that should be borne in mind.
  A vast amount of rice has been held up in Siam. For various reasons it has not been brought down. Might I suggest again, as has been suggested repeatedly to the Colonial Office, that it should be a practical proposition to get the rice out of Siam one way or another. They were very short of consumer goods and I maintain that it was possible to send consumer

  317
  goods in one form or another into Siam and get that rice out. The whole of the life of Malaya—and it is a very important part of the world now, politically and agriculturally—rests on an adequate supply of rice.
  There are two other small points to which I should like to refer in regard to Malaya. I believe that soon after the Japanese occupation ended there was a large amount of piracy and banditry, especially round about Penang. I have asked questions about this but it has never been admitted that piracy did exist. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary to give us some information. I am told, and I believe, that it was for many months quite impossible to ship the all-important copra up to Penang for transhipment for this and other countries. It was so difficult to ship it in that area by local small ships and junks that no reputable insurance companies would insure the copra for the voyage. I suggest that that is a very serious state of affairs when it happens in British waters several months after the war is over.
  Unfortunately, appalling conditions exist at the docks at all the principal harbours in Malaya, Penang and Singapore in particular. The organisation of the wharves has undoubtedly been most difficult after the war owing to the large number which were bombed and broken up, but the amount of thieving at those docks would indicate that the policing of those cities is entirely inadequate. I should like to mention some figures to support my views. The marine insurance from this country to Singapore or Penang before the war was 4s. 3d. per cent. After the European war started, in 1940 and 1941 it went up to 16s. 9d. per cent. Immediately after the war and immediately after the Japanese were evacuated, the rate in May, 1946, was 21s. 9d., but the thieving was so appalling in those ports, and it got worse shortly afterwards, that in August, 1946, the marine insurance rate was 51s. 9d. compared with 4s. 3d. prewar. That calls for action on the part of the Minister, and I hope that he will investigate it. Before I close, may I say that I regard it as very unfortunate that when people visit countries for a few days and get impressions which may or may not be true they sometimes appear to speak with authority. I must say in all seriousness that I have seldom listened to such a half hour of unparalleled nonsense
  318
  as I heard from the hon. Member for North Islington.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: We have listened today to one of the usual surveys that we have once a year from the Secretary of State, followed by a survey, equally wide, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). I said last year and I repeat today, that there is very little value in Debates of this kind. They are far too wide, and the time has come when we should have regional Debates covering various parts of the Colonial Empire and dealing with those alone. I know from my own knowledge that in various parts of the Colonial Empire the inhabitants are feeling that we neglect them in this House to a large extent, and they point to this one unsatisfactory day as one of the reasons for that feeling. I believe that it is quite right that we should amend our Parliamentary system in order to deal with the importance of the Colonial Empire.
  We are now in the transitional period, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for West Bristol, and we are moving from the laissez faire of the 19th century into the more dynamic period of the 20th century. The colonies cease to be places to which we merely give a certain amount of protection. We protected them from outside dangers, we kept order internally and we expected them to provide us with a certain amount of goods in return. They are now as much a part of these islands and of our economic system as are Scotland or Wales, and we must realise their new importance to our economy. We have heard today of the advances towards self-government throughout the various territories, and I for one am glad that those advances have been made, but I would insist that unless we take the people with us in those constitutional advances, they will do more harm than good. I would like to recall to the Committee what a former hon. Member of this House—Thomas Babington Macaulay—wrote many years ago on the question of paper constitutions:
  "Constitutions are in politics what paper money is in commerce. They afford great facilities and conveniences. But we must not attribute to them that value which really belongs to what they represent. They are no power, but symbols of power, and will, in an emergency, prove altogether useless unless

  319
  the power for which they stand be forthcoming. The real power by which the community is governed is made up of all the means which all its members possess of giving pleasure or pain to each other."
  I feel that in many of the territories we govern from this House we must not break up too rapidly the present fabric of society; we must not exchange the sub stance for the shadow. They have old systems of government amongst themselves, well-tried systems, which they understand, and before we lead them into new paths we must be quite sure that they understand what they are doing and what we are offering. If we give them that means of understanding, they will appreciate that they are being led forward into more democratic practices, but unless they are clearly convinced of the need for the political development we offer them, more harm than good will probably be done.
  With regard to the economic position, much the same applies. For instance, in the new Crown Colony of Sarawak any development which has not the support and the understanding of the people may have serious consequences. They are not used to development of any kind. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that in Sarawak 92½ per cent. of the rubber estates are under two acres in extent. Therefore, in the development of coal, for example, which is proposed, we must be quite certain that people understand and share in the development which takes place.
  I agree it would be better not to discuss the Malayan political situation today in view of the offer which we have had for next Session. However, I would like to say something about the economic position already touched upon by the hon. Baronet the Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow). We must realise in this Committee that the position regarding food in Malaya is serious. In fact, it is worse than that. The people are on the verge of want, and there will be serious agrarian and industrial trouble in Malaya if the rice position is not dealt with quickly. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that the ration of rice there is one-third that of Japan—our late enemy—and one-eighth of the ration in Burma. That is a most serious situation. The hon. Baronet stressed the importance of Malay to this country, but it will never be of any importance unless
  320
  the people are fed, and it is no use talking of other types of food. The Asiatic wants rice. It is no good offering flour, or cereals, or anything else. Rice is what he wants and, if he does not get it, he does not eat. We must concentrate on the home production of rice which, as I pointed out last year, had dropped from 33 per cent. of the consumption prewar to 25 per cent. I ask the Under-Secretary of State what is the percentage today? How much of that leeway has been made up? Unless the home production of rice is increased, it will be difficult to increase the ration depending on rice from outside.
  I would also suggest that no country which produces enough rice to provide eight ounces per head per day of the population should receive more rice from the International Food Committee which deals with rice. Until the Malayan ration is made up to a reasonable standard, it is not just that other countries which have eight ounces should, in addition, get from the central pool further rice to increase that ration. I would also say that no ex-enemy territories should receive an allocation of rice from outside until the territories they have despoiled get a proper allowance Why should the Japanese get rice from outside to make their ration three times that of the Malays and the Chinese in Malaya whom they dealt with so badly during the occupation? It is not just or right. With regard to rubber, which is one of the staple pro ducts of Malaya, we know that the Americans have put an embargo on the importation of rubber into the United States——
  Mr. W. Fletcher: For the sake of correctness, may I point out to the hon. Member that the United States have not put an embargo upon the import of rubber They have laid down a certain percentage of synthetic rubber that must be used in American products. That is not quite the same thing.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I was the one who asked the Question which received that answer. An embargo is an embargo, call it by what name you like; whether you do it by restriction in that form or in any other way, it is an embargo as far as Malaya is concerned. There is difficulty about the sale of rubber to the United States, and this will undoubtedly affect the purchasing power of the people of Malaya.

  321
  In Sarawak, as I have said, there is very little large-scale production of any commodity. It is a purely native form of economy and one which we shall now, I take it, in some small measure alter. There is a coalfield in Sarawak which previously produced high quality coal, but it was abandoned because it was difficult to work and to get the coal away to the docks. We are now investigating whether it would be possible to reopen that important source of supply in the Far East. I would like to know from the Secretary of State under what conditions this coal is to be worked. Is it to be a company on lease? Is it to be some form of nationalised industry? How does he propose to work this valuable mineral? Also, what is the future of oil in Sarawak? When the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) and I visited that country, we were told that the oil field of Sarawak had been practically drained dry and there was very little left. I doubted that, and I believe the hon. Member did, too. We doubted whether big installations that have been put up recently in the oil fields would have been put up for an oil field which was worked out. I understand that there are vast fields of oil there which can be developed. What are the proposals in regard to those particular fields if it is true that oil is there? I would emphasise that in regard to Sarawak, more than Malaya, we have a trust and we must not do anything in that country which will harm the native people, the indigenous people. If we do anything that will harm them, either by too rapid political or industrial advancement, we shall pay for it, and it will be on our conscience. It is up to us to see that the country is properly run.
  Last, with regard to Hong Kong. I would like to see the colony developed as a shop window of democracy. I believe that Hong Kong can offer in the Far East, as Singapore can in South East Asia, a very good opportunity for showing the people of other countries how social, educational, political and other development can be made in the right and proper way. I know that the people of Hong Kong are doubtful as to what are our intentions, and I would like to know from the Secretary of State what the Government intend to do with Hong Kong. I believe that the democratic element in China does not want to see Hong Kong handed over to the Kuomintang Government; they would
  322
  like to see Hong Kong maintained, developed, and that it should eventually achieve self-government within the British Commonwealth of Nations. Whatever their long-term view may be, that is certainly their view for the next few years. Therefore, I feel that we can offer to the people of the Far East both in Hong Kong and Singapore two shop windows of democracy where our physical and spiritual goods can be displayed for all who wish to see them.
  In the main, I feel we have had a very stimulating and encouraging report from the Colonial Secretary today, and the few criticisms which I have made are not to be taken as meaning that I criticise his work as a whole, because I think that in very difficult circumstances he and his Department and officials at home and abroad have done a good job of work, for which we ought to be grateful.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: We on this side of the Committee are grateful to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) for such an authoritative statement of what his views are. He must carry many hon. Members on the other side of the Committee with him on the future of Hong Kong. We had some doubts on what the Colonial Secretary and Government would do about Hong Kong, but I hope that the Under-Secretary when he replies can give some support to what the hon. Member for South Croydon has said.
  I think we all agree with the hon. Member for South Croydon that we would be very glad to have more time to debate this vast subject, dealing with an Empire of 60 million people, in 60 dependencies, and which we try to cram into a few hours debate each year. In the course of the speech of the Secretary of State, I could not see any indication of how he is steering the course of any individual colony, or group of colonies, to keep it in the future framework of the United Nations. I cannot expect the Under-Secretary to give an answer, because it is obviously a very vast and complicated subject. But one hopes that as time goes on, some indication will be given to the House, and to the country, of how constitutions are to be developed, particularly the economic aspect,' so that we do not find when the time comes for British control to be withdrawn, as it

  323
  has been in the last two or three years from certain other parts of what used to be called the British Empire, that disintegration has set in. I believe it is possible today to avoid some of the difficulties we have had in certain countries, which I think it would be difficult and invidious to name at present——
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ivor Thomas): The hon. Member spoke of the United Nations. I take it that he means the British Commonwealth of Nations?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, I do not. I believe we are working towards setting up certain standards which will enable us to retain in the British Commonwealth certain bits of the Empire, which will be in the United Nations. For instance, in Africa, south of the Equator, the British have set standards which others might follow. Rather than see those drift away, and set up separate kingdoms or republics, our aim should be to keep them together inside a unit which can remain, as it were, a full unit Of the United Nations, with immediate loyalty to the British Empire. I hope I have made myself clear to the Under-Secretary. We have set political standards in the Empire which we should ensure are followed by other countries who have joined the United Nations. I am one who believes that we have nothing to be ashamed of in the past 100 years in bringing those countries to a certain standard, and we should not allow others to set standards but should persuade them to adopt our standards.
  My second point is on the economic side. The Secretary of State dealt fairly fully with that, but there are still certain aspects which it is most important we should consider. No doubt a number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee have read Sir Philip Mitchell's despatch on agriculture in East Africa, and they will agree that he is one of the greatest colonial governors this country has produced, and that particular despatch is likely to be most important in the future. Briefly, it recommends that we cannot go on with the previous agricultural system of the hoe and the goat and so on, but must adopt up to date agricultural practices. This postulates, as I see it, European supervision
  324
  in some form or other. We cannot expect the African, although the Askari had a lot of experience in the war, to jump from the hoe state of agricultural development straight on to the tractor. We believe it essential to have a considerable degree of European supervision in time to come in the immediate, middle, and even in the distant future. I wish to ask the Under-Secretary to give some indication of what lines the Government are proposing that that agricultural development should follow. Probably he will reply that in broad terms it is education, but I believe it is so important a problem that there must be certain directions given so that those individuals who have taken plantations and are working a plantation system can be assured that they will have support in the future. I believe there are great opportunities—not only needs as the despatch points out—for proper European supervision of agricultural development for ex-Service men, and so on.
  It seems to me that the Abrahams Report cast some doubt on the intentions of the Government for attracting European supervision, particularly ex-Service men, to work in the Empire. We have an area containing 60 million people, and we should try to form this unit into one great free trade area, if possible, with us in this country. The strength of the United States and Russia is that they have a free market of 150 million people. We should try to do the same by bringing in all these countries, which are mainly producers of primary products. But to do that, we must have European supervision, and there are considerable doubts in certain directions as to what is the policy of the Government. The Abrahams Report, which still is difficult to get in this country, has placed a certain amount of doubt in people's minds about the intentions of the Government on future European settlement in some of these areas.
  The White Paper on colonial mining policy also leaves some doubts in people's minds as to what the Government are intending. It would be invidious to give the Colonial Secretary specific details of companies which I know are holding back on colonial development until they get a greater assurance of what their future is to be. Capital can be raised in this country or elsewhere, but it has to be turned into mining machinery and so forth. There is quite a lot available, not only in this

  325
  country but in the Dominions. People are anxious to get to work to get the minerals out of the ground in quite a lot of areas all over the world. There is, however, a considerable element of doubt in the minds of individuals whether the Government are going to allow those people to go ahead and get some reasonable reward for their efforts.
  I again stress the request to the Under-Secretary to let us know what is the attitude on immediate and long-term European settlement in the colonies, and secondly, to say more clearly what is the attitude of the Government towards mining and getting minerals from those areas?
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: In spite of the thin attendance this afternoon, the flood of Questions with which the Colonial Secretary is faced every week shows the interest which has been taken since the war in colonial matters. I cannot help feeling that that interest has been aroused largely because, in conditions of world shortage, one's attention is drawn to the potentialities of the vast backward areas for the production of raw materials and food Therefore, we have to be careful, when we consider colonial development, to ensure that this new interest does not open the way for a new phase of exploitation exclusively in the interests of European people. I would have been a little more impressed by what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) it I felt that the past record of his party in that respect was rather better than I do. Nevertheless, I go with him to the extent of considering that whenever anything like the Grenada transaction, to which he referred, comes to our notice, It is extremely salutary that it should be aired. It is right that everyone should be vigilant about it, and I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State replies to the Debate, he will be able to clear up any doubts which might otherwise exist.
  A large proportion of these colonial areas happen, for historical reasons, to be within the Colonial Empires of a small number of Western European nations which, in the past, have had differing colonial objectives. They have had varying successes in different directions. I believe that they can co-operate and help each other and
  326
  I am glad that some suggestions of that kind appeared in the speech of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), who I am glad to follow in the Debate, because we have spoken in conjunction with each other three times in this House already.
  I would like to give a word of warning about what I believe will be the effect of the activities of the United Nations in respect of the colonial territories. I believe that the most important part of the Charter will turn out to be, not that part which prescribes international trusteeship for what may well be a limited number of territories, but the chapter in which all administering Powers undertake obligations to the peoples in the areas which they administer, and the obligation which they also undertake to tell the world, through the medium of the United Nations, what is happening there. There is a natural tendency to view with cynicism genera] expressions of good intention, but there is a very real sanction behind the obligation which colonial powers have undertaken under the Charter. There are coloured peoples represented as members of the United Nations, and there are other States which, to put it mildly, are suspicious of all colonial Powers, and which may even find it convenient to make political capital out of criticism of colonial administration. We may be certain that year after year there will be, in the General Assembly, no lack of champions of the colonial peoples. Pressure is already great, it will grow, and it may even be responsible for a rapid advance towards racial and colour equality, and towards self-government in the Colonies. The United Nations may prove a stimulant to self-assertion by colonial peoples themselves, because it will give them at least once a year a world platform with a highly sympathetic audience. We were largely responsible for proposing this machinery, and think we should welcome it, but we must recognise what ceaseless effort and what sustained imagination will be called for on our part if we are to keep pace with world opinion on this matter.
  I spoke of co-operation between the European colonial Powers. This has grown up, particularly out of the strategic needs of the war, in Africa, the Caribbean and the South Pacific. In the two last-named areas, permanent machinery in the shape of commissions, has been set up to

  327
  enable us to carry on that co-operation. I wish to call attention to two aspects of the work of these Commissions. First, I think I am right in saying that the projects so far undertaken have been purely technical matters of communications, of health and combating of disease, measures to improve food production, and I would mention one particular interest of mine, the improvement of fisheries, which we are undertaking on a large scale in our own colonies. I am proud that in the Nautical School in my constituency, Grimsby, colonial fishery officers are being trained very successfully. I do not think that in the future technical co-operation will be enough Now that the avowed objective of all colonial administration is the welfare of the peoples administered, there will develop a strong case for encouraging certain common institutions, social, educational and economic, on a regional basis, rather the kind of thing envisaged by the hon. Member for Banbury. After all, the boundaries set up in some areas are artificial ones, set up for European and not for African reasons, and these boundaries do not necessarily make sense when they are examined through African rather than European eyes.
  It is interesting to speculate what the effect on colonial economies might be if the present Paris discussions were to result in some kind of economic unification or customs union among the Western colonial Powers. Would the colonial resources of those European Powers be put into the pool? If so, what guarantees would be necessary to ensure that African interests were properly safeguarded, if African resources were called in to aid a plan which is primarily for the reconstruction of Europe? It is too soon for uninstructed back benchers to answer a question of that kind, but there may be a great problem there. The second aspect of these Commissions in the Caribbean and South Pacific to which I would like to refer relates to the ancillary bodies, the Conferences—the West Indian Conference and the South Pacific Conference—advisory bodies where, for the first time, the representatives of the peoples themselves come to represent their countries. Some of them are chosen in fully democratic ways by their legislatures, others, where no democratic legislatures exist, by different methods.
  328
  I believe that these bodies may not only give useful advice in the immediate future, but will be much more important as schools for self-government for the peoples concerned, for bringing up the more backward peoples to the standard of the more advanced peoples, and also as a safety valve for awakening nationalism.
  It is vital that we should not underestimate the force of nationalism in the colonies—as far as I know in all colonies, certainly in nearly all colonies. In Western countries we are apt to think of nationalism as a curse and a barrier to a saner and wider world order. In backward areas which have been under foreign domination, or which perhaps have never known nationhood, nationalism is an inevitable step in the general movement for liberation, for self-government and eventual independence. It is a natural aspiration, with which we must show sympathy. We must seek always to be ahead of it, even when we think it is moving faster than is either safe or wise. I believe that so far, our postwar policy can stand that test. But the tempo will be constantly increasing, and there is never likely to be a moment when we can sit back quietly and leisurely to consolidate the advances made.
  In congratulating my right hon. Friend on the work he has done to date, I say to him, echoing the words he used in his speech today, that when history judges his policy, mistakes of boldness will be forgiven him. Indeed, as each colony approaches readiness for full self-government it will be found, as it is now being found in India and Burma, that it is upon stretching boldness to the uttermost limit that the permanence of the ties of the British Commonwealth will ultimately depend.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Several hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the Committee today have spent time contrasting the shortness of this Debate with the vastness of the subject. Indeed, one hon. Gentleman went so far as to remind us that he said last year that he thought these Debates were useless and that he still thought so this year. I can quite understand his having that feeling when listening to the speeches of his colleagues. I have one small suggestion to make for saving time another

  329
  year, and that is that another year perhaps it might be possible that the Minister's peroration should be sung and that the rest of his speech should be printed and circulated in the morning. That, I reckon, would save us about 80 minutes.
  Dr. Morgan: Do not waste time.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I shall waste time for every interruption; otherwise, I shall be very brief. That, I reckon, would save about 80 minutes. I am not saying this at all unkindly. I think it is almost necessary, almost inevitable, that the ministerial pronouncement on an occasion of this sort must take a vast sweep and could hardly go over any particular subject in any very exciting detail. I wonder whether it might not really be possible that one way of streamlining Parliamentary procedure might be by some such method as that.
  Then, Sir, I want to say one thing about university education, particularly in Africa. I approach it with very great diffidence because the thing I want to say is rather difficult to say without appearing to show something of patronage or condescension. I do not mean it in the least that way. I myself, as the Secretary of State knows, had a good deal to do at one time with this subject, and I have never had any feeling of superiority in the matter at all.
  What I am trying to say is this. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) spoke, I think very justly, of the danger and bad effect in an educational system of feeling all the time that for the top education, for the best, one had to go outside the system. He spoke of that apropos of the two or three thousand Africans, particularly, who are now at British universities. I think that is a warning very rightly and properly given. There is a rather similar warning, which, as I say, is a little more difficult to give without offence, and which I do not think can be given either to Africans or to British teachers and administrators in Africa, except from the Colonial Office. Therefore, I wish to ask for reassurance that the danger which I am now approaching is clearly recognised in the Colonial Office, and that they have got the courage to keep on warning people in the Colonies of it. The danger is that
  330
  when trying to teach somebody under one's own level in that subject—like teaching a small child to ride a bicycle or to swim—one is bound to say, "You can do it now by yourself" before that is quite true, though of course one must not do that too soon.
  There is a danger arising from that that people may be induced, with results eventually most disappointing to themselves, to believe too soon that their universities are as good as Paris was in the 15th century, as good as Oxford in the 20th century, and so on. That, in my judgment, is, in the long run, the greatest of all dangers to colonial education—the danger of the beginning to believe too soon that Achimota is better than Oxford and that Makerere is almost as good as Cambridge, and so on. On the other hand, there must be care not to let them think they are getting something second rate, and immense trouble must be taken all the time to improve what they are getting. But, for the contrary danger, I am sure that for good and bad motives, almost everybody engaged in running this education is very much tempted to overcall his hand. And though it requires great courage and discretion on the part of the Colonial Office to correct it from time to time, that is one of the services which is absolutely their duty. I should like to be reassured that that is one of the dangers of which they are conscious.
  I want to move to an entirely different subject; I am afraid that in this Debate one is bound to be rather disjointed. We cannot discuss the new Malayan constitution today, but I should like to ask one or two questions about administrative and political decisions which must be taken before we can discuss that constitution, as I understand we may hope to do in the autumn. One is this: the great reality, I suppose, in Malaya is the melting pot side of it. The Malay is something like 40 per cent. Chinese, about as much Indian, I have forgotten what, say, nearly 20 per cent.; add every race you like for the last one or two per cent. Every attempt to get a new constitution to work, therefore, must depend on that, and on immigration. I should like to know what are the views of the Colonial Office. Is it intended to regulate immigration, to have some sort of racial quota? Also, is it intended to regulate the acquisition of

  331
  citizenship by immigrants of the first or second generation?
  Here, there is a very important question. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) thought that nationalism was all right for the lesser breeds without the law, but that he and you and I, Mr. Beaumont, if we run fast enough, might keep ahead of it. I am not quite sure that that is a very useful conception; at. any rate, there was this advantage about nationality as we have known it: it has given a certain political predictability, the territorial nationality of Europe, where everybody occupying a particular territory, has the same citizenship and allegiance and where something like 60, 70 or 90 per cent.—at the best times 99 per cent.—can be trusted to have exactly the same loyalty. That is made far more difficult if there is a large community which has, or thinks it has, a double citizenship. I do not want to talk about Palestine, but we have seen enough of it there. Somewhat the same thing is true also about the Chinese. I believe that very few Chinese ever believe honestly in their souls that in one generation, or even in two, they become British, American or Malayan subjects and cease to be Chinese subjects. I believe the Chinese Government still maintain that all Chinese owe allegiance even if they have been three or four generations in Malaya. It is no use blinking that. I do not want to be unkind either to Chinese in China or in Malaya, nor in the least do I want to make things difficult for the Colonial Office. Has the Colonial Office a policy about this? Does it believe anything can be done to persuade the Chinese Government to give up the claim, and can anything effective be done to educate the Chinese in Malaya out of the assumption of double nationality? If so, what does it think can be done to these ends, what is being done and with what hope of success?
  I think it has this immediate relation to administration under these Estimates, that unless something can be done effectively and it can be shown to the Malays that it is being done, the temptation to Malays of going Pan-Indonesian—to use a rather horrible expression—is much greater. There is that temptation to Malays to think of themselves as having an overriding allegiance, to some
  332
  Indonesian possibility, to something outside, something in their hope eventually including Malaya; any chance of the new constitution being a reality would seem to me thereby to be very much reduced. I should, therefore, like to have the Colonial Office views and their plans about that.
  Thirdly and lastly, what is their view about trade unions in Malaya? How much is being done or can be done? I quite see that if we want a trade union to be a real trade union and democratic, obviously the whole essence is that we must let them run it themselves. If we come in from outside and run the thing, we are making nonsense of our own conception. What do they think can be done to try to make sure that these trade unions are real trade unions? My information, which I beg right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to believe is good information, from a very, very wise and very liberal man, is something like this: that it has been extremely depressing during the past year or two to see one solid trade union after another cave in as violence or the threat of it apply. Practically all of them are now nothing better than collections of yes-men and so on, and in a place where as far as organisation goes the Communist is the strongest party. This may be a slight exaggeration; if so the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary can correct me at the end. If that is at all so, it must be an end of trade unions one way or the other. That must land them in a position where they become more or less than trade unions.
  It may be that there is nothing that can be done; but I should like to know if it is believed by the Colonial Office that the danger which I am indicating is a real one, or will they tell me that I am wholly misled by my correspondence? I think they cannot do that, and I do not think they will, and on that assumption will they tell us what it is hoped can be done by way of avoiding that danger also?
  7.31 p.m.
  Dr. Morgan: I hope the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) will pardon me if I do not follow his, as usual, rather cynical and especially conceited remarks, which were rather like those of a schoolmaster masquerading from a high pinnacle before the small boys beneath. I noticed that

  333
  the hon. Member did not speak of a group of colonies of which he ought to know something, and where he, as well as I, was born—an island of the Caribbean. I know that the hon. Member thinks he is rather superior, but I do not, and I have always expressed my admiration for the native population of the West Indies. I think they are a very fine type, and I have always tried to impress upon this House that this British civilisation is the spearhead of a new civilisation, not like the African, sometimes left without contacts, until quite recently, with European civilisations, but an Africo-British civilisation with contact's of over 300 years or more with all types of European civilisation and additionally with the American civilisation, which is an offspring from the British civilisation.
  I want to congratulate the Secretary of State. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am usually very critical of colonial policy. I have looked for years to see whether there was any turn or twist being given to the colonial situation from the point of view of helping the colonists as brothers, rather than putting ourselves in the rather narrow legalistic attitude of being trustees or senior partners or curators for their welfare. I have always said that welfare is not enough, that money is not enough, that development is not enough. There must be real co-operation between the mother country, as they call it, and the colonies, and a real democratic constitution and co-operation saturating them with our traditions, methods of government and with every phase of our life. Particularly. I want to see, in the Caribbean, with which I am particularly concerned, more character-building towards citizen ship, with a real development on democratic lines, as we have it in this country.
  At last I am beginning to see that the Secretary of State, after having been left a huge legacy of chaos and capitalist confusion, is trying to get the administration into order and to work according to a planned scheme, but I want to warn him still against certain faults in his administration. The Colonial Office is still too shy of new blood, too frightened of any new ideas, and of any infiltration into its own specially chosen advisory committees. There are, as I have said, two hon. Members of this House who were born in the Caribbean—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University
  334
  and myself. The native peoples should be given more information and should be kept more closely in touch with colonial administration by being given, much more frequently, the opportunities of taking part in the work of the Department, and it should not be confined to one party, but open to all parties. An hon. Gentleman opposite said something about wanting to set a standard. One of our Dominions—South Africa—has a standard in regard to racial administration which we in this country cannot regard as our standard.
  I want to ask my right hon. Friend what is the land policy of the Minister, in particular, in the Caribbean? I hope he is not going to move, as I know he is being pressed to move, in the direction of capitalist land exploitation in the smaller colonies, rather than create a situation in which the Government will be owning the land, which the indigenous population could rent in return for security of tenure. I know that there is a move on foot in certain directions to wards capitalist exploitation, and there are people who hope that there will be this capitalist exploitation of the land, rather than the Government owning the land and giving the natives leases and security of tenure. Certain clergymen in the West Indies have spoken of the Government ownership of the land and the granting of leases, and have said that this is a wrong policy, and, on religious grounds, they have maintained that it is right for people to own the land, though I myself do not maintain that. I think it is wrong that the land should belong to any private citizens, except in certain particular circumstances. I want to ask whether, in regard to the nationalisation policy which we are pursuing in Great Britain, the Colonial administration has considered the question of the nationalisation of the central sugar factories in the Colonies, especially in the West Indies, not so much the actual sugar estates or the allotments of the cane farmers——
  Mr. Gammans: Why not?
  Dr. Morgan: Well, I do not mind, if the hon. Member wants it. There is no reason why it should not be done, as it is done in certain colonies, where the Government buy the land and split it up into small lots for planters. Capitalists do it in Trindad. They have two methods. They secure the cane from the larger

  335
  estates, and they have it from the small cane farmers. Why should not the Government set up a factory on modern lines and take the cane from the cane farmers for the making of sugar? I want to impress upon the Government what I have tried to tell them so often in the past. It is the case of the central sugar factory in St. Kitts, and I want to know why this concern cannot be nationalised, with its 1,000 per cent. profit per annum over 20 years, the figures of which cannot be doubted. When I handed those figures to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), when he was Colonial Secretary, he told me that the figures were doubted by the directors of the companies, but I asked the right hon. Gentleman where they were doubtful and where they were wrong? Hon. Members can ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol himself.
  St. Kitts is a small island where the population is decreasing, where the wages of labourers are low and where housing is almost a scandal because there is no land on the estates on which people can build houses. I do want to know whether the Government have been requested by the St. Kitts' Legislative Council to build a central sugar factory there, or nationalise this factory or go to arbitration on it for compulsory purchase. The same thing applies to oil. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has seen the contract which has been made between the Trinidad Leasehold Oil Company and the Standard Oil Company of America or some U.S.A. subsidiary for the purpose of getting over the present economic tangle. Arrangements were being made whereby it will become almost an international company so that they could carry on in all fields, but the people or workers of Trinidad had no say in the matter. Last night, when I tried to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) when he was speaking on nominee shareholders being known in the capitalist infiltration of companies under the Companies Act, I wanted to prove that it was necessary to have control over and publicity for nominee holdings, because I know that in many of our colonies, nominee holdings by foreign shareholders or businesses have control of companies.
  336
  I want now to come to the political aspect. We all want to see these colonies develop politically. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have always been keen on that being done. However, I am rather shocked at the way events have turned out in Jamaica. The right hon. Member for West Bristol gave a very excellent constitution, a democratic constitution, to the people of Jamaica. Hon. Members opposite also know how the election was manipulated by those on the Conservative and business side. Many of the facts in connection with the election have yet to come out. I have seen letters from people high up in official circles, the contents of which, if known, might create a scandal. Mr. Bustamente, the present Prime Minister of Jamaica, has great experience of Mid-American despotic states and their constitutions as contrasted with the democratic constitution of this country and of Jamaica which should be observed constitutionally by the Jamaican Government. Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is true that Mr. Bustamente recently burst into a room in which were the Governor and the Parliamentary Secretary, brandishing a revolver, which he pointed menacingly at the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Hugh Foot? I have evidence in my pocket to this effect, and, if my right hon. Friend would like to see it, I will gladly let him have it.
  If such a thing happened, then we ought to take a definite stand, and say that the democratic Constitution of that country is being violated. We should send observers there, with armed forces, if necessary, to see that any election is conducted in a democratic way. We should never allow that sort of thing to happen. I see that hon. Gentlemen opposite are laughing. No dictatorship should be permitted in a colony with a democratic constitution or indeed in any colony.
  Mr. Gammans: May I just interrupt the hon. Gentleman for a moment?
  Dr. Morgan: No, the hon. Gentleman may not. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are laughing at the alleged falsity of the story, or at the fact that a democratic constitution was drawn up which apparently is not being observed?
  Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Bustamente is the leader of the Jamaican Labour Party?
  Dr. Morgan: That sounds very funny, but fancy asking me such a question? I would tell the hon. Gentleman that a name means nothing. Mr. Bustamente only cribbed the title because he wanted to use it with an electorate who did not know its right meaning. The leader of the People's National Party chose the name "People's National Party" because he did not want to frighten an in experienced voting population, and owing to Conservative propaganda in the island about Socialism and the Labour Party. I am prepared to go to his constituency and fight the hon. Gentleman on such an issue. Fancy the hon. Gentleman asking me a question of that kind; he must think I am a bit of a "softy." There is another problem in Trinidad about which I want to say a few words. I promise not to be long in doing so, Mr. Beaumont. I say that in case you may be feeling a little apprehensive.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am not apprehensive about the time which the hon. Member may take to make his speech, but only about the threats he mentioned in it.
  Dr. Morgan: I did not know that I had made any threats.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member suggested that he might have a fight in some place.
  Dr. Morgan: I am sorry, but I would never suggest fighting you, Mr. Beaumont, in a place where you are so strongly entrenched. Actually, I was referring to the hon. Member opposite.
  In -Trinidad there is another demagogue known as Mr. Butler. I want to be sure that, if Mr. Butler raises another riot with his Bible teaching, the chief of police sent to quell the riot will not be the brother-in-law of the chief legal adviser to the most influential oil company there. Such a thing rather complicates matters in the Colony. I am not making any suggestion that there should be interference one way or the other, but I do suggest that that was an indiscreet move to make. I believe that the chief of police is a perfectly honourable man, but, from the point of view of the strikers, it was a most injudicious form of tactics to adopt.
  I will now come to the colony of Grenada. I am sorry that the hon.
  338
  Member the senior Burgess for Cambridge University is not present because he was born within 200 yards of where I was born on the island. I want to refer to certain very tendentious, very offensive, and very hard comments which have recently been made in a certain newspaper about this particular island. They were made by Mr. John Walters, a journalist, who writes for the "Daily Mirror." He writes on matters, ranging from New York to the Caribbean, and even as far as South America, of which he has practically no knowledge. He wrote recently about the ravings of a crazy native doctor, a medico temporarily employed in the island from Canada. Hon. Members opposite are laughing, but I can prove all my facts; I am not letting them rattle me, but I do not like to see the frontispiece of the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) shake so much. This journalist describes Grenada as a "colony of dying men."
  I have the statistics here. I obtained them from Sir William Maclean's office. He is an encouraging courteous man from whom to get information at the Colonial Office; he is a good Scotsman. I like to pay a tribute to a man who deserves it. I do not always wish to be critical. I like to give credit where credit is due, and I must say that he is one of the finest Colonial Office officers I have ever met. When I went to see him, he was willing to give me every piece of information it was possible to give. I have here the figures dealing with the last 12 years, and I obtained them through the kindness of Sir William Maclean and the Colony's senior medical officer. They show that for the last 10 years the incidence of all the diseases specially endemic in the Colony has steadily fallen. Yet the journalist to whom I have referred, circulated in a journal the statement that this is a dying colony. I cannot imagine that a migrating journalist should sink so low into the "sewage" of journalism as to publish information of that kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the newspaper?"] It is the "Daily Mirror." I have criticised newspapers before, and sometimes harshly, but really, this is sinking to the lowest level in journalism which ever existed in this country, and I hope it will not happen again. The acting senior medical officer described as old in this diatribe, was up to date, as he, to my knowledge, took a severe study course in

  339
  modern medicine in 1938. But why bother with this tomfoolery?
  I ask the Under-Secretary to pursue his attack on all fronts, from the point of view of federal unity of all the Caribbean Islands, in spite of the opposition of the business interests and in spite of the reference by the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) to bulk buying by the Ministry of Food. I know for a fact—and I have the papers at my home to prove it—that the business men who dealt with the Colony were prepared to do the deal through a long-term contract at a certain price, but when they found that the American prices were rising on a short-term contract, they were sorry that they did not wait a little longer and get the benefit of the higher prices. But they knew what they were doing. They had all the facts and prices from New York and London sent to them, and the contract was arranged by the business men for the purchase of the cocoa crop in Grenada.
  On the political front I want the hon. Gentleman to pursue the policy of federation. On the economic front I ask him to push ahead with the policy of building up co-operative businesses. He should encourage this policy from the point of view of producers co-operation as well as of consumers co-operation. The Islands are being exploited by British and United States capital, and sometimes by French capital. I ask the hon. Gentleman to put forward the co-operative way of life, of each co-operative member having a right to vote in the direction he pleases. With regard to the minor industries, such as plastics and things like that, I ask him to try as hard as he can to raise the status of the women in the Caribbeans. As the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) once wrote, "This is a hustling urgency." We should give scholarships from the primary schools to the secondary schools, and from the secondary schools to colleges in Great Britain, in the ratio of three females to one male if necessary. We should encourage the women at every turn. The right hon. Member for West Bristol will remember the scheme which was set up for the training of West Indian nurses, in collaboration with the L.C.C., with which I think he will admit I had a good deal to do I do not wish to say that I originated
  340
  the idea, although the first document certainly came from me, and the right hon. Gentleman worked it up. That scheme is proving an excellent one, and later on will produce valuable work from the trained nurses who will return to their own people in the West Indies and teach them the elements of nursing.
  I wish the Under-Secretary would approach the British Council from the point of view of culture and art, because there is a huge field in that direction. I would like him to ask the British Council to select three or four men who have the interests of the people at heart, and send them out there on a good lecture tour with cinematographs and phonographs in order to give them a continued study and ideal of British traditions and of European and international art and culture, to develop and encourage them to give expression to their artistic sense.
  I know my hon. Friend has the very best intentions, and I know that he works hard, both inside and outside his office. But he had a very good example set him by the right hon. Member for West Bristol. I hope my hon. Friend will beat him in the race. I can only wish him God speed in his work in trying to reform conditions in the colonies—the British Colonies, in the Pacific, in Africa and in the Caribbean, which could feed Britain to the extent of half her needs if they were properly developed. They could supply us with oil, food, fish and all sorts of other commodities. Let us develop them, not in the sense of exploiting them by capitalism, nor by teaching the black capitalists to exploit the natives, but by dealing with the whole matter by a co-operative movement, from the point of view of politics, economics, culture, character building and the building up of all the British traditions. By so doing, my hon. Friend will place his name on one of the finest records of Colonial history which has ever brightened this country.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: I know that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech, because there are so many other hon. Members who wish to have an opportunity of speaking that it would hardly be fair to do so. I must also draw an "iron curtain" around myself and refrain from speaking about Malaya,

  341
  except to say two things. First, the question of rice as outlined by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) is of over-ruling importance. Between now and the next Debate—and I mention it now because it is a matter of extreme urgency—the Under-Secretary of State must see that an even greater effort is made to overcome the situation which results in a four-and-a-half ounce ration of rice being supplemented by purchases of three times that figure in the black market. Two hundred thousand tons of rice are in the possession of the Brazilian Government which has broken away from the I.E.F.C. The second thing I ask the hon. Gentleman to do regarding Malaya is not to answer piecemeal questions on that subject which have been put to him today. I do not think it would be fair if we are to have a full Debate later on, because hon. Members who have now restrained themselves from going into the Malayan question would be at a disadvantage.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: The hon. Member is speaking of the political aspect. I, personally, want an answer on the economic aspect.
  Mr. Fletcher: I should like to turn for a moment to Hong Kong. In the Colonial Secretary's very interesting opening statement, he did inform us—we knew, of course, before—that there had been a change in the set-up of certain councils in Hong Kong—that is to say, a greater degree of native representation. That is a thing to which, I think, in principle we all now give a great deal of adherence, but I would point out that it is an extremely dangerous moment in Hong Kong to do such a thing. According to the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has given to me in the House, there has been an influx of rather over a million people from the mainland of China into Hong Kong. They have come into Hong Kong partly as a tribute to the excellence of our colonial administration, and, the greater attractions of living under the British flag than those of living on the mainland. They are new in that colony, and they cannot in any way fulfil the qualifications laid down in Malaya for citizenship, and I think the greatest care must be taken to see that the new Council and the new form of franchise in Hong Kong do not get overthrown to some extent by this infiltration and influx of
  342
  those who cannot be considered proper citizens of Hong Kong as yet.
  I should like also to mention three other issues on Hong Kong. First, with regard to the university there, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—and I know he has very deep sympathy with this—has such dire need of books for educational purposes, I do not believe there is a single Member of this Committee who would do other than support a plea for the most urgent and high priority for the reconstruction of Hong Kong University. Another thing is to think of the future. The right hon. Gentleman now has great sums—and he may have even greater sums—at his disposal for development in the colonies. The future of Hong Kong politically has been discussed, but its economic future is a difficult one. It is a non-productive area and cannot support its own population by growing what it wants, and must have the means to obtain what it wants. Therefore, the development of secondary industries in Hong Kong is a matter which should have his particular attention. There are no people in the world—and I speak from some experience of this—more apt for the job of working in secondary and even in primary industries.
  A good start has been made with ship repairing, and with a wonderful effort to get the big dockyards going again. It has reached a certain level, but cannot go ahead owing to steel and other shortages. If secondary industries are developed on a large scale, with partnership between private enterprise and the Government, then the future of Hong Kong, and its stability, and the influence it will have on the area around it—today chaotic—will be very great.
  The third point to which I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention is that of the moratorium which holds good there just as it does in Malaya and in other parts of the Colonial Empire. It was originally imposed in order to prevent a considerable degree of financial chaos, but under cover of it two rather bad things are happening. One is that many people during the Japanese occupation took advantage of the situation to do great harm to others; and that applies to a great many very poor people whose money was in trust out there, and who are being put in a very false position because they cannot sue and have the matter put right.

  343
  The other is regarding those who have claims against the Government and wish to use the courts to get redress. They cannot sue. It is surely a wrong, un-British, unfair state of things that the Government should prevent themselves from being sued by those who wish to sue, by maintaining a moratorium which prevents those people from making proper and democratic use of courts of justice.
  I turn now to Africa. I served in the East African campaign in 1914–18, and lived in East Africa a good many years afterwards. I was engaged in growing groundnuts—long before the present groundnut scheme in Kenya came into being. Though I am a great believer in that scheme, and wish it success I believe it will encounter more, dangers than existed before. Let us believe not too much in what can be its utility. The highest total world crop of groundnuts—excluding that of the Netherlands East Indies and China and Manchuria; which in times past were some great contributors—in 1945–46 was 4,740,000 tons. This scheme which, at its optimum, can reach 750,000 tons, will produce only about 10 per cent. of that. To think we are going to get a sort of groundnut millenium is a mistake. I have seen so many agricultural projects in the colonies which started out extremely well fail, always for the one reason, that in the end there was a better scheme. It may well be that the native, taught and educated not to abuse the soil, is possibly a better economic unit on his own than when employed by a big corporation, whether Government-owned or privately-owned; and I foresee a possible danger in this scheme in the fact that when we get lower prices again it will be the native, trained and, I hope, weaned away from some of his primitive and bad methods of agriculture, who will become the direct competitor of this Government controlled scheme.
  What will happen at that moment? It may well be that the Government to support their own scheme and the large amount of public money which is invested in it, may give themselves undue priority and allocate to themselves all sorts of privileges and advantages that will not be available to the native producer. I have seen this happen in various other commodities. Take the case of rubber alone, where the native producer is now very
  344
  very much on the upgrade and produces just as good rubber as the plantations; and over half the rubber produced comes from that source. I am afraid that in their enthusiasm and keenness for this groundnut scheme the Government will be overlooking some of the new problems.
  I want them to think in practical terms. Today in Northern Nigeria there are 200,000 tons of groundnuts—not future groundnuts, but present-day groundnuts, so badly needed to turn into margarine and other things in this country. They have not been moved since last season, and cannot be moved. Why? Because of the transport difficulties on the way from Kano to Lagos. Chiefly those difficulties consist of an insufficiency of engines. Why are there not sufficient engines? Because in the Estimates for 1946 they were, unfortunately, by an error, I believe—I am open to correction on this—omitted. The fact remains that the engines were not put there and not sent there; and, therefore, the 200,000 tons of groundnuts, so badly needed—and in a sterling area where no dollars are required—are at the present moment static instead of being mobile. Practical planning in a matter of that sort may well take priority. It will not in any way harm the long-term groundnut scheme on which the right hon. Gentleman is so keen, and in which he has support from all sides of the Committee.
  I should like to say one or two words about Ceylon. Just before the promotion of Ceylon to Dominion status, there have been certain events there which give great weight to the Colonial Secretary's remarks about growing pains in Colonial countries and the various processes to be undergone before they arrive at complete self-government and Dominion status. If we look at the question of the copra and oil seeds in Ceylon there was something akin—and I am using this phrase quite advisedly—to sharp practice. Owing to a mistake by the Ministry of Food in not putting a clause in the contract about the export duty being for a smaller amount, a 50 per cent. export duty was suddenly clamped on, and this country made to pay £16 more for copra per ton on a five-year contract which had only run one year.
  The same happened with rubber, to some extent, just after the end of the war, when we had to pay 1s. 7¼d. to

  345
  Ceylon; it happened with tea, in regard to which the price has been jacked up against us. These are not manifestations of a Government which is fully ripe, or fully realises its responsibilities to the world, as well as to itself, with self-government. Names Rave been mentioned in this Committee, and tribute has been paid to certain gentlemen from Ceylon. I will not mention their names, but the tribute I pay is that they have taught us a very valuable lesson, namely, that we have to watch very carefully in dealing with countries which, while passing through this period of growing pains, have to be taught that the responsibility of dealing on the highest possible level in international affairs is a prerequisite to taking a seat at the international table as a fully responsible unit.
  I thought the Colonial Secretary was a little ungenerous—and other hon. Members opposite have been infinitely more ungenerous—on the question of what had been done in the past. We have had so many attacks on the ground that nothing had been done during the previous so-called capitalistic era. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) called it a laissez faire period. Let us divide that phrase into two. I think the word "faire" is the one that matters. It was a period when things were done But we are now in the laissez" period, when we have to go before any number of permissive committees—because the speech of the Colonial Secretary was notable for one thing: it mentioned more committees, more new bodies being set up, and more administrative bureaucratic forests in front of us, than I have ever heard in any previous speech.
  Dr. Morgan: Why not give the French quotation in full?
  Mr. Fletcher: I was using the phrase "laissez faire."
  Dr. Morgan: "Laissez faire" is only a summary or contraction of a well-known French quotation. Why not give the full quotation?
  Mr. Fletcher: I would like to point out what did happen in that wicked period. There were created in the colonies both rubber and tin industries; created by partnership, to a great extent,
  346
  between native and capitalist—usually 50 per cent.—thus producing two industries with an aggregate capital value in the region of £2,000 million. The right hon. Gentleman's £125 million and £50 million are splendid starts, but they must not be allowed to deceive the public of this country into thinking that they are enormous when viewed in their true relationship to what private enterprise has invested and done in the colonies in the last 25 years. Uganda is a model of development—and I had something to do with the starting of development there in 1919. When talking of social and medical development, let the Colonial Secretary and other hon. Members opposite look at Uganda, and they will see that in that country there has developed over 25 years a model medical service which has succeeded in reducing V.D., when it was rampant to an enormous extent before, by training the natives, and by doing all those things which we are now told are typical of the new era.
  It is only right that these facts should be known, and that tribute should be paid to those—whether or not they were unlucky enough to do it in the capitalistic era—who actually did those jobs, created those organisations, and produced those results. The time has come to say that, while we wish the right hon. Gentleman well, in every possible way, in these new plans, inherited and carried on with enthusiasm by him, we should not allow this cheap, unthinking and unfounded attack to be made on the enormous job that was done in the previous period for the development of the colonies, of which we are today reaping the benefit. That attack should not go unrefuted—an attack made by hon. Gentlemen who have not spent as many years as I have in the colonies; and I have refreshed my memory by travelling in them since. A tribute should go out of this Committee, to the memory of those who have made just as big a contribution to colonial development as is being made today.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Skinnard: To my mind the most important fact which has emerged from this wide Debate has been the recognition, on both sides of the Committee, that the greatest problem before the Secretary of State is that of adequate nutrition for the colonial

  347
  peoples. His success or failure in that job, and in that job alone, will mark him as a good or bad Secretary of State for the Colonies. In his speech today, recognition of that fact has borne ripe fruit, and I think it is evident from both his and succeeding speeches that the problems of nutrition cannot be solved by medical means alone, or, indeed, by the doctors. No matter how much doctors may contribute to our knowledge of the diseases which cause malnutrition, it is team work which will solve the whole problem, at the base of which is economic rehabilitation. The only thing which can permanently re-establish the colonies in self-sufficiency is a sound economic system with a much higher standard of living. Therefore, not only those engaged in medical work, but all those concerned with food production, secondary industries, management, education, welfare and general administration must work together as a team to the general end, that the people shall have a sound economic life, and through that, fair and adequate nutrition.
  I have not lived in the Colonies, but I have had an opportunity quite recently to see something of our fellow citizens in the West Indies and West Africa. I can claim, without offence I hope, that I do not keep my eyes shut, nor my ears closed, when I go among the people, and that I try to hear both sides of the picture, to find out the difficulties of those who are blamed for insufficiency, and to listen to the complaints of those who think that they are being badly treated. I do not think it is a question of praise or blame. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right, although he was deemed to be tactless, when he said that in so many things we are starting from scratch. Therefore, collaboration and co-operation have to be the key words, and not old distresses and present hurts.
  For some time, many of us who have been interested in the plans being made under the colonial development and welfare Acts have thought that we are trying to plan prosperity through welfare, instead of welfare through development. Somehow or other these two things have to be reconciled. Due care must be given to welfare, because if we have not got welfare the people cannot adequately work for their own salvation; on the other
  348
  hand, unless people work, they cannot achieve that economic development which will pay for the welfare services. Welfare services cannot constantly be subvented from resources voted by this Parliament. Consequently, some of us were worried because we felt too much accent was being put on welfare in some of the ten year plans presented by the various colonial Governments. To our satisfaction some of these plans have been amended to preserve a better balance.
  Recently we had the great pronouncement about the imminent formation of the Colonial Economic Development Corporation. That marks the right motivation and shows how this Government approach their work. The Government realise that they have not only to hand out advice and build hospitals and schools, but that there also has to be adequate public finance in every colonial territory. I hope that when the Development Corporation gets going it will be as decentralised as possible, because to me it has a secondary possibility, almost as important as that of economic development. It is that the colonial peoples, whose idea of education has hitherto been academic—the ideal being an administrative job in a secretariat—can be made to see that the job to be done in their own backyards, so to speak, the real job to be done in the world, is the job of production. We learn by sore experience that all of us live on the man who digs the ground and grows vegetables and corn, and the man who digs coal, that compared with these men white collar workers are of only secondary importance. Even my hon. Friends and I in this Committee are really of only secondary importance, doing a service for the primary producers. That is not understood in the colonies, where a wrong attitude has been engendered, naturally and innocently, by the type of people selected to lead in the colonies. In the five or six colonies I have seen lately I have been much impressed by the leadership, intelligence, initiative and, above all, friendly attitude of the young colonial appointees; but often I have found a lingering reminder of a tradition which is already dead in this country among the highest officials.
  This can best be illustrated by what happened at Opobo in the Eastern province of Nigeria. My colleagues and I of the Parliamentary delegation were asked, at a moment's notice, to receive

  349
  a deputation of local Nigerian civil servants. We agreed, and found that their grievance was about the type of houses being built for them by the Government. They considered that they were inferior and unsuitable to their requirements. We went to see these houses, and I said, "If I had one of these in Buckinghamshire, it would solve my problem of overworked weekends." They were surprised. They pointed to a big house nearby, which was the District Commissioner's house, and said, "Surely you live in a house like that?" They considered that the white administrator was the beau ideal of manhood. The houses we saw were not at all unsuitable; in our opinion, they were extremely well built; but the whole idea was that the bigger the man the bigger should be the house in which he lived, and the taller should be his white collar. Such a man was considered to be of greatest importance to the community. That is a conception outmoded in this country. Why is it perpetuated in the colonies? The greatest simplicity on the part of those who lead the colonial people—those sent out to teach and help them—the greater the approximation by white officials to the best kind of life we can afford for the governed, would be a wonderful example in solving the problems there.
  That leads me to the great difference in the treatment meted out to administrative officers and technical officers. The crying need in every colony is for technical advice, for manual assistants Doctors, dentists, railway engineers road surveyors and chemists are the people who are needed most, because they are there to set welfare and development on its feet. Two general managers of railway companies told me that it was not so much a question of rolling stock which was worrying them as the fact that minor railway officials, who had been induced into the colonies on the promise of a good job, were treated as an inferior caste when they got there and resigned almost immediately. They discovered that because they were technicians, they would have to live in a class three house, with no running water or water-closet, only the unpopular thunder box. In one European club there was a well-marked caste difference in the geography of the place. Promotion, as it were, took one to the next part of the club. I hope that this is not general, but these are some of the
  350
  things we noticed and felt were wrong. They are not wrong because perhaps they carry on a tradition; they are not wrong intentionally, I feel sure, but we have to have a new spirit in the white men who go out to the Colonies if they are to achieve that collaboration and co-operation of which I spoke. Increasingly, there is smaller recruitment to the Colonies on the part of the technical people who are in such great demand. As self-government proceeds, there will be fewer appointments on the administrative side as well.
  Dr. Guest: Is not the low recruitment due to the fact that the pay is bad?
  Mr. Skinnard: I inquired whether it was the badness of the pay, and I was told categorically that that was only part of the reason; it was inferiority of status as being a worker with one's hands, as against what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) has described as the "pukka sahib."
  Dr. Morgan: I have no connection with the "pukka sahib" type. It was an hon. Member on my left who said that. I would not be so disrespectful.
  Mr. Skinnard: I am sorry if I attributed the remark to the wrong Member. It came from somewhere in that direction. Since there will be a smaller recruitment of the necessary technicians, the emphasis on education in the colonies should be on the provision of technicians, agriculturists and experts of all kinds, who can help themselves and their lands. It is a sad thing to notice that in Sierra Leone at the moment they are lamenting the shutting down of the one diocesan technical school, and they are longing for a technical institution of their own as is Gambia. I do not think that we need worry too much about some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), because if there is one thing which we do not want in the Colonies it is imitation Oxfords and Cambridges; they are no longer valid in the scheme of things.
  One of the results of experience, I am told, has been that on the Gold Coast welfare officers and labour officers are to be trained on their own territory rather than sent over here for training. I welcome that decision. Men whom I saw at work, and whom I had the privilege of

  351
  knowing as students, are having to learn all over again the work for which they were trained in the environment in which their new duties now take them. Although we have appointed trade union officers and labour officers they are sometimes misemployed when they reach the colonies because of ignorance on the part of the Government authorities. I found a man doing a good job managing a housing estate. He was making a really good job of it, and the housing estate was excellent, but he was not sent there to manage housing estates. If we want someone to manage houses let us send out a housing officer, and leave the labour officer and the trade union officer to do the jobs for which they were trained. I should like to emphasise the importance on educational authorities of mass education.
  Mr. Scollan: Did my hon. Friend not find that the authorities in the colonies did not want the natives to be taught the trade union system?
  Mr. Skinnard: No. On the contrary what I felt was that they misunderstood what we understood by trade union work, but they are up against extraordinary difficulties in that in many colonies they are only beginning to learn trade unionism and trade union organisation. One of the trade union officers I knew had built up a well-organised trade union congress. What I was trying to point out was that labour or trade union officers who are assigned to a particular job should go to that job and not to something else. I am sure that when such cases are brought to the notice of the Secretary of State they are righted, but in London he cannot know what every appointment is doing at any given moment, and he has to take for granted that the colonial Governments understand his motives in making the appointments. I have already said that I think the universities in the colonies should have a vocational and local bias so that they should not be purely academic places. The great necessity today is to get the colonies on their feet as self-sufficient producing units. If that is not possible with some individual colonies, then they should be in a group of colonies, or regional federation, so that they can interchange surpluses and make themselves self-sufficient.
  Dr. Morgan: In other words what the hon. Gentleman is advocating is the establishment of colonial technical schools rather than colonial universities with their cultural aspect?
  Mr. Skinnard: Not at all. If we set out to have colonial purely cultural universities, that surely is the wrong way of going about it, because culture is as natural as it is indigenous. What I am anxious is that there should be good engineering schools and first-class agricultural colleges in every big colonial territory, and I think the culture of the people can look after itself if that is the case. Culture does not die as skill does. Skill can die through disuse, but the culture of the people manages to survive in spite of many difficulties, as is evidenced in the Negro colleges of the Southern States of America.
  Dr. Morgan: But the West Indians have lost their African culture.
  Mr. Skinnard: The last point which I should like to introduce, though it is rather late to put forward this matter, is that of indirect rule. There was a time when the Northern territories of Nigeria could rightly claim to be in advance of the Eastern and Western Provinces. That is not so today and I feel that that is largely because of the continuance of indirect rule after the fulfilment of its purpose. Men like Lord Lugard never intended that the expedient of indirect rule which he used should go on in the form in which he left it after conditions which it served had changed. Therefore, I would urge that consideration be given to the development of native administration, not necessarily on the lines of Western democracy. There should be given to the Colonial peoples that experience in Government which comes from doing a job. Some of them are already learning in the co-operative societies and in local produce associations, but in many of the oldest administrations there is the dead hand of tribal tradition which is no longer valid or useful. If these native administrations could be gradually transformed I am sure that half the problem would be solving itself.
  Some reference has been made to mass education and the Under-Secretary has been asked if he would state anything that has been done in that line in his reply. I can at least testify to the fact that in the Udi district of Nigeria such a transformation has been effected by mass education

  353
  that they now have in the villages of that district a sort of local education and health service on co-operative lines. People, old and young, are literate because it has been the pride of the young literate to teach the old illiterate, and it has become a code of honour to go to school however old you are, to learn to read and to prepare your own books
  The hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) asked about literature and newspapers. In Udi they have actually solved the problem by printing their own, and they are the simple technical books they need to assist them to rehabilitate their district. Self-help is the basis. Patronage is all very well, but the thing that endures is the thing one does oneself, and I think that the best way we can help the colonial people is to help them to help themselves, offer them guidance, give them expert assistance, and trust to their own pride and honour to do the rest.
  8.37 p.m.
  Colonel Ponsonby: Nothing could be more harmful than for these Debates to afford political parties the opportunity for snatching credit for different items of development in the Colonies. It must be admitted by all—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman admits it as much as any one—that the present developments are all the result of work that has been done by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors. In some cases those efforts are coming to fruition, and I am sure that the Minister will also admit that continuity of administration and continuity of development can be maintained only if, as far as possible, or almost entirely, the development is not hampered by party politics.
  Dr. Guest: We cannot have continuity of Socialism against anti-Socialism.
  Colonel Ponsonby: The hon. Member has been on a flying trip to Singapore, and I am sure he would be the first to admit that it is absolutely essential to have the same policy running through administration——
  Dr. Guest: No.
  Colonel Ponsonby:—otherwise it is impossible for the people on the spot to know what they are doing and what they may have to do.
  Dr. Guest: How they are being "done," the hon. and gallant Gentleman means.
  Colonel Ponsonby: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been very badly bitten by the bug of capitalism, but I would only say that it has bunged up his eyes and clouded his vision. It is essential to be constructive, and I want to make a few remarks connected with the groundnut scheme about which we have heard so much. Here is the scheme put in the fewest possible words, and I mention it because one or two Members have asked for information about it. The scheme is to spend £25 million, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned £50 million, but let us leave it at £25 million, in six years to reclaim and to start cultivation of 3,200,000 acres at a cost of £7 10s. an acre. The groundnuts to be produced are estimated at 850 lb. per acre, at a cost of £12 15s. per ton shelled groundnuts, or £14 5s. per ton f. o. b., and the figure to be aimed at is 600,000 tons a year. Here is a peasant crop now going to be dealt with by scientific, mechanised methods. It is a huge scheme, and it is only possible for a Government to start it. It is also a great speculation. Many of us who are going to put our money on a horse take an interest in the name and pedigree of the horse. In this case, the horse is "Speculation" by "Government" out of "Necessity." Undoubtedly, it is absolutely necessary that we should have the groundnuts, and the scheme is speculative because it depends upon a number of uncertain factors, such as labour, weather and because it is being put into operation in a large way without any pilot scheme at all.
  I should mention that this is not the only scheme there has been of this kind. It is a rather interesting historical fact to recall that in 1904 an American called Leigh Hunt wished to start some scheme by which he could bring unwanted negroes back from America to Africa. He went to the Sudan and obtained a concession to grow cotton. The scheme developed and he was helped by Sir Frederick Ecksteim and ultimately this became the Sudan Plantation Syndicate. Slowly and surely the scheme took shape. It consisted of 30 blocks of 15,000 acres each. The Government took an active part in the scheme and they agreed to, or guaranteed, loans amounting to £13 million. I mention the scheme because I should like

  355
  the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the groundnuts scheme ultimately might not follow on the same lines.
  It was a co-operative scheme. The Government took 40 per cent. of the proceeds of cotton, the tenants took 40 per cent., and the syndicate who managed and to some extent financed it took 20 per cent. As hon. Members may be well aware, that scheme has been a great success. The groundnut scheme is well worked out. Those of us who have read the White Paper would say that it is a most excellent prospectus. Nobody minds the scheme being called a speculation, provided it is clear that it is to some extent a speculation. I would like to mention two or three of the battles in which the promoters will have to engage. First, there is the battle of mechanised science against the forces of nature. I know that these areas are spread and that, therefore, there is a fairly good chance that while rain does not fall in one district it may fall in another, but I was looking at a Bulawayo newspaper the other day and I found that in Rhodesia this year the rainy season amounted only to 14.6 inches over the whole country. We have to face the fact that in Tanganyika, which is not so very far to the north, the rainfall may not be there when it is wanted. According to the prospectus, we ought to have from 20 to 25 inches. That is one of the troubles.
  Again, there are pests and game. The Sudan plantations, as hon. Members are aware, consisted of absolutely arid desert till it was irrigated and planted with cotton. Those plantations were miles from any other cotton, yet in a few years that cotton was suffering from cotton pests. The same may happen with groundnuts. Then there is the tsetse fly. This can only fly 200 yards. It is therefore clear that in great tracts of country one can drive the tsetse fly back into the forest and ultimately free that forest altogether of the fly, a very necessary thing, because from the fly comes sleeping sickness for humans and bovine trypanosomiasis for animals.
  Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. and gallant Member agree that the best plan is the abolition of the present game preservation laws?
  Colonel Ponsonby: That would all come in its time. I was going to refer to game. Even if one put up wire six feet high, the kudu can jump that with ease and in the initial stages this will be a considerable trouble to the groundnuts. It may be, as has happened in many other places, that the game will go, but as a game lover I hope that suitable national parks will be left so that any of us going there in future may see those beautiful animals in the best surroundings.
  Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Member is on a point with which I intended to deal. Would he not agree that the white man has rid himself of the game and has landed it on the black man?
  Colonel Ponsonby: That is quite incorrect. The only reason why that impression may have arisen is that the white man has cleared the land and developed it, whereas the African, as the hon. Member will be aware, drifts about from one place to another in the forest, quite uncontrolled. The second battle which the promotors of the scheme will have to face is the battle with competitors. I will call it a competition rather than a battle. With regard to the Ministry of Food and the Colonial Office, I hope there will be no disagreement there. At the moment it looks to the outsider very much as if the Ministry of Food have taken charge of this proposition and that the Colonial Office have been sidetracked to some extent. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will watch that position, because, after all, he is very much responsible for what happens.
  But there are other people to consider. There are those who run the sisal industry—in which I am interested; railways—there will be a great deal of railway building—and mines. All these industries want materials and labour. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to let me know sometime—I will not ask him for it tonight—how the cement which is being shipped into the country is distributed. What proportion is going to the sisal industry which has a great deal of building to do not only of factories but also of villages like those of the groundnut scheme, and how much is going to the groundnut scheme? It is rumoured that the Ministry of Food are claiming very high priority and snatching everything in the way of machinery and materials that

  357
  they can lay their hands on. As regards labour, as hon. Members may know, the sisal industry in Tanganyika produces 100,000 tons a year, valued at about £3,800,000. It employs roughly 90,000 people and wants another 20,000.
  There is a good deal of talk about labour being diverted from this established industry, which means so much to the country, to the ground-nuts scheme. All I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to appoint a Committee of all the different industries, with an independent chairman, so that all the labour which has to be recruited comes through one source and is evenly and fairly distributed.
  Then I wish to say one word about the last battle which might be called the battle of sentiment. Let us picture to ourselves what will happen in five years, when we hope to see between 30,000 and 40,000 Africans housed in model villages with good houses, water, sanitation, cinemas and other amenities; this in a country now bush and infested with the tsetse fly. We must remember that 50 years ago the labour we drew came from wandering and fighting tribes, consisting of peoples who feared only famine and war. As the hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) said just now, the white collar is doing a great deal of harm. The Governor of Uganda said this in a speech the other day:
  "In one vital respect our administrators, educationists and others, have signally failed. They have failed to eradicate the belief that physical labour is socially degrading."
  We have to be careful about that in the future, and we must remember that the majority of these Africans are not inclined to work hard or to submit to the discipline which will be necessary. They are not healthy in a great many cases. We can get much information by seeing what has been done by the Union Minière in the Belgian Congo. They have concentrated not on education, not entirely on welfare, but on health first of all. In reply to what the hon. Member for East Harrow mentioned, I would also say that the idea of indirect rule will begin to go by the board. One cannot imagine Africans coming to live in model villages with modern appliances going back to their tribes and living in the primitive surroundings in which they were brought up. That will be the beginning of the end of indirect rule. The old order is changing.
  358
  This scheme will make it change all the quicker, and we must be quite ready to meet it. We must be prepared to meet criticism in this House if the people who used to criticise the direction of labour, do so in the future. The only hope for this scheme is good, disciplined work.
  Lastly I would emphasise that the most important thing is the choice of the best man to run this show. The ordinary African is not interested in going to a place where there is electricity and water and cement floors to his house. He will go where there is what he calls" a good Bwana "—a good white man. Therefore the best men, who know the Africans, should be chosen to run this scheme. It may mean a revolution in the economy of East Africa. It has great possibilities, and I am sure hon. Members on all sides of the Committee will wish it every success.
  8.55 p.m.
  Dr. Segal: There used to be a famous Finnish long-distance runner who had a habit of running a race with his watch in his hand. I feel rather like that at the moment, speaking at this late hour in the proceedings. There is, how ever, one point which I would like to put. It is in connection with the constitutional changes that have taken place in our colonies in the last few years. I am rather inclined to the view now that many of these changes might already have lost their significance.
  One colony of which I can speak with some little knowledge, Nigeria, which in itself, comprises one-third of our total colonial population, actually boycotted the elections to its regional council in the capital city of Lagos. With the establishment of the Regional Council and the Legislative Council, there has been coincidently a very great interest in the nationalist movement in Nigeria, the."Zik" movement. I would like to bring to the notice of the Under-Secretary of State a fruitful line which might be followed in this matter. At the moment the "Zik" movement finds itself against an irremovable resistance. The possibility might perhaps be explored, instead of dealing with the local administration out there, of its having direct access to our administration in London. I would illustrate that by the constitutional developments which have taken place in

  359
  the French Colonial Empire. As a general rule I am not altogether a complete admirer of French administration, but today in the. National Assembly of France, out of 619 members, there are no fewer than 35 who sit in that Assembly representing the various French colonies.
  A little while ago some of us had an opportunity of meeting members of the French Council of the Republic, which used to be the Senate. There we were greeted officially by the President of the Council, who happened to be a Frenchman born in the State of French Guiana. As we walked about the libraries we met senators who were black as coal. We discovered that one came from the Ivory Coast, one from Gabon, one from Senegal and one from French Equatorial Africa. Shortly there is to be set up in France a third assembly, the Assembly of French Union, and there 120 out of 240 seats will be occupied by representatives of French overseas territories and the Colonial Empire. Without developing this idea too much, I suggest that there is an effective means today of relieving a great deal of the strain on our colonial administration in various territories if we constituted here, in the heart of our Empire, not as an instrument of government but as an advisory representative assembly, some form of colonial representation.
  Our present Colonial Secretary has made gallant efforts to lift the colour bar from the boxing rings of this country. Let us not only make the negative effort, but let us put it in positive form. At present the Boundary Commissioners are engaged on a report, an essential part of which will be to reduce the number of Members of this House from 640 to 615. Here perhaps is an opportunity, on a small, limited, scale of bringing our colonial friends to sit among us as a constant living testimony of our colonial dependencies. They could come here not necessarily in a legislative capacity, but in a representative capacity, so that they might acquire a new dignity and status and contribute to their full towards the wealth and prosperity of our great Commonwealth of Nations.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Although this is one of the last Supply days, there has been surprisingly little party controversy in this Debate. The reason is clear. It is that the present
  360
  Government are largely carrying out the Colonial policy of the Coalition Government, which was itself the logical development, both in its constitutional and economic spheres, of the Conservative Colonial policy of the past. We have moved very far from the old days. We no longer hear the President of the Board of Trade say that it is fundamental to Socialism that we should liquidate the British Empire as soon as we can. We no longer, of a morning, open the "Daily Herald" and read, as we used to do, that the British Empire having fulfilled its historic function, must disappear. We are no longer advised, by a Cabinet Minister, to look at the pages of British Imperial history and hide our heads in shame that we are British. On the contrary we are now advised, and quite rightly advised, by the Under-Secretary of State, to hold our heads up high, as he did, recently and lustily in the Trusteeship Committee a few weeks ago. We are told that we ought to believe in our Empire and in our Colonial mission. He asserts, and we do not deny it, that the fundamental freedoms are more adequately safeguarded in the British Colonial Empire than in many sovereign States.
  Times have indeed changed, and we hear very little now of Colonial exploitation. It is true that from time to time hon. Members like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) come out with stories of fantastic profits from some particular Colonial venture, but on the whole the tendency now is to agree with Lord Hailey, who received well merited approval from the right hon. Gentleman, that if all the money invested in the British Colonial Empire in the last 50 years had instead been invested in Government securities, the yield would have been just about the same. There has been a great and welcome change, a change which we, on the Conservative benches, who appreciate that the British Empire and the Colonial Empire are more important than any party politics at home, can do nothing but welcome. In this change, the right hon. Gentleman himself has, of course, shared. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said in his speech that the only way to teach people the capacity to govern was to give them the experience of doing so, and he said that this process might be a painful one. The process is equally necessary and

  361
  equally painful for Cabinet Ministers as for native peoples.
  There are one or two awkward moments still, no doubt, when the right hon. Gentleman, for example, has to weigh the merits of a minority report, which he himself signed, and a majority report which, on reflection, appears to have the bulk of the arguments on its side. There may be difficulties in explaining the monopoly selling of diamonds in Tanganyika, or as when, earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Rochdale leaned towards him, and proceeded, with a glorious disregard of Question Time in the House over many years, to speak approvingly of Mr. Butler in Trinidad and disparagingly of Mr. Bustamante in Jamaica. We have no quarrel with this change. The process of educating our masters is one which the British people have learned over many generations.
  The right hon. Gentleman has a great trust, a great responsibility, and it is one in which we will help him all we possibly can. His task is to reduce want, insecurity and disease among the 60 million people living in vast territories, to lead them, via trusteeship, to full partnership, making political and economic changes not outrun each other but move in harmony together. We hope that this conversion, as it seems to us, of the right hon. Gentleman and his party, will be a permanent one. We hope that if will survive any changes that may happen in the future, that it will survive, for example, the ending of our immediate food crisis or the dollar shortage which, quite naturally, has been one of the prime reasons behind the groundnut scheme in East Africa; or that it will survive, in the Dominion sphere, a change of Government in Australia and New Zealand; or survive, in their own sphere, any change of the side of the House upon which they happen to sit. I think we are all agreed that we have much to be proud of and much on which we can unite in the past, the present, and the future of the British Colonial Empire story.
  As we are actually considering the Colonial Empire Report, without stressing it over much, as we have had many opportunities of referring to it before, I would like briefly to remind the Committee of the story unfolded in that blue book about the war contribution of the Colonial Empire. We shall not forget
  362
  the 470,000-odd colonial soldiers, sailors and airmen, the vast majority of them coloured people, the Fijians in the Pacific, the West Indians all over the place and, above all, the Africans who provided an astonishing number of volunteers. We shall not forget all the work they did. Those of us who knew the Royal Navy and the Merchant Service in the war are not surprised to read that one in six of all the British merchant seamen killed in the war were colonial people, and the vast majority of them were coloured people. That makes the colour bar even more repellent today than it used to be before.
  We would remember also the colossal construction tasks they carried out in various colonies and also, in distinction to many European countries, the almost complete absence of any fifth column movement in the colonies when our fortunes were at the lowest ebb. On this we can all agree, and it is a good augury for future unity. We agree also on the broad lines of the Government's colonial economic development policy to which later I would like to refer again. I hope that we all agree, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary certainly agree, that nothing must be done at Geneva, at the trade talks now progressing there, to whittle away that Imperial Preference on which the prosperity of the sugar islands of the West Indies and many other parts of the Empire very largely depend. The immense increase in sugar production under the shelter of Imperial Preference shows the importance of that policy to Jamaica. We cannot forget the words used by the Governor of Jamaica some time ago that:
  "Without Imperial Preference, the Island will become one big poor house and burial ground."
  We hope that we are all agreed that in a desire to secure what may be only temporary agreement with the United States in the fiscal field we shall take no steps to whittle away Imperial Preference to the colonies, thereby disrupting, perhaps for all time or for many years, their whole agricultural economy. While warning ourselves against this danger and not regarding Imperial Preference solely from the point of view of the mother country or the great Dominions, let us also remember how it is possible to whittle away Imperial Preference without a direct attack

  363
  upon it, as in the case of Imperial colonial tobacco. There though the Preference remains, it is a specific preference and not an ad valorem preference. The rise in the duty against American tobacco has now brought down the preference from 25 per cent. in 1919 to three per cent. today. So much for the field of agreement in that particular limited but vitally important field.
  We are almost ready now because of this wide field of agreement to overlook some of the suggestions that have appeared in certain Socialist newspapers—though not, I must say, from the right hon. Gentleman nor, I suspect, from his Under-Secretary—that all this is something that has happened quite recently and that the present Colonial Secretary is perhaps the greatest holder of that office since Mr. Joseph Chamberlain—if we are still allowed to claim some credit for his particular tenure of authority. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it has been pointed out that both in the constitutional and in the economic field much of this work, the foundations of it, had been completed before, and a great many of the things to which he referred in his speech, and for which some of his supporters claimed credit, are actually the result of previous tenures of office, notable among them being that of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley).
  In the constitutional field, how wide the area is. We realise that it covers every constitutional advance and economic development. The new constitution in Jamaica, the Soulbury Mission and the Constitution in Ceylon, the decision to set up a Legislative Council in Aden, the constitutional development in the Gold Coast, the admission, for the first time in our history, of Africans to the Kenya Legislature, the developments in Northern Rhodesia and Uganda, some of which I was privileged myself to see some time ago, the proposals in Nigeria, in March, 1945, the widening of the franchise in Barbados, the unofficial majority in Guiana and Honduras, the new developments in Trinidad, and the first proposals in Malaya—these and many other proposals were either first thought of, conceived or carried out before this Government was elected. To enter a little more controversial field, the application of Income Tax in some 12 colonies goes to
  364
  the credit or discredit of an earlier administration. In the field of inter-territorial discussions and arrangements, the Central African Council, the various Governors' Conferences and bodies of that kind all show that we were well ahead of the task when the responsibility rested with my right hon Friend.
  So much for the constitution and the social changes of the last few years. In the field of economic policy, I say that we regard this present policy of the Government from their various recent announcements and proposals, as very largely a continuance of the policy which we had already put in hand. It is, however, quite true that my right hon. Friend did not write the Colonial mining policy directive which was sent out to the various Colonial Governors, and I am rather glad, looking at some of its woolly and rather naive wording, that he did not write it. I should not think that he would have committed himself to a phrase like, this: "The mines should be run efficiently." I should have thought that the governors might be assumed to have recognised that fact. I am sure, also, that my right hon. Friend would not have said this:
  "The undertaking must not be so small that the burden of overheads is greater than it would be if the size of the unit was increased, nor so large that the operator lacks sufficient inducement to operate to the full economic capacity."
  Nor the rather hopeful suggestion of its concluding paragraph, suggesting that, in such a risky business, with all its hazards, the governors should operate where private concerns are unwilling to take the risk of investment. My right hon. Friend did not write that report, but the present Colonial Secretary can claim full credit for it. He can also claim full credit for some of the more egregious errors in bulk buying, which have characterised the purchases of his Department and of the Ministry of Food in the last few months. I do not believe that, if the Coalition Government had been continued, we would have fixed the copra price in one colony at £19 per ton below the world price, when we wanted to get increased production, or in another colony that we would not have provided against a possible export levy of £15 per ton. That was bad business, which, if it had been undertaken by private people, would have landed

  365
  them in the bankruptcy court. As to the cocoa scheme, the errors of that scheme in its present application have been pointed out recently in a Prayer in the House. I do not think that anybody can believe that to pay the West African cocoa grower £60, and to raise the price to the consumer to £119, is the way to get either full native cooperation or an efficient business organisation. But allowing for these differences—and they are big differences—how wide is the field of business here in the economic sphere?
  The right hon. Gentleman, as has been pointed out, is living in a period when the full development of our colonial resources is not only of paramount need to the Colonies themselves, but also to the mother country as well. In earlier days, he himself was generous enough to recognise that schemes like these would, in time, flow from the Development and Welfare Act which was passed in 1940. Many of us were away at that time. I was here for the last week that I spent in this House for quite a long time, and I very vividly remember that Debate. I remember, when a later Bill was introduced by the Coalition Government, the right hon. Gentleman the present Colonial Secretary saying:
  "It is epoch-making legislation… It marks an enormous step forward in British Colonial policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th February. 1945; Vol. 408, c. 544.]
  Let us consider the conditions under which the 1940 Bill was brought forward-not when the mother country was hungry. It was brought forward in the week beginning 19th May, 1940. On the Sunday previous to that, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had made his first broadcast to the nation as Prime Minister. Two or three days before, the Germans broke through the French defences, France collapsed, and, within a day or two of that Debate, the guns pounding Calais could be heard in Kent. Invasion seemed imminent, and no doubt short-sighted people felt that was a curious moment to choose to bring forward a Colonial Development Plan which would mature when all those horrors were over. But it was brought forward as the first business of the Coalition Government—the very first Bill. It would, indeed, have been brought forward on the actual day that the Government of the
  366
  late Mr. Chamberlain fell had it not been replaced by that particular Debate. From this Bill all the rest has ensued, in particular the amending Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend when he was Colonial Secretary—which became the Act of 1945—a Bill which, I think we all agree, laid the foundations for this good colonial development now. From it comes a Colonial Economic and Development Council, and the groundnut scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) made an admirable speech in regard to that scheme. Although we are not allowed to discuss in detail the new corporations, we are entitled to say that we have always advocated, and will now agree with the Government, that the proper way to develop our colonial territory is by partnership between the State provided capital and the managerial capacity and experience of private enterprise. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol said, in the course of an earlier Debate, and before there was a corporation, that there might well be development corporations and schemes run by the Colonies. Let us hope that these admirable schemes are matched with an equally admirable drive in carrying them out. This Government have shown considerable ability in visualising problems, as, for example, our present economic situation, but they have failed to suggest remedies for the problems which they have so accurately analysed. It may be said that analysis is the work of their advisers, but the practical steps fall to them to take. Let us hope that they will now take practical steps, and we will give them our full support.
  It is on the quantity of the work done, and not on White Papers issued by this Government that they will be judged. We will give them our full support, because we are confident that we have their wholehearted support in not surrendering the British Empire to any international body, which will substitute for direct guidance a mass of muddled and confused counsels, or for not surrendering it to any other Power in the world. For we know, and know that they now know, that if we did relinquish our Colonial Empire it would not pass into cleaner hands, and mankind would not be better served.
  9.20 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ivor Thomas): I believe there are still alive ten former Secretaries of State for the Colonies, and six former Under-Secretaries. Whatever the office of State they may have subsequently held, I feel certain they would agree that there is no more fascinating department in the Government. It is particularly fascinating at this time when such immense developments are in train. I have noticed in the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, particularly those right hon. Gentlemen who opened and closed for the Opposition, a certain anxiety to maintain that what is now happening is not a new development but the natural consequence of what took place under previous Administrations. That theme will, perhaps, serve to give a framework for my own remarks in closing this Debate.
  As I see the developments of the past 12 months, I should put in the first place in logical order the fact that the United Kingdom is making its full contribution with respect to the colonial territories in the work of the United Nations, and I should readily admit that if right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in Office they would not have acted differently from the way in which we have acted, for I believe that support of the United Nations is certainly above party in this House. The United Kingdom has played a very prominent part in the setting up of the trusteeship system which has now taken the place of the mandates system. We ourselves have placed our three African Mandated Territories under trusteeship; we have taken a full place in the trusteeship council itself, and in the debates which led to the setting-up of that council. We have also played a very prominent part in the declaration which now forms Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter, to the importance of which my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) has particularly referred. It is true that on occasions the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations has had to prevent this Chapter from being abused. On the basis of our great colonial experience, we have had to point out exactly what it contains, and make sure that it is not used as a basis for trying to secure a general supervision over all non-self-governing territories, such as exists over trust territories. But let it not be forgotten that Chapter XI is now in
  368
  the United Nations Charter at the instance of the United Kingdom, and that we have always taken a most prominent part in trying to secure acceptance of the doctrine that colonial territories are a responsibility in the face of the world.
  The second development to which I should draw attention is that of regional association with other nations. Here again, I should not claim any particular credit for the idea, though I think that this Government can claim some credit for the action taken. I well remember how the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) threw out this idea in 1943 when he was standing at this Box at the end of the Debate, as I am now doing, and none of us was quite certain whether it was a considered policy or an after-dinner suggestion. It has turned out to be considered policy, and we have given effect to it in the Caribbean Commission and in the South Pacific Commission, to which reference has already been made. Effect has also been given to this idea in the Anglo-Franco-Belgian co-operation which is now going on so warmly, and to which my right hon. Friend referred in his speech.
  It is, indeed, one of the most significant changes in the modern world that the Colonies, which used to be a source of friction between the great Powers, are now a bond of unity. It was as recently as 1898 that Colonial questions were almost a cause of war between Great Britain and France. We may reflect with much gratitude that in recent years there has been such close co-operation between the. Colonial Powers in respect of the territories which they administer. It is of the utmost importance both for the relations between the Powers and, still more, for the well-being of the territories which we administer. The problems which we have to face are the same. The locust and the tsetse fly do not recognise the frontiers laid down by men; and the conferences which are now to take place between the various Powers about the African territories promise much fruit in the well-being of the peoples of those territories.
  The next development which, I think, follows in logical order is the integration of groups of our own Colonies. Here again, we could not claim any originality in the idea, though I think we can claim some credit for action taken in pursuance

  369
  of that idea. In Central Africa, there is the Central African Council, and in West Africa, there is the West African Council, over which I had the honour to preside in the absence of my right hon. Friend last March. In East Africa, as my right hon. Friend has announced, we hope now to bring to completion ideas which have been discussed for almost 20 years. The necessity for some closer integration of services common to our East African territories has long been manifest, and we believe that the time has now come to cease the talking and to bring this into effect. The proposals in Colonial Paper 210, which, I am glad to think, have the general blessing of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, will now be carried into effect. As the Committee also knows, discussions are to be opened in Jamaica before long, under the presidency of my right hon. Friend, for closer association in the West Indies. This also is a subject which has been discussed for a very long period, and, therefore, we can claim no originality for the idea; but we certainly hope that we shall be able to achieve—if not finality—at any rate, we hope to bring it somewhat nearer to finality at this conference.
  Then there is Malaya, where, also, His Majesty's Government have sought to achieve a closer degree of integration between the various States and the Settlements. This is in line, as I have said, with previous policy. I do not propose to discuss the constitutional questions, for the same self-denying reason as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee—that there may be a Debate on this subject later. But various other questions have been raised in regard to Malaya, with which it would, perhaps, be convenient for me to deal. Anyone who has been to Malaya—and it was my own good fortune to spend some little time there on the way back from the South Pacific Conference early this year—must realise that the fundamental problem in Malaya today is food. And food in Malaya means rice.
  There would, I think, be no disagreement among hon. Members who have any experience of Malaya. I confess very readily that the rice ration in Malaya today is not one with which we can feel any satisfaction; it is, in fact, only about one-third of the quantity which is considered satisfactory. But when we come to considering means of increasing the
  370
  rice ration, it is not so easy to see a solution. The hon. Baronet the Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) and other hon. Members have asserted that there are large quantities of rice available in Siam, but I wish they could prove to us that that is the case, and show us some means of getting at this rice which is alleged to exist. I can assure the Committee that we have gone very carefully indeed into the question of the availability of rice in Siam. It may very well be the case that statistics are imperfect, and that quantities of rice are going in one direction or another about which we do not know, but to the best of our information there are only 400,000 tons surplus to local requirements in Siam which compares with 1,400,000 tons surplus before the war. The fundamental problem is one to which I shall recur later in my remarks if I have time; that is to say, the population of the world—especially that part of the world—has been increasing a great deal, and also the standards demanded are rising, as we should hope they would.
  The allegation has been made that there are too many governors in South-East Asia. Perhaps it is convenient for me to deal with that while I am on the subject of Malaya. At the end of the war it was essential that Malaya and Singapore should have their separate governors, or no constitutional progress could have been achieved. Likewise, a governor of Sarawak was inevitable, and also a governor for the chartered company territory in North Borneo. A Governor-General became necessary for the proper correlation of these British territories, and everybody who has been out there recognises the excellent work that the Governor-General, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, has done. But obviously these arrangements, although necessary for the time being, are of a transitional character. The special international problems of South-East Asia, and the food problem in particular, also call for special treatment, and Lord Killearn undertook this work, but it was never conceived as a permanent arrangement. Right hon. and hon. Members may, therefore, expect that in the course of time there will be some other arrangements which will, I hope, give them satisfaction.
  Dr. Guest: Can the Under-Secretary say how soon this desired result will be achieved?
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: I could not say this evening how soon it will be. The senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) referred to trade unionism in Malaya, and appeared to think that I might disagree seriously with what he was saying. I can assure him that that is not the case. It is the desire of His Majesty's Government to encourage trade unionism—by which I mean genuine trade unionism—throughout the Colonial Empire, and we have taken many steps in that direction. Trade union advisers have been sent out from this country, and arrangements are being made for Malayans to come to this country to study trade unionism. It is undeniably the case that in the unsettled condition of Malaya, which suffered severely from the war, there has been a great deal of violence, a great deal of intimidation, and a great deal of what is not genuine trade unionism passing under the name of trade unionism. It is certainly the case that the Communist party in Malaya is very strong, as he alleged, and its influence has not always been in a beneficial direction. I do not, therefore, seriously contest what he said. Various measures have been taken by the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Malayan Union to deal with these labour problems. For example, trade unions in Singapore are now required to register, and trade unions in the Malayan Union may apply for registration. This is not at all unwelcome to genuine trade unionists, and it does afford some check on the kind of things which the hon. Member has in mind. The wearing of uniforms and drilling have also been prohibited, and the power of banishment has been revived.
  Brigadier Mackeson: Is that the policy in the other colonies, and will the public relation officers of the colonial Governments concerned try to bring to the notice of the public cases of intimidation as and when they are proved?
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: The conditions in Malaya are very special. As I have said, Malaya was over-run by the war. I should not like to make a general statement on that subject. The hon. Baronet the Member for Eddisbury referred to piracy in Penang and thieving in Malayan ports. There was a certain amount of piracy and thieving, but I am happy to say that information from the Governor in May showed a considerable
  372
  decrease, and the position is now very much better.
  Another general development, to which I should like to draw attention in this logical order I am trying to follow is the general advance towards self-government in our Colonial territories. This is not an idea for which we should claim any originality. It has long been accepted British policy to lead the Colonies towards full self-government within the British Commonwealth. I was a little surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, strongly supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), assert, if I have taken down his words correctly that the last two years might be described as two years of lull in comparison with the advances of the previous administration.
  Mr. Stanley: I said that approvingly, and not as criticism.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: I can understand that sentiment, but I cannot accept it "approvingly." I should have thought it was the other way round, without any desire to belittle the great catalogue of achievement which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford read out—and it is a great catalogue of achievement. I should have thought that the tempo of this movement had been accelerated in the past two years. My best test is the extent to which the legal department of the Colonial Office is overworked at the present time. There are something like 20 constitutions being revised, and we have had to create a queue for the assistance of the legal adviser because we dare not make a mistake on these legal questions. Although I do not claim any originality for this idea, which is platitudinous in British colonial policy, I do say that we have pursued this advance towards self-government in a manner which has not been seen before in the history of the Colonial Empire.
  Two general points were raised in connection with this question, one by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), who asked for an association of local inhabitants with the Government, and, in particular, suggested a conference of unofficials. I think he must have overlooked the statement made by my right hon. Friend, earlier today, when he announced that the question of a conference of unofficial members in London had received

  373
  careful consideration. The real value of such a conference depends on the problems of the separate regions. Unofficial representatives of the West Indian Legislatures are coming together in the Caribbean Conference in September to discuss their problems and, in particular, federation or closer association. But the moment is not ripe for a conference of unofficials from South- East Asia, as all who have accepted what I said just now will acknowledge. The Mediterranean territories have special individual problems. In the case of Africa my right hon. Friend announced not only a conference of African Governors in London, in September, but, in the early summer of next year, a conference of unofficials from the African Legislative Councils to deal with political, social, and economic problems.
  This leads me to another matter, the question of indirect rule raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard). This is, indeed, one of the most important questions in the Colonial field at present. I think we should all agree that at the time it was introduced indirect rule was definitely the best line of progress. It was democratic in the best sense of the word at that time, and it was also convenient, but I think that the time has probably come now when We ought to review this whole question. I am not suggesting any conclusions, because we have not yet begun the studies that are necessary, but this will certainly be one of the major questions to be discussed at the conference of African Governors and unofficials next year.
  I should like to pass, under this general heading of the advance towards self-government, to certain territories that have been mentioned. In the first place, I must put Ceylon. My right hon. Friend has said that the advance of Ceylon to fully responsible status within the British Commonwealth—which he defined a little more precisely today—is one of the most notable events in the history of the British Colonial Empire. In many ways it is a model of development. I am sure that the Committee would wish me to pay a tribute to our Second Clerk Assistant, Major Fellowes, from whose good advice most of us have benefited at one time or another, and who was good enough to go to Ceylon to give advice on Parliamentary procedure. I think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol did not appreciate
  374
  that the new constitution has actually come into operation, that the elections are now taking place under it, and that the new Government is about to be set up under that new constitution. It is now proposed, when the new Government is established, to negotiate with that Government—before fully responsible status is granted—agreements on a number of matters. Subsequently, a Bill will have to be considered by Parliament designed to confirm the new status and responsibility.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: When the hon. Gentleman said the new constitution, I take it that he means the constitution announced a year ago, not the modification announced in the last few weeks, will be dependent on these treaties being negotiated?
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: It would perhaps be less ambiguous if I said instead of the "new constitution" the "Soulbury constitution." The Government that will come into office as a result of the elections now taking place will be under the Soulbury constitution. It is therefore not quite the case that the constitution will be still-born; it will have a short lease of life.
  The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) invited a statement about Hong Kong. Considerable progress has been made in introducing a stable regime in Hong Kong; indeed it is a place of refuge to which thousands of Chinese flock every week, imposing on our own services severe burdens. We have shaped a more democratic constitution, including a municipality, appointed a trade union adviser and a political adviser, studied the future of the university, prepared our ten-year programme for social and economic growth, and taken all the necessary steps to obtain stability and a feeling of security for all private and commercial interests. It is our intention to enhance the reputation of Hong Kong as a first-class Colony and for the administration to hold high the best traditions of Great Britain.
  The hon. Member for Preston (Dr. Segal) raised the question of Nigeria in his remarks, which I was very sorry he had to curtail owing to lack of time. He mentioned that the elected members for Lagc3 had not taken their seats. I would suggest to him and, indeed, to them, if my words should reach so far, that the

  375
  present constitution in Nigeria is a very great advance on anything that Nigeria possessed before, and those who desire to see Nigeria advance along this road towards self-Government should not boycott the Legislative Assembly, but take their place and do their best to make it a success. Many of us, from time to time, feel dissatisfied with the bodies with which we have to work, but we know that the method is not to boycott them, but to take our full part in their work, and try to shape them nearer to our heart's desire. I have been dealing in the last few minutes with the general advance towards self-Government in the Colonies.
  Mr. Hobson: What about tuberculosis?
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: I will come to that. We must point out, as, indeed, other hon. Gentlemen have done, that this advance towards self-Government demands a concurrent advance socially, educationally and economically. It is necessary to advance along the whole front at once or the campaign will not be won. There have been many advances socially, and, in a sentence, I should like to make mention of five new conventions applicable to non-metropolitan territories which have just been approved by the International Labour Conference, and which are satisfactory to the United Kingdom and, indeed, in whose shaping we have played a very great part.
  I will accept the invitation to make some reference to tuberculosis as desired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hey-wood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). The way to treat such diseases as tuberculosis is by what is called social medicine. I am not a medical man, but I imagine that there is a great fund of knowledge already about the nature of tuberculosis, and what is needed in the Colonies are preventive measures. We are taking those measures by spending large sums of money on the development of housing, the securing of pure supplies of water and so on. We believe that it is in this manner we shall be able to tackle the great problem of tuberculosis, to which he so properly drew attention. It is for such reasons as this that he will find so little in print about tuberculosis, but the importance we attach to this subject must not be measured by the paragraph or two which it receives in the
  376
  published documents. I think his speech was a very thoughtful and helpful contribution.
  It self-government is to be achieved, there must also be a great advance educationally, because it is a commonplace that one of the worst misfortunes is an uneducated democracy. Education and democracy must go hand in hand and here again there must be advances along the whole front. There' is a tendency to talk about universities because they are more spectacular and more easily talked about and because more is known of them, but there have been in recent years very great developments from the bush schools right up to the universities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol appeared to suggest that there was little going on but missions, commissions and conferences.
  Mr. Stanley: In higher education.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: Yes, in the field of higher education. With his great experience as an administrator he would, I am sure, not belittle the necessity for these missions, commission and conferences. The setting up and bringing into effective operation of the machinery of the Inter Univerity Council for Higher Education in the Colonies and the Colonial University Grants Advisory Committee has been in itself a major piece of work. The missions to West Africa, East Africa, the West Indies and Malaya have been an essential part of the machinery of planning for which distinguished university men and women from this country have been prepared to devote their time. The setting up of university colleges cannot go ahead without these missions, but I should like to point out that more progress has been made with bricks and mortar and staff than the right hon. Gentleman would apparently be prepared to admit.
  Mr. Stanley: My point was that there was no reference in the Report to anything that has been done nor was there in the speech of the Colonial Secretary. All I did was ask a question for information.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's intervention and to supply such information as I can. So far as staff are concerned, the following persons have been appointed as principals: Dr. Taylor, West Indies; Dr. Mellanby, Nigeria; Dr. Allan, Malaya;

  377
  Dr. Lamont, Makerere. Other distinguished staff in the West Indies are: Mr. Sherlock, a distinguished Jamaican, as director of extra-mural studies, and Mr. Bernard Williams as Dean of the Medical School. As regards buildings, in some cases new buildings are not necessary, because in Singapore, for instance, it is a question of taking over the Medical College and Raffles College and making a university out of them. A grant of £300,000 has been provided for Makerere from the Colonial Development and Welfare Vote mainly for this purpose, together with grants totalling £150,000 from the East African Governments for capital purposes. I could give more details, but I see the clock is out-racing me.
  It was promised that I would have some remarks to make about mass education, and, therefore, I must fulfil that promise. I fear that some hon. Members may have gained the impression that I was to make some momentous statement. It was simply that my right hon. Friend had no time in his speech to say anything on the subject and he has asked me to say that the Advisory Committee for Education in the Colonies has been pursuing this subject, which it originated, and has prepared a report making concrete suggestions to the African Colonies. This report has now been sent out to the African Colonies. Some mass education officers have been appointed in the Gold Coast and in Tanganyika, and team units are working in many territories in such matters as health, welfare, labour and agriculture; and in the Gold Coast there are 12 rural teams at work. The British Council is co-operating by providing literature in most Colonies, and so is the Central Office of Information, which has helped in such productions as the magazine "Today." Extra-mural work is going on in the West Indies, as I have indicated by my reference to Dr. Sherlock's appointment, and the Oxford University Board of Extra Mural Studies is also helping very considerably in West Africa. Most interesting experiments in midwifery are going on in Sierra Leone and numerous schemes are in progress for increasing literacy. Journalists are being invited to come to London to study methods here.
  I come now very briefly to the economic development which, as one hon. Member
  378
  has so rightly emphasised, must be the foundation of any true self-government.
  Squadron-Leader Donner Squadron-Leader Donner rose——
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: I am sorry but I cannot give way now.
  Squadron-Leader Donner: Are we. not to have an answer to the point I raised both today and a year ago?
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. He now reminds me that he raised the matter last year, and I appreciate very much the point that he made about the necessity of safeguarding against a yellow Press and pornographic literature. He will realise, however, that he came perilously near to suggesting that we should attempt to control the Press. With regard to his practical suggestion of more paper for missionary societies, we are working in the closest association with those bodies and if he will get in touch with me I will do my best, subject to other requirements, to see what can be done about it. Recent economic developments are really so radical that they may be justifiably regarded as a new departure for which this Government can take credit. At least, I will not claim credit for this myself because I think there is a better witness I can quote. The "Daily Express" of 26th June had an article whose invigorating language is a tonic to read. It says:
  "Turn from Europe, where the victors squabble over heaps of rubble to the Empire, where the Socialist Government announces its vast £100,000,000 scheme of development amid the waste lands. Breathe that ampler air. Refresh your eyes with that happier scene. For a while, turn your gaze from the spectacle of despair to a landscape bright with hope and destined before long to be busy with constructive energy. All this might have been planned and accomplished by the Tories. But they would not listen to sound counsel. They were too busy—or too timorous. And where the Tories were idle and neglectful, the Socialists have snatched the policy from them."
  However, I desire to make no party point in this matter. The great task of Colonial development now in hand is one in which we can all legitimately take pride. Not only this Parliament, but the whole nation can take pride in this work.
  It being Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  ACQUISITION OF LAND (AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

    CLAUSE 84.—(Town clerk.)
    10.4 p.m.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 45, line 45, to leave out from "Council," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
    "specially called for the purpose, by a circular addressed to the members of the council not less than seven nor more than fourteen days before the meeting."
    I would like to raise my small voice for a few minutes to draw the attention of the Committee to what was said in the course of the proceedings of the Joint Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) asked what the Town Clerks' Association said about the alteration. There is an alteration in the Clause, and the Amendment seeks to restore the position to what it was under the 1900 Act. The words of the Amendment are practically identical with what is in that Act. My hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh asked:
    "What did the Town Clerks' Association say about that? "
    The reply was:
    "They have no objection. We have saved the position of officers holding office at the commencement of the new Act."
    My object is to defend the office and not the officers. I wish to defend it particularly for those offices which are independent offices, that is to say, not practising solicitors who are employed as town clerks. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee—Scottish hon. Members at any rate—will agree that the town clerk is in many ways the hub or pivot of local administration, and that it is absolutely essential that we should
    380
    get a man of entirely independent judgment and complete impartiality.
    I have said "the town clerk." The same would apply to the county clerk. It may be asked why I have not, first of all, moved an Amendment on an earlier Clause with regard to the county clerk. In the provisions of the present Bill there is an essential difference as between the method of convening a county council and the method of convening a town council. If hon. Members will look at the Third Schedule, they will see that for county councils there is an obligation to give seven days' notice, whereas for town councils there is an obligation to give only 24 hours' notice. This Clause says that the question of the removal of a town clerk may be placed on the agenda of a town council in among many other items, and that only 24 hours for reflection may be given. That is entirely inadequate. If it is proposed to remove a county clerk, then seven days' notice is given for reflection.
    Hon. Members on all sides of the Committee will agree that the town clerk is and must be a personality. He has to spur on the backward or slothful provost, he has to hold back the. too thrustful provost, and he has to give good counsel on all matters. One of the things he has to do is to make certain that St. Andrew's House is not going beyond what it is entitled to do. He is the guardian of the interests of the local authorities as against St. Andrew's House. Complete impartiality and complete honesty are required. What has also to be remembered is that the town clerk has to earn his living and that this impartiality is all the more required because there is inevitably a temptation to swing with the majority.
    Under some local Acts, I believe, town clerks were appointed for life, provided there was no misbehaviour. There is something to be said for bringing one single code into force for the whole of Scotland, but there is nothing to be said for bringing the wrong code into force. This rule would be entirely wrong. I ask the Committee to reject it, and I ask that for these reasons. First, it is wrong that a town clerk should be removed without due notice. Twenty-four hours is quite insufficient notice for consideration of the matter. Secondly, it is wrong that he should be removed without the

    381
    matter being treated with the respect which the position of town clerk, as the pivot of local government, requires, and simply to put it down as one item on a long agenda is certainly not giving it that respect. If it is proposed to remove a town clerk it is a matter of major interest to the whole community, and should be treated as such. Lastly, it should be remembered that the town clerk has no appeal, though I believe that the fire officer, for example, has an appeal. The words on the Order Paper reinstate the position as it is at present.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I must apologise, Major Milner, for not having been in my place when this Amendment was called, and I will briefly support the Amendment moved so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). The town clerk is immensely important to local government, and is, as far as 99 per cent. of town clerks are concerned, of the highest possible calibre. Therefore, I do not think it is right that they should have less than the advantages proposed by the Amendment. It is only fair to them, and it is fair to the high principles of local government.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I will try briefly to explain the position as proposed in the Bill. First, the reason for the longer notice in the case of county councillors is that they may have to come a long way to a meeting and the town councillors in most cases are actually on the doorstep. That is the reason for the longer period of seven days as against the 24 hours' notice so far as the town councillors are concerned. In accordance with the unanimous recommendation of the Jeffrey Committee, on which I had the honour to sit, when we were seeking to draft this Bill, the Bill proposes that the town clerks of all burghs, like the town clerks of police burghs now, and the clerks of other local authorities, should hold office during the pleasure of the council, but it still provides that the clerks shall not be removed from office except by a resolution of the council passed by no less than two-thirds of the members present at a meeting of the council, the notice of which specifies the consideration of the removal from office of the town clerk as an item of business.
    382
    The effect of the Amendment, as pointed out by hon. Members opposite, would be to require the removal from office of the town clerk to be considered at a meeting specially called for the purpose by a circular addressed to the members of the council not less than seven nor more than 14 days before the meeting. This requirement, as I have indicated, applies at present to the removal from office of the town clerks of police burghs in accordance with Section 78 of the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900. Under Part II of the Third Schedule to this Bill, the town clerk must give notice of the time and place of a meeting of a town council not less than 24 hours before the meeting by leaving notice at, or sending it by post to, the usual place of residence or the place of business of every member, and it must specify the business proposed to be transacted.
    It is quite right that we should see that town clerks have nothing unfair done to them. It is true that they are specialists in a way, but may I submit that they are not entitled to special privileges when we are dealing with this problem? The town clerk must also call a meeting at any time within four days, or 24 hours if required by the provost, or on receiving a request in writing from one quarter of the council specifying the business to be transacted, and in instances of special urgency the provisions made are also subject to certain safeguards requiring the town clerk to call meetings at less than 24 hours' notice. I submit that this code substantially re-enacts the existing law, and I wish the Committee to note that it has not been objected to either by the local authority associations or on behalf of the town clerks.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that existing town clerks are already assured of their offices. They cannot be dismissed by this short-term procedure. They are under the old law, but we wish to ensure that this shall also apply to existing town clerks.
    Mr. Westwood: The Bill before the Committee is the result, not of weeks, nor months, but of years of work in which a tremendous amount of time has been spent in negotiating with the various bodies to get that codification, simplification, and

    383
    standardisation,' which I think is necessary when dealing with a Bill of this magnitude, and the whole problem of administration in Scotland, by consolidating Acts, some of which are 100 years old, and it was necessary to get that simplification and clarification. The code substantially re-enacts the existing law, and has not been objected to either by local authority associations or on behalf of town clerks. Under the provisions of the special requirements of the Act of 1900 there must be 7 days' notice of intention, and the change is in the interests of uniformity. There would appear to be no case for making an exception in the normal procedure in respect of one particular type of business, and it would certainly seem to be wrong to do so in a Bill which is designed to produce uniformity of procedure in the interests of the town clerk and other officers who, like him, are protected against dismissal by the requirement of a two-thirds majority. For these reasons, I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. McKie: I am very sorry the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken the line he has taken. I think it is quite unnecessary for him to engender heat as he has done by the way in which he has rejected the Amendment. Our object was simply to safeguard, or make more secure, the position of the town clerks of Scotland in the future. It is perfectly true that this is merely a consolidating Measure. But even though it goes back nearly 60 years since first the local government of Scotland was put on its present almost democratic footing, we can have a consolidating Measure which might be subject to amendment when the Bill is considered in Committee of the whole House. But the right hon. Gentleman comes to this Committee and rejects out of hand, more or less, the proposal admirably expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) in regard to the position of town clerks.
    10.15 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman has had very great experience of local government in Scotland, and he well knows the noble service that town clerks have rendered to local government in Scotland. I say nothing about the county clerks, because they would be outwith the scope of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman
    384
    knows a good deal about them also. Simply on the question of the position of town clerks, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, by his demeanour tonight, rejected the proposal put forward. [Interruption.] There is not to be a Coalition. It would not have my consent. Here is merely an Amendment which seeks to safeguard the position of civil servants who have rendered notable service, and how the right hon. Gentleman can consider this as a wrecking Amendment passes my comprehension.
    Mr. Westwood: I am sorry if there is any suggestion that I treated this as a wrecking Amendment. I did not do anything of the kind. The fact is that if I am placed in the position of accepting this Amendment, moved after the Bill has gone through all these negotiations, I may be placed in a position of having to accept other Amendments which I seek to resist because it would be a breach of faith with those with whom I have carried on negotiations. I am not treating this as a wrecking Amendment, but I am opposing acceptance because of the fact that this Bill has been negotiated, and I think it would be a breach of faith with those with whom I have negotiated.
    Mr. McKie: Naturally, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, but I must regret the way in which he has expressed it. It seems that by his interpretation of my own quite modest speech he has in fact rather denied the democratic principles of this House. He says that the Bill has been to a Select Committee, that it is a consolidating Measure of 382 Clauses and 14 Schedules, and that, therefore, when it comes to the -House of Commons, and is considered in Committee of the whole House, it would be quite out of Order for him to accept an Amendment which is moved in this democratic assembly. I do not want to do him an injustice, and I hope that that is not the thought which if governing his mind. He has said that he will not accept the Amendment, and I do not suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries would wish to press it to a Division. I am sure, however, that when the county clerks of Scotland read tomorrow what the right hon. Gentleman has said, as they will—they read HANSARD most carefully; HANSARD has never been more generally read by all classes of people than it is at the present time——
    Mr. Carmichael: Hear, hear.
    Mr. McKie: I am glad to have the agreement of the hon. Member for Bridgeton. When the county clerks read what the right hon. Gentleman has said tonight, particularly the way he distrusts the democratic process of the House in Committee, it will not be favourably received by them. All that my hon. Friend had in mind was to make more secure the position of the town clerks of Scotland, who have rendered great and notable service to their burghs for many years, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well. If he had seen fit to treat the Amendment rather more graciously than he has done, even though he was not in a position to accept it, they would have been more pleased than they will be when they read his words tomorrow.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is an entirely non-party Measure, originating with an Administration of one complexion, and considered by a Committee on which Members of all the main parties served, and I think it would be a thousand pities if we fell into a division between the two sides of the Committee. Obviously, it is a matter of great convenience to the whole administration of Scotland that this consolidation Measure should reach the Statute Book. I have every sympathy with the Secretary of State for Scotland in his desire not to admit Amendments, not because of any distrust of the democratic principles of the House, but because the Bill is like the queen bee. It is not lawful for the bees to kill the queen bee, but it is lawful for a series of bruises to take place from which she dies. It would be quite easy, as none knows better than yourself, Major Milner, for a series of discussions to take place as a result of which it would be quite impossible for this Bill to reach the Statute Book before we rise. Therefore, I do not think that any Amendment could possibly be made at this stage without common consent from both sides of the Committee. I think the only thing upon which my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee felt uneasiness was whether in present conditions a notice as short as 24 hours was possible, and that a notice posted the night before might lead to some slip-up in the summoning of the council.
    386
    I certainly urge upon my hon. Friends not to insist upon the Amendment and not to divide the Committee on this occasion. If the sense of the Committee as a whole was that some modification—say, a matter of two or three days—should be made to avoid any danger, then I think that might possibly be done. However, I do not think that we should jeopardise the Bill. It is of greater importance that we should get this great codification placed on the Statute Book for the convenience of Scottish administration than that one Amendment or another should be made. As chairman of the Joint Committee at which the decisions were arrived at unanimously, I should like to be seized of opinion held by those who sit, for purposes of geography, on the other side of the Committee though for this purpose we are, so to speak, a Council of State considering a State document to which, as my right hon. Friend has truly said, nearly 10 years of work and thought have gone. This is a point upon which no objection has been raised hitherto even by the guardians of this office themselves, the town clerks. It is a dangerous thing to make Amendments at the last moment in a document which has received so great attention. If the sense of the Committee as a whole were that at least 48 hours notice should be secured, then I would urge my hon Friends to fall in with the general feeling of the Committee. If it came to a clash certainly, I should hope that they would not insist upon their views and risk the loss of the Measure at this stage.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. McLean Watson: Whether or not this Amendment is accepted is, I think, a matter of technical politics. It is almost inconceivable that any town clerk would be removed from his office within 24 hours. A town clerk is not removed from office without some reason, and the reason is usually a matter for discussion, perhaps for months, before a decision is arrived at to dispense with his services. Therefore, it does not matter a great deal whether the words remain in the Bill or whether the Amendment is accepted. As the Bill stands, I think the town clerks will have plenty of notice that the end of their period of service is approaching. That, at any rate, has been my experience of local government in Scotland, and I do not think that it will be changed if we do not accept

    387
    the Amendment. I was interested in the intervention of the Secretary of State and also in the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). It is true that this is an agreed Measure. It has been agreed by a Select Committee. On Second Reading, I explained the difficulty which I experienced in discussing anything in the Measure because I understood that not a comma in this Bill could be altered unless it was for the purpose of simplification or clarification.
    If this Amendment simplified or clarified a particular part, then it would be in Order, but if it did neither it would be out of Order. I should have thought the matter having been arranged between the two sides, it was most unreasonable and unnecessary that any discussion should take place on any Amendment unless, as I have said, it was for the purpose of clarification or simplification. This Amendment changes the character of the Measure so far as I can see, and it is not in harmony with the Act of 1929. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee because I thought we could not discuss Amendments, but that the joint Committee could make Amendments Surely, when it comes to this Committee, we are not entitled to make Amendments.
    Mr. McKinlay: I want to say a few words because, like my hon. Friend, the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson), I am surprised to find Amendments on the Order Paper. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said this was a Measure to codify the law in Scotland, and I want to make my position clear, because I would have supported the Amendment of my hon. Friend if I had had more time to look at it. Before this Government took office I myself wrote to the Scottish Office and I was informed that one could not amend the existing law.
    The Chairman: I am sorry but there cannot be discussion on general matters on this Amendment, which is a specific one. And I must point out that it cannot be suggested the Committee has no power to amend the law. That is not the case,
    388
    but as has been stated, this is more or less an agreed Measure and one which I hope may be passed without any undue expenditure of time.
    Mr. McKinlay: I was trying, Major Milner, to explain my view. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities gave an explanation and, surely, I am right in saying that, in justification to the people who sent us here and to the local authorities, we ought to be told why we are discussing Amendments. All I can say is that the enthusiasm for looking after the interests of Scotland has evaporated. This codification took ten years to draft but it is going to take 15 minutes in the House of Commons to pass it. I only want to make my protest.
    Sir John Graham Kerr: I happen to be a member of the original Regional Committee and on that Committee, there were, apart from myself, experts on every kind of Scottish local government. There were persons who had served in local government, there were county clerks and the Town Clerks of Edinburgh and Glasgow, representatives of the Scottish Office, and representatives of the law, and this Committee sat month after month and devoted an immense amount of time considering this Clause. I could not help immensely admiring the manner in which that work was done. The report was eventually drawn up and then as remitted again to the various bodies. As a result of all this, we have this Bill. What I want to do is simply to appeal to the Committee to let this Bill through without Amendment, more especially as there was no idea that it should amend the local government of Scotland, but merely the idea that it should form a platform from which any future revision could be started.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I only want to ask a question, the answer to which will, I think, help the Committee to reach a decision. I do not wish to add anything to the general point of the speech made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I want to know what, exactly, "24 hours' notice" means in this connection. Does it mean that the notice, if not delivered personally—delivered at the town councillor's

    389
    place of business, or at his place of residence—must be posted in such time as to allow delivery, in the ordinary course of the post, at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting; or does it mean that the notice must be in the pillar-box 24 hours before the time of the meeting? I hope that it means the former. I hope the Secretary of State, or the Lord Advocate, can give us an answer. If the Clause means that it is sufficient to post the notices 24 hours before the meeting, then clearly in the present lamentable state of the Post Office services there is no certainty at all, even in a small town, and certainly none in a big town, that the letter will be delivered in time for the man to get to the meeting. Very often, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the first delivery does not now reach a person's house before he goes out to business.
    Therefore, it is quite essential that a notice should reach the man's house the day before that to which it relates; otherwise he will never see it before he goes out in the morning. I want to know that it is clear in the Bill that if, let us say, a meeting is to be held at noon, these notices must be posted so that in the ordinary course of the post they will reach the houses of the town councillors before noon on the previous day. If that is the law under the Bill, I personally would be inclined to say that, although I would like to have seen something more on the lines my friends have been contending for, I would not like to disturb the unanimity of the Committee, or of previous Committees, on this comparatively small question. But if it turns out on examination that there is no certainty that these notices will ever reach the councillors in time for them to get to the meeting, then I am sure that no one on either side of the Committee would object to an extra day being put on to the time for the posting of the notices. That would make no difference to anyone. I hope, therefore, I shall receive an answer giving the meaning of the 24 hours' notice.
    Mr. Westwood: I understand that the 24 hours counts from the date and time that is always stamped on a letter. I do not know whether it is possible between now and the final stages of the Bill to do anything, but I am prepared to do something if that is possible. I do not want to endanger my Bill. I have spent
    390
    too long a time on it, and the local authorities are so desperately anxious to get it. I will have to be advised as to whether it is possible to make any change. It was the unanimous recommendation of the Committee which has been referred to, and there was no challenge on this point in the Joint Committee which considered the whole matter subsequently. I hope we can now get on.
    Mr. Reid: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it might meet the objection to which he refers if we added at the end of Subsection (3) the words: "and of which at least 48 hours' notice has been given."
    That would solve the whole question. I cannot ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept a manuscript Amendment now, but I hope that he can do something. I am sure that he realises that if one posts a notice at 11.30 on Tuesday the odds are that a great number of town councillors will not have got it by the first post on Wednesday morning before they go out. There are towns where the first post is not delivered until after they have gone out, and there is no chance of them therefore being able to attend.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I would like to say a word or two on this matter. The Minister has said he was disposed to reconsider the matter not on the case I put forward, but on the skilful blandishments of my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. I would like to point out to the Committee that, while this is a consolidation Bill, this is actually an Amendment of the existing law and as such this Committee is thoroughly entitled to discuss this matter. I think a good deal of service has been done by the discussion and I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his undertaking to do his best to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. Westwood: I do not know whether it is in order, Mr. Chairman, for you to accept as part of the Amendment the words:
    "not less than 48 hours and not more than 14 days before the meeting."
    I am very anxious to try to get over this difficulty.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I for my part would be very willing to accept that

    391
    whether it is considered as a manuscript Amendment in my name or that of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Westwood: If the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment I should be prepared to move to leave out from "council" to the end of the Subsection and insert:
    "specially called for the purpose, by a circular addressed to the members of the council not less than forty-eight hours and not more than fourteen days before the meeting."
    Mr. N. Macpherson: In view of what the Secretary of State has just said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 45, line 45, leave out from "council" to the end of the Subsection and insert:
    specially called for the purpose, by a circular addressed to the members of the council not less than forty-eight hours and not more than fourteen days before the meeting."
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 85 to 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    10.45 p.m.

    CLAUSE 107.—(Contents of other administrative schemes.)
    The Chairman: I now propose to call the privileged Amendment not on the Order Paper but underlined in Clause 107 of the Bill.
    Mr. Westwood: I beg to move in page 62, line 20, at the end to insert:
    "The assistance to which this Subsection applies shall be the arrangements made for the care of expectant and nursing mothers and children who are not attending a school under the management of an education authority, and who have not attained, or are deemed under Section thirty-three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, not to have attained the age of five years, or of blind persons, or the feeding, clothing and treatment of pupils attending schools, junior colleges and other educational establishments, or the care and after care under Section twenty-seven of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, of persons suffering from illness or mental deficiency, or the maintenance and guardianship of mental defectives placed under guardianship."
    It is necessary to move formally to insert these words, which are already shown in the Clause underlined, in order to avoid any question of Privilege.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 108 to 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 119.—(Voluntary combination of local authorities.)
    Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 72, line 20, to leave out "or."
    This, and the next three Amendments that stand in my name, two of them to the next Clause, are consequential on the Fire Services Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 21, at end, insert:
    "or the Fire Services Act, 1947."—[Mr. Westwood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 120.—(Compulsory combination of local authorities.)
    Amendments made: In page 73, line 38, leave out "or."
    In line 39, at end, insert:
    "or the Fire Services Act, 1947"—[Mr. Westwood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 121 to 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 133.—(Formation of new small burgh.)
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 87, line 6, to leave out "two thousand," and to insert 'seven hundred."
    This is another case where the existing legislation has been changed, and, in my view, without due cause. This Clause has to deal with the formation of new small burghs. Wherever there is a populous space 12 electors may apply to the sheriff to have it demarcated and declared a burgh. There are certain safeguards. In the first place, the 12 persons do so at their peril, for if their plea is not approved, they themselves have to pay whatever expenses are involved. In the second place, the sheriff must be satisfied that the populous space, or part thereof, is suitable for being formed into a burgh. That is the second provision. Of course, the sheriff is not going to do that if, plainly, the space is not suitable

    393
    under modern conditions for being formed into a burgh. The third safeguard is that a public meeting has to be convened, and the meeting has to approve the proposition that the new small burgh should be formed, by a show of hands or "in such other manner as shall appear expedient." Whether that is by acclamation or, possibly, by a show of feet, as in the Army, I do not know. It is curious. Unless, of course, a poll is demanded. A poll may be demanded by 12 persons entitled to vote.
    So there are full safeguards against a place which is not suitable for being a burgh being declared a burgh The particular case which I would like to put is this: take, for example, a small village in the Highlands which is likely to grow considerably. Is it reasonable that they should have to wait until the population reaches two thousand, when in fact they could form a burgh as soon as seven hundred population has been reached? Surely, in that case the sooner they form a burgh, the better and the more advantageous it would be. I think there is a very positive argument, therefore, for the retention of the present law, and as far as a negative argument is concerned, although there was a great deal more discussion earlier on this Amendment than there was on the last occasion, there were really no more convincing arguments advanced against the smaller figure, except that the smaller figure would not provide, under present-day conditions, a reasonable entity. In law that is so, but there are practical exceptions. The law is there and it is best to let "sleeping dogs lie." It is a Consolidating Act and there is no good reason for altering it.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would like to support the Amendment. I agree that it appears that a population of 700 is too small for the formation of a burgh, but there is no doubt that in Scotland today there are a considerable number of small burghs with a population of 700, or less, which are extremely well and efficiently run, and which provide excellent examples of local government. I do not say that 700 is the ideal figure, but we want to hear something much more definite why the law should be changed, why 700 should not be allowed to stand, and why 2,000 has been chosen? If we keep in mind the tremendous increase in responsibility of local government under
    394
    modern conditions, I think that there is no doubt about it that the more compact and more easily worked community we can produce the better will be the results. After all, the administration of local services in small burghs does touch practically every man, woman and child who lives in the particular burgh. I do think that, to put it broadly, the door should be left open, say, for application on the part of any community of 700 or more if they feel that there is reasonable ground for their forming a burgh. As my hon. Friend has said, it lies within the power of the sheriff if he does not think it is suitable to bring about.
    There is in my constituency a very ancient burgh which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, I think—the burgh of Abernethy. To almost all people it is the place where the biscuits come from; but Abernethy is probably one of the best examples in Scotland of an extremely efficiently run burgh of 700 inhabitants, with a live, wide-awake spirit, which produces an excellently run place to the obvious advantage of all who live there, and an example to many larger burghs nothing like so well run. There are many other small burghs in Perthshire with these small figures which provide an excellent example of how well run and how useful small burghs of this kind can be, and while I do not say that 700 should be a cut-and-dried figure, I cannot see, so far, that any argument has been advanced at any stage of this Bill that it is necessary to alter the law which stands at present and which is working so admirably in the case of so many small burghs in Scotland today.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: While it is no doubt right that my hon. Friends should bring this matter to the attention of the Committee, I would suggest to them that there are one or two points which they might further take into consideration. The main one is that it is undesirable that limits which have fallen into desuetude should be left to the Minister's discretion, and that Parliament should not say what they are to be. It is desirable that Parliament should say what it thinks. It is not desirable that we as Members should be content to say that the various administrative officers, the Secretary of State and so on, will safeguard the matter. Parliament should speak clearly. Nobody

    395
    would set up a burgh of 700 people under modern conditions. There may be some temporary development going on which would not be carried through, and then the place would be saddled with burdens quite unsuitable to it. As the Committee well knows, there is provision by which a burgh might resign the privileges of administration which some of the smaller burghs had found to be onerous, and I think it would be better for Parliament to keep the figure at 2,000. Thereupon the onus is placed upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. Parliament has already said the figure should be 2,000, and if that figure is laid down the Secretary of State will have to give serious consideration to it, instead of the illusory figure of 700. The Secretary of State must have clear guidance from Parliament. Anyone who has read the proceedings of the Committee will know that the original figure mentioned was 5,000. Two thousand is a compromise. It is desirable that the law should be brought up to date and a figure more consonant with the realities should be inserted, and that Parliament should speak out clearly and not leave the matter simply to the discretion of the administrative officers. I wonder if my hon. Friend could find it possible not to press the Amendment.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: I certainly cannot accept this Amendment, nor yet any compromise. A compromise is already contained in the Clause. If there were any criticism at all, it is that the figure of 2,000 is too low. Conditions are completely changed today in local government as compared with the conditions when a populous place was defined as a place of 700 or more inhabitants. I could give many instances of small burghs today—although this Bill does not affect them—of less than 800 population where a penny rate brings in £12, £18 or £19. It is not possible to give effect to things associated with local government with small valuation areas of this kind. I trust that those who moved this Amendment, after hearing the appeal made by my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite, and the statement I have made now, will see their way to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I feel it is more the spirit than the actual numbers that
    396
    count in the small burgh. I think there is a definite point in giving encouragement to a burgh which is likely to grow, particularly an isolated burgh. I would like to have seen this Amendment carried, but as there is no support for it, I have no option but to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 134 to 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 147(Procedure for formation, alteration, combination or dissolution of special districts.)
    Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 98, line 1, to insert:
    "Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Subsection, a resolution of a county council altering the boundaries of a special district or combining two or more special districts or parts thereof or dissolving a special district may, if the council consider the circumstances of the case so require, make provision for payment during such period not exceeding ten years as the council may determine, in the case of any such alteration or combination, of rates of different amounts per pound within the areas affected by the alteration or combination or, in the case of any such dissolution, of rates of different amounts per pound within the area which formed the special district from the amount of the rates payable within the rest of the landward area of the county."
    These are underlined words which have to be moved into the Bill formally.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 148 to 329 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 330.—(Dean of guild, etc., of certain burghs to be members of town council.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Gilzean: This Clause relates to persons who are elected, without the ordinary means of election, to burgh councils, and only to certain burgh councils. This goes back to the Municipal Reform Act of about 112 years ago. In certain of our cities the town council consisted of two bodies—the guildery and the incorporated traders. Further back into history there was only the guildery. The incorporated trades slowly but surely had to fight their way into the scene and

    397
    ultimately they got there. For about 300 years the corporations of cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh consisted of two close corporations, the guildery, on the one hand, and the incorporated trades on the other; in other words, the traders and sellers as represented in the guildery, and the craftsmen as represented in the incorporated trades. These craftsmen must not be confounded with the craftsmen of the present day. One of the absolute rules was that in no circumstances could they do any work with their own hands; they had to leave it to their servants. These were the two bodies who ruled the roost.
    As time went on they degenerated beyond expression, so much so that in my native city of Edinburgh, the city in their hands became nearly bankrupt. They had to make a composition with their creditors and had to issue certificates in the manner of loan certificates, and it was not until my day that Edinburgh finally got rid of the debt that these craftsmen and guildery people had imposed upon it. The rest of the people they would succinctly describe as "the rabble "—a good Scots phrase describing all the people who were not of these two bodies, and had no representation of any kind. If one wants to learn a little about these people I would strongly advise hon Members to read Lord Cockburn's memorials of his times. Apart from the information that one can find in it, it is wonderful reading. In the third decade of the last century we did get reform and we had municipalities based on the right of the body of the people to elect themselves. But with that marvellous capacity for never doing a job properly which is a characteristic of the British people, they still left a form of appendix of the old system in the shape of one member of the guildery and one member of the incorporated trades in the reformed town council. That only happened in the case of Glasgow and Edinburgh. In Dundee, Aberdeen and Perth, the dean of guild is still outwith the elected persons.
    This system has gone on for well over 100 years, but the question arises whether the time has not arrived when we ought to put this matter on a democratic basis. In those days a great deal was made of a person being a burgess or a guild brother. Under Clause
    398
    332 of this Bill every local government elector today is a burgess. As for the guild brothers, I think the less said about them the better. I could go tomorrow morning, if I were in Edinburgh, to the gaol and watch the prisoners coming out. I could go to a fellow and say "Are you a ratepayer in Edinburgh?" He answers "yes." "What are you in for?" "I was in for housebreaking." "Do you mind coming with me? I can give you the necessary cards. You go into the Town Clerk's office. You tell him you are a ratepayer. He looks up the register. You put down your cash, and you will become a guild brother without any more ado." That is the position, and it is high time we got rid of that sort of thing.
    The incorporated trades are close corporations. I remember, a goodly number of years ago that a leading shoemaker in my native city wanted to become a member of the Cordwainers. He was in that famous street, Princes Street, and he desired to become a member of the Cordwainers, but they turned him down. He thought that was absurd, and applied to the Court of Session. The Court of Session decided in his favour. But the Cordwainers had a card up their sleeves, and demanded that he make a pair of shoes with his own hands, which fortunately he was able to do. He paid the necessary sum to enter, about £250, but immediately after that, the entry fee went up to about £1,600. Imagine these close corporations, which exist for themselves only, having the right to send members to the town council.
    There is a much more pungent reason for my being on my feet. It is this. I was 21 years in a corporation. During all of that time I was in a minority, and it did not matter what I thought was good, or what I believed in, I was beaten with unfailing regularity. The time seems to be approaching when the people who think as I think may possibly manage to reach a majority. Suppose they reach a majority of one, and then along come these "buckshee" individuals, and by their votes alter the balance of power in that council. It seems to me to be absolutely absurd, and for that reason, although this was argued in Committee, I could not be persuaded—despite all the blandishments with which I was surrounded—that I was not on the right lines in seeking to abolish something

    399
    that is absolutely out of accord with present day thinking, and certainly out of accord with the thought of the people I represent.
    11. 15 p.m.
    Mr. Carmichael: I support the proposal submitted by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean). I do so with some backing from my experience in my own city. For many years members of the Glasgow Corporation have resented the idea of members from the guilds and merchant house. I think I am right in stating there are hon. Members now sitting on the benches opposite—I do not see any on this side—who have voted in Glasgow Corporation to have this practice discontinued. What amazes me is that a consolidating and amending Measure of this kind, which no doubt will last for many years, should be passed through without this Clause having been deleted, because it is now well established that these people serve no useful purpose as public representatives. After the historical review we have had from my hon. Friend I do not think there is very much to add.
    It is admitted that in the early days prior to the development of local government, they had a function. What is the position now? My hon. Friend made reference to the cobbler. One famous corporation in Glasgow is that of the bonnet-makers, the one qualification being not to be a bonnet-maker. If you have been a prosperous distiller or a successful solicitor, then you have a chance of being incorporated as a bonnet-maker. Indeed they get sufficiently jealous to be associated with a number of corporations. It is a great thing for a provision merchant to become a member of the bonnet-makers and the dyers. The qualification is that he knows nothing about bonnet-making and less about dyeing.
    If we are passing tonight a Measure consolidating the authority of local government in Scotland, surely it is an appropriate time to discontinue the practice of including people not elected in the ordinary democratic way. There are only two cities involved and to that extent other members may be quite unconcerned; but there would be a protest from the Members of this House if it were suggested that in this Measure every burgh in Scotland should allow the dean of guild court to
    400
    be a member. Every Member would oppose it. If it is wrong to apply it all over Scotland, it is equally wrong in the two cities referred to. I would like an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, who prepared this Bill with the support of the Joint Under-Secretary of State. If he looked back to the speeches he has made, he will find that he made good speeches on Glasgow town Council many years ago protesting against this. That seems to be one of the accidents of Government—you may make speeches on any side. But I want to stick to what I regard as a conscientious way of dealing with the question.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): The hon. Member might make speeches of that kind when he sits on this bench.
    Mr. Carmichael: Time to talk that way when the deed has actually taken place. If I raise the political issue, it is to say that it is no accident that the dean of guild and guild convener—I speak for the City of Glasgow—never cast a vote along the lines on which I cast mine, and, if I may say so, I think that I cast votes in the right direction. As a matter of fact, the people of Glasgow accepted the idea that the minority, which became a majority, moved in the right direction, but we made no impression on the dean of guild and at this time, when we are trying to clear up local government, we should not allow this anachronism to remain in this Measure in days of democracy.
    Mr. Westwood: This Bill does not mean general amendment of the administrative law of Scotland. It is to consolidate; that is the main purpose of the Bill. This Clause is simply re-enacting the existing law. If I may, I would compliment the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean) on his very fine speech——
    Mr. McAllister: Could we have a clear Ruling on this matter? The Secretary of State says this is a consolidating Measure. As I gather it, the suggestion was that it was only right and proper for the matters to come before the House with the authority of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Westwood: I was trying to point out that the main purpose of the Bill

    401
    is consolidation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, when Secretary of State for Scotland, made it possible that we should be enabled to have Amendments made to clarify and modify certain provisions and to come to agreement where we could get agreement on the codes in Scotland.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) asked me for a Ruling. There is and can be no restriction on the sovereign power of Parliament. Let me make that clear. As a matter of strict Order, it would be quite competent for Parliament, if it thought fit, and having all the factors in mind, to make Amendments to this or any other Bill and I must so rule.
    Mr. Westwood: I was not disputing that fact, but I was trying to point out what was the purpose of the Committee set up by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. Unless there is agreement, there are only two alternatives. They are—no Bill, or going back to pure consolidation, and in some cases that would be altogether unintelligible because some of these Acts were passed 100 years ago. I could not get agreement so far as the dropping of the present law is concerned. The Bill as it stands reproduces the existing law. It enables the dean of guild and the deacon convener to serve on town councils. A proposal that this existing right should be abolished was fully discussed before the introduction of the Bill and we then tried to get agreement. It was clear that it would be controversial and it was decided that it could not be accepted. A Joint Committee of both Houses also considered the matter, but that Committee did not recommend an Amendment. Its general view was stated in its report as follows:
    "The Committee have felt that in amending the Bill it would not be desirable generally to go beyond amendment calculated to simplify or clarify the law. The amendments made by the Committee are mainly of the character mentioned, or are of a drafting nature, or consequential on other legislation."
    There are many matters on which hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see the law changed. I must say that there may be many things in connection with this consolidating Measure which I would like to have seen changed—in the interests of administration, in the interests of efficiency, and
    402
    also to give a better code for local government administration. In this case, change would involve acute political controversy, and the Committee would not agree that it would be right to make these in what is primarily a consolidating Measure.
    New legislation is bound to be introduced sometime dealing with the reorganisation of local government. Then we can take up much which, though we would like to do it now, we have allowed to drop. I am in favour of many of these things, but they can only be dealt with in legislation amending the existing local government law, and I think it would be wrong to deal with them now. That is why I resist the suggestion to leave out this Clause. It is not that I do not believe in these things, but because I believe that it is the wrong time to make the proposed change. It would make a change in the law which cannot be done in a consolidation Measure.
    Mr. McKinlay: I want to reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean). I agree frankly that the Dean of Guild in Glasgow and the Deacon Convener in Edinburgh have always been men of the very highest character. I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) will agree with that, but as he said, they never seem to act or agree with those who were elected. I agree with my right hon. Friend when he says it would be impossible to get agreement if such a thing had been attempted. I want to say categorically, here and now, that if the local authorities had been aware of the Ruling which has been given from the Chair to night, this anomaly would have been swept away. The real trouble of the Secretary of State as I have said already in regard to a Bill like this is that it may take 10 years to prepare and 10 minutes to shoot it through the corridors of Parliament. I think I am speaking on behalf of my hon. Friends, the Scottish Members, when I say that we were told in these last 12 months that no amendment could be made. Well, "no amendment," and "qualified amendment "may be two different things. I want to be generous, and I say they may be. But I certainly think we are entitled, if not to an apology, at least to an explanation why we and ourselves at 11.30 at

    403
    night in the week before Parliament rises for a Recess, confronted with the Ruling given from the Chair that Parliament is predominant and that we can move and amend anything we like. All this has been put together on the assumption that no Amendment can be moved. I feel very keenly that I have let down my district committees in Dumbartonshire simply on the Government's advice as to what we can do and what we cannot do
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Kill.
    11.30 p.m.
    Clauses 331 to 382 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    First to Fourth Schedules agreed to.

    FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Expenditure of a Town Council to be defrayed out of the burgh rate so far as payable by occupiers of lands and heritages only.)
    Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 276, to leave out lines 27 and 28.
    This Amendment is consequential upon the Fire Services Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments for the purpose of which money may be borrowed by local authorities repayable within periods other than thirty years.)
    Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 279, line 30, at the end to add:
    '28. The Fire Services Act 1947.
    Such period not exceeding sixty years as the Secretary of State may fix.
    29. The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947.
    Such period as the Secretary of State may fix."
    This Amendment is consequential upon the Fire Services Act, 1947, and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask a question purely for information? This Amendment is to add the Fire Services Act, 1947, and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, to the Schedule. Neither of these are yet Acts of Parliament, and I should like to be in
    404
    formed what will be the state of affairs if neither of these Bills becomes an Act of Parliament when they are already included in this. Bill.
    Mr. Westwood: It we do not accept this Amendment now, there would really be two codes in operation when the two Bills become Acts, and this is simply looking ahead arid avoiding creating real difficulties in having two codes.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I was asking him what would happen in the eventuality I described. I do not think he is quite certain himself.
    Mr. Westwood: That is a hypothetical question and I cannot answer it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Westwood."
    11.34 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think it would be churlish if the House dismissed this Bill without a single sentence. I think the Committee has acted with wisdom and discretion tonight. It is true that, as you ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Commitee has had the power to amend this Measure. Yet it is clear to all hon. Members that a Bill of between 300 and 400 Clauses and many Schedules could not have reached the Statute Book if the Committee had exercised its rights. The Committee, in its discretion, has not insisted on those rights, which it certainly has, but that does not in any way prejudice the position of any hon. Member. In any consolidation Measure there are items to which objection is taken by one side of the House or the other. The Bill incorporates many Measures over which acute controversy took place at an earlier stage in this same Session. On this side of the House we have not taken any opportunity which, undoubtedly we could have done, to raise these matters. I am sure that this is a novel procedure. There is a certain difficulty. Pure consolidation, of course, is a simple matter. The draftsman lays his hand on his heart and swears he does not alter the law in one jot or in one tittle;

    405
    and in that respect, of course, no amendment is made. In this instance, Members have exercised their discretion, and have handled a Bill in which amendment is possible, and to which a certain amount of amendment has been made. It was not, therefore, possible for anyone to give an assurance that powers of amendment are drastically limited in the case of a consolidating Bill. I think that in this case and in other cases it will be very desirable for the consolidation of the law of Scotland to proceed, as a platform from which departure can be made in future. Undoubtedly, as the Secretary of State has said, Measures affecting the local government law of Scotland will be brought in, and there will be matters of fierce controversy. On those, it will be possible for argument for and against, to be brought up and voted upon.
    But the House and all Scotland will benefit greatly by having before them a clear statement of the law of the land, extending back in some cases over 100 years, when this Measure is on the Statute Book. I am, however, glad the Bill is reaching the Statute Book tonight, and I think we should be sorry not to pay a tribute to that great public servant, Sir John Jeffrey, chairman of the committee which worked on this Measure and framed it. He has not lived to see the conclusion of his work, but it is a great and solid piece of work, and it is by virtue of such work and such enactments that the dignity and power of our Statutes in Scotland and elsewhere will be maintained and extended. I think it is a good piece of draftsman's work that the House is passing now.
    11.38 p.m.
    Mr. McLean Watson: I quite agree that the local government officers, and those who are administering local government in Scotland, will welcome this Measure, because it gives them a great number of Measures in a limited compass; but I am pretty certain that if local authorities in Scotland had understood that they could have amended this Measure, they would have preferred, as I should have preferred, to spend the whole of next year going through the Bill and amending it in accordance with the wishes of the people of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State knows and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities
    406
    (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) knows, that ever since the Local Government Act of 1929 was placed on the Statute Book there has been trouble with the local authorities in Scotland. This Bill does not touch that in the slightest degree. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, if it had touched any of the provisions of the 1929 Act, they would have opposed it. It would not have been an agreed Measure, and it would not have been before this House tonight. The small burghs, of which we have heard something in the course of this discussion, were stripped of many of their powers. The district councils, which used to be really effective bodies and did the real work of local government, were reduced to mere shadows of what they were under previous Acts of Parliament, practically with no powers at all.
    Had the local authorities in Scotland known that this Measure could have been amended, they would have desired an overhauling of the whole of the local government system that is embodied in this Measure. It concerns not only the provisions that are laid down in the Act of 1929, but the provisions which were laid down in the Education Act, which was a compromise in order to get for Scottish education the conditions that had been provided for England by the English Act. The administrative Clauses were not touched. These are matters of considerable importance and they would certainly have presented material for a very interesting discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee. I ask my colleagues, especially my English colleagues, to remember that in this Measure there are whole sections upon which not a word of discussion took place in this House. The Government of the day did not send that Measure to the Scottish Grand Committee, but had it taken on the Floor of the House. It was driven through against the wishes not only of the Scottish Members but of the Scottish people. The Secretary of State for Scotland himself has admitted already that there are provisions in this Bill that he would like to see altered. These provisions would have been altered if the Scottish Members had had an opportunity of discussing them in Scottish Grand Committee.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland has got his Measure. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Scottish Universifies

    407
    says that the whole of Scotland will benefit. No; not the whole of Scotland at all. It does not make any difference. These are simply consolidated Acts of Parliament and so far as Scotland is concerned there is no change. I agree that those who administer local government in Scotland will benefit to the extent of having these provisions in a handy form for those departments which are dealing with local government in Scotland. I would have been prepared to spend the whole of next year in Scottish Grand Committee and so that we could have a proper Scottish Local Government Bill The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) laid down a very interesting dictum when we were discussing another Bill. He made observations on codification which ought to be followed in this case instead of passing a Measure which is distasteful in many respects. We should have had in this Measure provisions which would have been acceptable at any rate to those who sent us here from Scotland.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTSM
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Aldridge, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th July, be approved."
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Bury St. Edmunds, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th July, be approved."
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Crewe, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th July, be approved."
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Gainsborough, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th July, be approved."
  "That the Order made by the Secretary, of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act,
  408
  1932, to the City of Stoke-on-Trent, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th July, be approved."
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Willenhall, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th July, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

  PARSONAGES (AMENDMENT) MEASURE
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. Burden (Sheffield, Park): I beg to move:
  "That the Parsonages (Amendment) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament."
  This Measure comes to us from the Church Assembly where it is regarded as a non-controversial Measure. It was approved by the Church Assembly without amendment. It has been examined carefully by the Ecclesiastical Committee, who in their report do not consider that it affects prejudicially the constitutional rights of any of His Majesty's subjects and say that they are of the opinion that it should be allowed to proceed. In the circumstances I hope the Measure will be approved by the House.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to second the Motion.

  HOSPITAL BOARD AREAS, SCOTLAND
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Snadden: I beg to move,
  "That the National Health Service (Scotland) (Determination of Areas of Regional Hospital Boards) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O. 1947, No. 1311), dated 25th June, 1947. a copy of which was presented on 27th June, be annulled."
  This Order determines the areas for which Regional Hospital Boards shall be constituted under Section 11 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act. I and other hon. Members have put down this Prayer, because objection is taken to certain of the areas defined in the Order as being unsaticfactory. In particular, we object to area No. 3, Eastern Region, and

  409
  area No. 5, Western Region, in so far as they relate to the western part of the County of Perth. It may be that other hon. Members take exception to other areas. If that is so, then no doubt they will say so, but I particularly wish to deal with this area which forms the major part of the constituency which I represent in this House. It is suggested that the western district of Perthshire should be transferred from the Eastern Hospital Region to the Western Hospital Region. Having lived for the greater part of my life in the western district of Perthshire, and having served for many years in a junior capacity as director of the Stirling Royal Infirmary, I must say I was very much surprised when I saw this Order and realised that the Secretary of State had decided to include the whole of the County of Perthshire in the region detailed as the Eastern Hospital Region, in direct opposition to the advice which I understand he received from the British Medical Association and from the British Hospitals Association. If that is not so, then the right hon. Gentleman can inform us.
  The preamble to this Order says:
  "after consultation with such bodies as appear to be concerned "
  but what the Order does not say is that in respect of the boundaries to, which exception is taken the Minister may make an order in direct opposition to the advice received from those organisations. The Secretary of State is thus ignoring not only the natural geographical affiliations of West Perthshire, with the county and market town of Stirling, but also the advice given him by his medical experts. I am troubled to know why the right hon. Gentleman rejected the advice that was given. I wonder if the reason was that because of his inability, possibly under pressure, to give way in respect of the county of Fife he found that he could not give way in respect of the Western part of Perthshire in spite of the fact that all the evidence and all the arguments are in favour of including West Perthshire in the Western Region.
  The Secretary of State himself is familiar with the Stirling and Falkirk burghs. He must know as I know, if he remembers that part of the country just to the north, that the whole of the rural population of West Perthshire, right up to Crianlarich and Callander, has a natural geographical affiliation with the county town
  410
  of Stirling. Stirling is the main road and rail communication of that neighbourhood. It is the West Perthshire market and shopping centre, and it is to Stirling Royal Infirmary that the patients of West Perthshire have always looked for treatment. For years, I find, looking up the statistics, that the natural flow of patients from West Perthshire has been to Stirling. If we look at the latest figures for 1946 we find that 512 hospital patients were admitted to Stirling Royal Infirmary from West Perthshire in the year but only four were admitted to the Royal Infirmary for the county and city of Perth. I and other hon. Members feel that this fact has been ignored in this Order. Unless it is recognised, it seems to me that serious obstacles will be placed in the way of efficient hospital administration, not to speak of the discontent among the people in that particular area.
  I submit that to include West Perthshire in the Eastern Region in the face of these figures I have quoted, is entirely wrong, and that there is an overwhelming case for including the western district of Perthshire in the Western Hospital zone. The Secretary of State may say that the boundaries laid down in this Order are administratively more convenient to him and that they will in no way prevent patients from going from one hospital region in which they are domiciled, to another for treatment. Of course, what that means is that having drawn a line, he now proceeds to rub it out. If that is his answer, I would like to ask him the question: How can a regional hospital board be efficient and give an efficient service to its region in such circumstances? Surely a board must base its plan on the population of its area. If a small number of patients from one area is admitted to another area outside the domicile of its patients, then that might be quite possible. But in this case, where a large number of patients will be asking for admission within an area in which they are not domiciled, I submit that such a state of affairs would completely upset the hospital accommodation arrangements.
  One can see that the regional board, such as that of the Western Region, which would include the Stirling Royal Infirmary within its region, would very soon say: "We have a waiting list in our hospital; we cannot take any people from a neighbouring region." And these people would

  411
  be excluded. I can also see that there would be serious financial complications. There would be one hospital region lodging a claim against another hospital region in respect of finance. The regional board, having budgeted for so many patients, would in practice have to deal with quite a different number. Therefore, I cannot see how the Secretary of State could carry out an efficient administration on these lines.
  I am informed—though I am bound to confess that I have no expert knowledge on this point—that the Minister of Health in regard to the hospital regions of England and Wales has admitted the principle of the convenience of the patient, and in a very large number of cases he has accepted that principle to such an extent as to get right down to the parishes, and has seen that they are not excluded from the local authority area. For these reasons, I submit that this Order should be taken back and reconsidered, and I would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that in my own particular area this proposal is viewed with some concern, not only by the responsible medical authorities—the Scottish branches of the British Hospital Association and British Medical Association—but by the people themselves living in the area. I should like an assurance from him on why such a decision has been taken.
  11.56 p.m.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to second the Motion.
  My hon. Friend has put the case very clearly, and whereas he hopes that West Perthshire will still be allowed to go to Stirling Royal Infirmary, I am faced with the situation that they will be ordered to go to the Perth Royal Infirmary instead. But I understand it is still to be open to them to go to their previous hospital centre but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are many difficulties that might result from that if that hospital area is not prepared to receive them. He has mentioned one or two reasons when they might say: "We have had you up to now but cannot do it any longer now for this reason or that reason." Is It right to have a hard and
  412
  fast rule in a matter of this kind? It shows the danger of these very carefully delineated areas.
  In the case of Perthshire we want to go back to where we were before and the right hon. Gentleman, from his knowledge of life will say it is undoubtedly still possible, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) will say that exactly the opposite has happened—that Nairn has to go to one region and Moray to another. That is quite illogical. I want to ask for an explanation of why these cases were determined in such a way when it is perfectly obvious that a happier solution would be to allow the thing to continue as it is at present. I hope, without being unduly carping, we shall be given a reasonable explanation bearing in mind the difficulties, and, however well intentioned the right hon. Gentleman may be.
  11.59 p.m.
  Sir John Graham Kerr: The few words that I would like to say in this connection are based on the fact that the success of any system of public health however perfectly planned, depends in the end on the training of the men who carry it out. I happen to have been a teacher in one of the two largest medical schools in the country and also to have been a medical student in the other of the two medical schools. Therefore, I have a certain qualification to speak, and also I have every enthusiasm to help the colleges. Under the new health arrangements it is made necessary that every medical student, after he has graduated, but before qualifying as a medical practitioner, should put in one year on a resident appointment in a hospital. Each of the medical schools, to carry out its duties efficiently, must have a district which will include a sufficient number of hospitals to afford opportunities to its graduates to put in this year of residence.
  Then there is the other point, in regard to teaching itself. Practically, the most important part of all medical training is its clinical work. Therefore, the medical schools must also have at their command sufficient clinical material. It follows that if we have in Edinburgh and Glasgow two of the greatest medical schools in the world, with an approximately similar number of medical. students, in order to be fair, and to enable them to do their

  413
  work properly, there should be a roughly equivalent amount of clinical material and a similar number of hospitals for their resident appointments. In the scheme before us the scope, in regard to population and the number of hospitals, is totally unequal between these two approximately equal medical schools. The one, I am assured, is allocated a population of pretty nearly three millions, the other a population of a little over one million. Surely that is not only grossly unfair, but if it were carried into effect would be a tremendous blow to the medical school of the University of Edinburgh, which is acknowledged all over the world as one of the greatest in existence. For those reasons I add my wish to those already expressed that the right hon. Gentleman should take back this Order and see whether he cannot re-arrange the districts, particularly No. 4 and No. 5, so as to include roughly similar populations.
  12.1 a.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I apologise for rising so late, and I will try to be brief in what I have to say. I have had correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman on a question which has been raised with me at different times by the doctors in the Western Isles and many of the people there, over the inclusion of the Outer Hebrides in the Western Region based on Glasgow rather than the Northern Region. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the attention he has given to this point, and I would press him, if he can, to consider it once again before it comes into administrative operation. The right hon. Gentleman does say in a letter to me
  "I can assure you that if in practice it is found that a boundary is unsuitable, I will alter it."
  It is a great relief to us that the Secretary of State has not made any sort of rigid decision, and I think the charge of rigidity is to that extent weakened, but I hope he will have in mind the views of the doctors and people in my area.
  Very briefly, the reason they give to support their view is that the Island of Lewis is part of Ross and Cromarty and comes under the county council, and the other islands, coming under Inverness shire, will be in a minority in representation under the two different counties. The Secretary of State says he does not wish
  414
  to split the councils, but in fact we already have that split as between the two counties and the two counties are always in a minority. I fear that schemes framed to suit the majority will naturally be framed to suit the mainland. I submit that for geographical reasons and many others, very special reconsideration should be given to the position of doctors and patients in the Outer Hebrides. Often they cannot have representation because of bad weather and delay in regular transport. When they do have representation, they are in a perpetual minority and, of course, liable to be overlooked.
  The natural flow from the Islands is to Glasgow. Travel by air is to Glasgow rather than across the high mountains which may have a bad effect on patients. This consideration should be kept in view in framing these areas. The people from the Islands have always emigrated to Glasgow, and people who are sick and in need of treatment can get accommodation there with relatives and friends. Anyone going to the Highlands will see it is almost impossible to find accommodation. Sick people and people who are going to be ill are less likely to get accommodation than healthy people. Invalids are largely in the hands of hotel keepers and landladies and they are less welcome on short notice in places like Inverness than in Glasgow, where so many have relatives. The natural way people would go is to Glasgow. Doctors prefer to send them to Glasgow for institutional reasons rather than to Inverness. Indeed, if they send them to Inverness, they have to bring specialists up from Glasgow to Inverness to examine their patients. This is in no way disrespectful to the institutions in Inverness. Far from it. The people are grateful and have no complaint in that respect. But Glasgow has better institutional accommodation and equipment. I ask the Secretary of State to have this in view before he finally and rigidly fixes the boundaries. I know he has been sympathetic about it and I am going to remind him at all times to consider this when boundaries are being changed. I hope it is still possible to turn towards Glasgow and not Inverness.
  12.7 a.m.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: I am sorry to detain the House but I have an entirely fresh point to put forward. We have heard the subject treated from

  415
  three points of view and it is interesting to see that from two hon. Members, the representations made to the Secretary of State have been for adjusting, as it were, county boundaries for the purpose of hospital services on the grounds of custom and communications and I for my part will fully endorse what the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) said on that subject. [An HON. MEMBER: "What have you against Inverness?"] I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that there is no desire to attack Inverness. The argument is on the ground of custom and communications. I would like to take a case from an entirely different view. One would naturally consider that the south-west of Scotland would look to Glasgow. When I looked at the map I thought so, too. I was surprised, therefore, to get representations from the B.M.A. branch in the south-west to the effect that they desired the south-west to be linked to Edinburgh. And they desire it on two main grounds: first, the ground that the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Graham Kerr) has already put forward, namely, that there should be a more even division between the east and the west. On that point I would draw attention to the fact that Amendments to this Order have already been put forward to add to the Western area.
  What I am suggesting is that we should take away from the west and add to the east. I thought this was a strange thing, so I took the precaution to see the county authorities about it and they said they would rather be attached to the east. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities has made a case that there must be an outlet for the two universities which have to have post-graduate billets in hospitals on a more or less even basis, and, therefore, it is better to have a more even division. The natural flow from the south-west is to Glasgow, and by train—although the train service is not as good now as it used to be—but by road there is nothing in it. In actual fact, one will find that the majority of medical opinion hails from Edinburgh and there are strong reasons and there is custom for linking the south-west to Edinburgh already. So I would urge the Secretary of State—and he will say he must get this Order now—to say at
  416
  the least that he will be able without much difficulty, to make alterations from time to time in this Order, and to say that he will examine the representations made tonight.
  12.9 a.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I can give at once the assurance that if, as a result of experience we find we can improve administration by a change, there will be no hesitation in making an Order. The main consideration has been that the convenience of patients is the first thing to be considered. That must be the first consideration if we are to have effective results from the new legislation. I might say that I have been in touch with many organisations before any action was taken. These bodies were the Scottish Universities, the three Scottish medical corporations, the British Medical Association (Scottish Section), the Association of Mental Hospitals in Scotland, the Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust (Scottish Committee), the local health authorities in Scotland, the Convention of Royal Burghs, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Counties of Cities, the Scottish T.U.C., the British Employers' Federation, and the Federation of British Industries (Scottish Section). I think hon. Members will agree that it would have been impossible for me to have consulted more organisations in Scotland and it was only after the fullest consultation that I made the Order. Each of the organisations was clearly advised that the boundaries of the hospital regions did not in themselves imply any restriction on the admission of a patient from one region to the hospital in another. That is what appears to be in the minds of hon. Members who have spoken. They appear to think that the flow of patients in a particular direction might be impeded by the regional organisations I have set up. But I have made it clear that there must be no restriction on admission of patients from one region to another.
  The boundaries are not to be regarded as barriers across which no patient or medical practitioner can cross. Also it was made clear that the boundaries would not restrict the provision of undergraduate or post-graduate medical teaching of students from one university being made in a hospital associated with another university. The Act requires that so far

  417
  as practicable each area is such that hospital and specialist services can be provided in convenient association with a university which has a school of medicine. This requirement has been complied with so far as my scheme is concerned in determining the five regions in Scotland, with the exception of Inverness. It is intended that the Northern Region, which has no university within its boundaries, shall be associated principally with Aberdeen University, and with the Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities as well in view of local associations. In examining the recommendations and representations made by the various bodies consulted, I would point out that my duty as Secretary of State for Scotland was to view Scotland as a whole for the administration of hospital and specialist services under the new Act and, in considering where boundaries were to be drawn to have regard to all relevant factors. I was not merely to have regard to teaching nor merely to hospital accommodation as such. I had to consider all relevant factors—traditional associations, the customary flow of patients, the co-ordination of the various parts of the National Health Service, association with medical schools, the natural geographical boundaries, communications and, generally, the convenience of the administration of hospitals by the regional boards.
  Since the Order was laid, the allocation of the following areas has been the subject of representations—the Outer Isles, Moray and Nairn, Western Perthshire, Dumfries, Stirling, and Clackmannan. So far as the regional hospital board is concerned, it has to deal with the provision and management of hospitals. There is no hospital in western Perthshire, and I do not think it is likely that there will be in the near future—perhaps not for a year or two—under the National Health Service. The outer division of the B.M.A. represented that the Outer Hebrides should be included in the Western Hospital Region. Their argument was based on the fact that patients and medical practitioners, especially in the Southern group of the outer isles, had always looked to Glasgow for hospital and specialist services. This position was fully recognised when the boundaries were fixed. It was, however, decided to allocate the Outer Isles to the Northern Region to avoid splitting the areas of the two local health authorities, namely, the counties of
  418
  Inverness and Ross and Cromarty. Looking to the future, we felt that the development of the hospital and specialist services in the Northern Region, together with the development of improved air communications between the islands and Inverness, would tend to influence the direction of the flow of patients; but the convenience of patients is the prime factor and there will therefore be no interference with the freedom of choice of hospitals, patients or medical profession alike. People in the Outer Isles will be free to seek admission to the Glasgow hospitals as well as to the Inverness hospitals. There is no attempt to make a hard and fast rule so far as these boundaries are concerned. The patients, the welfare and the health progress of the patients, are, and must be, the first considerations in connection with the Administration. I could go on dealing with individual points, but I think there is no desire by the House that at this early hour of the morning I should go more fully into this matter. I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that the fullest consideration was given and after the fullest consultation with all interests, keeping in mind that what is desirable and to give what is best to those who require it. If, as a result of experience, it is found that there should be adjustments, no on is more ready than I to make them. I hope, therefore, that the Prayer will be withdrawn.
  Mr. James Stuart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he departed from his own circular of 7th May with regard to the County of Nairn and its removal to the Inverness area? His circular said it should be in the same area as the County of Moray as the two counties were together. The joint county councils had approved that, but his circular was departed from and Nairn was put into the Northern area.
  Mr. Westwood: That is a perfectly fair point. The provisional proposal was to put Nairn in the North-East Hospital Region but it was strongly opposed by the British Hospitals Association (Scottish Section), and transferred to Inverness County. The joint counties did agree to the inclusion of Nairn in that region on the understanding that the patients could go to Inverness for examination. This ruling does not impede patients going to other hospitals. On examination the figures showed

  419
  that so far as Moray and Nairn were concerned ten times more went from Nairn to Inverness than to Aberdeen. It was decided to allocate Nairn to the other region. This was the only realistic course—that if patients are to go to the Inverness hospital for consultative services they should be associated with Inverness.
  12.22 a.m.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the opportunity tonight to add something to the letter which he has sent to various Members and with the contents of which we were all tolerably familiar, but as he has not done so I venture put some points which still seem to be very obscure and which require some elucidation. I shall do so with a series of questions to save time.
  The first question is this: On what basis are the regional hospital boards to budget for their requirements for hospital space? The right hon. Gentleman said that patients are free to choose to go where they like. Obviously, that may be so and statistics may work out all right but that will not be so if the regional hospital boards limit themselves to making a scheme to cover the population in their area, neither more nor less. If they do they will get it right only if as many patients flow out as flow in, or they will find they are too congested or that they have a surplus of accommodation which they need not have. Take the case of the regional hospital board budgeting for the Stirling Royal Infirmary. Is it to estimate that the whole of West Perthshire will for all practical purposes be part of their area? Is that to be an assumption they are to make? If they are, then the purpose of the Prayer may be to a large extent met. But why should they assume that? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to give them directions as he has power to do so, or has he expected the people will appoint will take that view? I should not have thought that was a satisfactory basis on which to build a national system. I should have thought that he must say: I am going to direct the regional hospital boards when making their schemes to consider the population of West Perthshire as one of their responsibilities.
  420
  I had thought, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman rather took credit for the view that he was not going to direct the regional boards, that they were going to be practically autonomous. But that cannot be in present circumstances. He has to direct them; or, at least, to see them if they do not speedily take the point he has taken. He does direct them. He will have to do it either at once, or after a short interval if they do not speedily indicate to him that they are going to take his point of view. I think that he ought to clear up what he is going to do. Is he going to make it quite clear in the western area to the Regional Hospital Board that West Perth is one of their responsibilities? Is that going to be done similarly with regard to other areas? Is it to be made clear, on the other hand to the Eastern Regional Board that a number of patients from the South-West will want to go to their area, so that a proportion of the requirements of the South-West is the responsibility of the Eastern Hospital Board?
  When we get to the regional proportion of responsibility, who is to say to these two boards whether it is fifty-fifty between Edinburgh and Glasgow or 75–25, or whatever it is? How is it to be done? I think we ought to know. It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman must have thought this out. I cannot believe he has not, because if he has not, how he is going to get this scheme to work next April passes my comprehension. If he has not thought it out, then it is as well we have this discussion, because it must be made clear in a short time. I go on to ask him just how this freedom of choice is to work? I cannot see it. How does a man in future get into the hospital? What happens? I think we must know these things before we can dispose of this Prayer. Does the man or his doctor simply ring up any hospital which the doctor chooses and say, "John Smith wants to get into your hospital tomorrow"? Is that what happens? The right hon. Gentleman has told us the patients have the choice. If we are to take his statement at its face value, that must be what it means. But I really cannot believe that happens. How does a patient go to a hospital outside his region? Does he ring up Stirling Royal Infirmary or Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and say, "I want to come"? Does he

  421
  get in? With the best will in the world, however energetically the Government tackle this job, it is not possible to avoid waiting lists within the next few years.
  It is the intermediate years that are of primary importance today. What is the position with regard to a person outside the region who wants to get on to a waiting list? Has he an equal right with anybody else? Can a person from Galloway, from Dumfries, or Orkney or Shetland claim an equal right to take his place in the Glasgow or the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary with anybody who lives in Edinburgh or the Lothians? I think we must know. Otherwise, it is of vital importance to get the boundaries of the regions right.
  If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the position is "first come, first served, no matter where you live," I agree; the boundaries of the regions are purely of administrative importance, not that I deprecate administrative importance, but it does make the matter clear. What is the position? Then suppose—is it for the doctor to go hunting around—the doctor at Edinburgh found that the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary waiting list had been cluttered up by a large number of people from other regions who exercise the freedom of choice that the right hon. Gentleman says they have, what happens to the Edinburgh patients? Are they to go hunting around for a hospital? This is supposed to be a co-ordinated service, but how is it going to work? I have tried to follow the development of these ideas through the passage of the Bill and I am bound to say I am still in a fog about this matter. I notice the right hon. Gentleman always brings in admirable expressions about freedom of choice but how they are going to work I do not understand.
  Before we can agree with the drawing of the regional boundaries as a pure matter of administration, and not affecting the patient in the least—because that is what the right hon. Gentleman says—we must have a detailed statement as to the practical question. Take for instance the question of specialists. The right hon. Gentleman says there is nothing to prevent a specialist from going out of his area where people have to be visited in their homes. True, but what is there to compel him to go out of his area? Can a doctor in some part of West Perthshire
  422
  simply ring up the Stirling Centre and say, "I have a man here who requires a heart specialist and cannot travel to Stirling. Will you please arrange to send a heart specialist to him? Is Stirling bound to comply or not? That is a vital thing we ought to know. Otherwise, one would have to send to Perth or Dundee. What is the position? Can a doctor outside the area, demand as of right that a specialist be sent from one region into another? If he can, I agree again that boundaries do not matter very much except for administration.
  Let me sum up. On what basis have regional boards to budget? Is it on the population in their area, or is it on the population which they think likely to come to their hospital or is it on the population which the right hon. Gentleman tells them they have to take into account? If the first is the case, it will not work. If it is the second, how do we know without co-ordination that there will not be overlapping between two regions? If the third case is the right one, it does not seem that there is any autonomy left to the regional boards at all. The whole thing is done by the right hon. Gentleman. That might be inevitable. Is he prepared to do that? If not, how in the world are we going to make the scheme work? My other point is as regards the choice of hospital. Has the patient or the doctor got the right to choose a hospital in any region he likes? If he cannot get in, does somebody in the region say "Yes, I will accept him" or does he have to go hunting around hospital committees trying to get in and ultimately have to be put on to the waiting list? And with regard to specialists, has the specialist to go out of the area when he is called. If the right hon. Gentleman can answer these three questions in line with the general statement he made a few moments ago then I would advise hon. Members to think that their purpose in raising this matter was served. If he cannot, then I would say that the outlook for Scotland is really serious.
  12.35 a.m.
  Mr. Westwood: Again, with the permission of the House, I will try briefly to deal with the points raised: First of all, the basis of budgeting for the requirements of hospitals. The regional boards have not yet been set up. My regional chairmen are appointed or are being appointed. I

  423
  have not got the full replies yet. So soon as they are appointed there will be meetings in which we will attempt, at least, to give guidance in connection with coordination so far as the services are concerned. To begin with, the powers must be guided, and they will be guided, I am sure, by the previous experience of the individual hospital. They will know the districts from which the patients have come. They will take into their calculations exactly where the patients have been coming from with a view to making the requisite provision. This is a matter in which the regional boards will call on the guidance of the boards of management, of those who, today, control the hospitals. That is how I will go about the organisation and I hope it will be successful. We will consult those who have been managing hospitals up to the present time to find what will be best in the interests of the patients. At the present time, the Central Hospitals in Glasgow and Edinburgh take patients without regard to areas. There is no intention of interfering with the past arrangement but they are able to initiate provisions which should be made.
  As soon as the hospital boards are set up they will get down to these particular problems and they will be able to get all the facts from the existing hospitals and they will know just where the floor basis has been coming from. I do not seek to interfere with the established form. In the densely populated areas such as Glasgow, where there are hospitals in a relatively small area, it is intended to set up an admission bureau to deal with applications according to the urgency of need for in-patient treatment. The individual patient will look to his general practitioner. I can speak from my own experience. I did not trouble about the hospital
  424
  to which I was to be sent. I had faith in the general practitioner who attended me. He selected the hospital and the specialist. I was only anxious to get into the hands of the specialist as soon as possible. The same thing will operate under the new Health Service. There will be the general practitioner who will know where the best service is to hand. Through him, I presume, the arrangements will be made for the patients' entrance into the hospital. Exactly the same will apply in connection with this special service. I have tried to be as brief as I can and I trust I have dealt with the two points that were raised. So far as the provision of consultant service is concerned, there will be collaboration between the regional boards. The intention is to have the fullest co-operation between these boards so that we can make the service a really useful one as far as Scotland is concerned.
  12.39 a.m.
  Mr. Snadden: I cannot say that I feel quite happy about the explanation of the Secretary of State. I do not think he has answered my right hon. Friend effectively but we do not wish to carry this Motion to a Division, and I think he said at the beginning of his remarks that if the regional allocation is found to be impracticable he will reconsider the whole setup and adjust it in such a way as to make for efficient hospital administration. With the assurance given us by the Minister that that will be done, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  HOSPITAL BOARD AREAS, SCOTLAND

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes to One o'Clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Catering Trade (Fee-charging Agencies)
  Catering Trade (Fee-charging Agencies)
  Women Workers (Local Appeals)
  Women Workers (Local Appeals)
  Hunting (Paid Employees)
  Hunting (Paid Employees)
  Tyre Manufacturing Industry (Short Time)
  Tyre Manufacturing Industry (Short Time)
  European Volunteer Workers
  European Volunteer Workers
  ELECTRICITY ECONOMY (ADJUSTMENT OF WORKING HOURS)
  ELECTRICITY ECONOMY (ADJUSTMENT OF WORKING HOURS)
  DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR, GLASGOW
  DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR, GLASGOW
BRITISH ARMY
  Ammunition, North Bucks (Removal)
  Ammunition, North Bucks (Removal)
  Canal Zone, Egypt (Protection)
  Canal Zone, Egypt (Protection)
  Malaya (Reinforcements)
  Malaya (Reinforcements)
  Voluntary Recruitment
  Voluntary Recruitment
  Strength
  Strength
  Surplus Equipment (Disposal)
  Surplus Equipment (Disposal)
  Issued Stores (Allied Governments)
  Issued Stores (Allied Governments)
  Donington Park (Future)
  Donington Park (Future)
  SERVICE LAND REQUIREMENTS
  SERVICE LAND REQUIREMENTS
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Credit Facilities (Farmers)
  Credit Facilities (Farmers)
  Currency Offences (Imprisonment)
  Currency Offences (Imprisonment)
  Old Age Pensions (Claims)
  Old Age Pensions (Claims)
  "Tax Cases" (Publication)
  "Tax Cases" (Publication)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  New Industries, North Wales
  New Industries, North Wales
  Scaffold Boards (Importation)
  Scaffold Boards (Importation)
  Salvage Collection (Special Appeal)
  Salvage Collection (Special Appeal)
  Wool (Children's Garments)
  Wool (Children's Garments)
  Mackintoshes (Coupons)
  Mackintoshes (Coupons)
  Carbon Black
  Carbon Black
  Tyres
  Tyres
  U.S.A. Magazines (Imports)
  U.S.A. Magazines (Imports)
  New Factory Projects and Extensions
  New Factory Projects and Extensions
  Canadian Newsprint Contract
  Canadian Newsprint Contract
  Furskins
  Furskins
  Anglo-Soviet Trade Talks, Moscow
  Anglo-Soviet Trade Talks, Moscow
  Home-grown Timber (Prices)
  Home-grown Timber (Prices)
  Proposed Factory Extension, East Hornden
  Proposed Factory Extension, East Hornden
  Exports
  Exports
  Japan (Private Trade Arrangements)
  Japan (Private Trade Arrangements)
  Supplementary Clothing Coupons
  Supplementary Clothing Coupons
  Anglo-Belgian Exhibition, Brussels
  Anglo-Belgian Exhibition, Brussels
  Utility Clothing
  Utility Clothing
SHIPPING
  Falmouth Dockyard
  Falmouth Dockyard
  Pier, Lamlash (Repair)
  Pier, Lamlash (Repair)
  POLISH MILITARY WELFARE FUNDS
  POLISH MILITARY WELFARE FUNDS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PARACHUTING EXERCISES, PALESTINE)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PARACHUTING EXERCISES, PALESTINE)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Whale Meat, Cornwall
  Whale Meat, Cornwall
  Bread (Delivery Charges)
  Bread (Delivery Charges)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Cement (Exports and Imports)
  Cement (Exports and Imports)
  Requisitioned Buildings, Scotland
  Requisitioned Buildings, Scotland
  ALARM CLOCKS (PRODUCTION)
  ALARM CLOCKS (PRODUCTION)
  ARMED FORCES (STRENGTHS)
  ARMED FORCES (STRENGTHS)
  COAL INDUSTRY (CLEANING PLANTS)
  COAL INDUSTRY (CLEANING PLANTS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (LOCAL OFFICES, WESTMORLAND)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (LOCAL OFFICES, WESTMORLAND)
FUEL AND POWER
  District Heating
  District Heating
  Supplementary Petrol Allowances
  Supplementary Petrol Allowances
  CONTROL COMMISSIONS (RUMANIA, HUNGARY AND BULGARIA)
  CONTROL COMMISSIONS (RUMANIA, HUNGARY AND BULGARIA)
  GREECE (BRITISH FORCES)
  GREECE (BRITISH FORCES)
  KENYA (AFRICAN EDUCATION)
  KENYA (AFRICAN EDUCATION)
  HONG KONG (MINISTER'S VISIT)
  HONG KONG (MINISTER'S VISIT)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  PARCELS FROM GIBRALTAR.
  EARL MANVERS: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that parcels posted in Gibraltar are (probably owing to Custom House detention) taking over two months to reach destinations in this country; and whether anything can be done to prevent such delay which gives rise to fear of theft.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the dispatches of mail from Gibraltar are made at irregular intervals, and there have been occasions during the past three months when the interval has been as much as thirteen to seventeen days. The time of transit, which depends on the speed of the ship, has varied in the same period from six to twenty-five days. There has, in addition, been some unavoidable delay in clearing the parcels through the Customs. The latest returns, however, show a distinct improvement in the service, with an average time between posting and delivery of three to four weeks.
  EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Earl whether I am to understand from his answer that it really takes a matter of twenty-five days for a ship to steam 1,600 miles?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That was not exactly what I said. What I said was that the time varied, according to the speed of the ship, between six days and twenty-five days; that is to say, under a week or just over three weeks.
  EARL MANVERS: Do I understand the noble Earl to say that there has been no delay in the Custom House?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No. I am afraid it may have been difficult for the noble Earl to hear my reply clearly. There was a certain amount of movement in the Chamber when I began speaking, and possibly parts of what I said were inaudible to him. I did say that there has been some unavoidable delay owing to shortage of manpower—which I am sure the noble Earl appreciates—in clearing parcels through the Customs. I can assure the noble Earl that every effort will be made by the Post Office to minimize the interval between dispatch and delivery.
  EARL HOWE: Does it really take twenty-one days for a ship to steam the 1,600 miles from Gibraltar? If it does, then surely there must be something wrong with the ship?
  LORD GIFFORD: On a quick calculation its average speed would be about three knots.
  EARL MANVERS: I should like to thank the noble Earl very much for his courteous reply.

PASSENGER SERVICE FROM JAMAICA.
2.35 p.m.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question which stands in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they are aware that whereas there continues to be very limited passenger accommodation on ships sailing from Jamaica to the United Kingdom, 50 per cent. of the available passages are still reserved for military personnel, and whether His Majesty's Government consider this reasonable in present circumstances, especially in view of the small force now maintained in the Colony.]
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, in each passenger ship sailing from Jamaica to the United Kingdom, 50 per cent. of the berths is reserved initially for Service requirements. There is a proviso that, in exceptional circumstances, all the available berths on any sailing should be placed at the disposal of the military authorities. These arrangements are necessary for the fulfilment of the policy of His Majesty's

609
Government that passages to the United Kingdom shall, whenever possible, be available for Service personnel as they become due for release. Over the past six months the proportion of berths actually taken up for Service personnel averaged 22 per cent., the remaining berths being available for civilian passengers. A reduction in the percentages reserved for Service personnel will be made as soon as circumstances permit.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him, further, why if in fact the military do not take up more than 22 per cent. of the berths they should continue to reserve 5o per cent. of them. Is not this just another example of the War Office and the Ministry of Transport hanging on to wartime controls at the expense of the civilian population? With regard to the matter of demobilization, is it not a fact that the arguments advanced by the noble Lord about demobilization will not in fact hold water at all, because the troops in Jamaica are all young men? It is not a question of demobilization. Nobody would object to reservations of as much as 70 per cent. of the berths if it was for demobilized men. The troops out there are young men and they only amount to a battalion.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, may I call the noble Lord's attention to the fact that it is not usual to make a speech upon a reply to a starred question?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, cannot the supplementary question be answered?
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: My Lords, with great respect I am asking a question the whole time—in another place I was taught to do that—I am not making a speech. I am asking whether the Government will not very kindly consider the case of the civilian population, many members of which have done excellent work on the estates out there and in many other ways. They are sadly in need of leave in a great number of cases. Many of them have not been home for as long a period as ten years.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer now all the supplementary questions which the noble Lord has put to me, but I will do my best
610
to obtain the information for which he has asked and let him have it. I trim informed that the arrangement that now stands was arrived at locally between the civilian Government in Jamaica, the local agents of the steamship companies, arid the Service chiefs. The agreement wm made locally in Jamaica, and it has been found necessary to maintain it because when there is a flow of men released, naturally it is desired to get them away as soon as possible. I believe your Lordships would desire that all men liberated from military service should be allowed to go home as soon as may he practicable. There is provision so that any spare accommodation may be taken up by civilians. The agreement to which I have referred provides that 50 per cent. of lie available accommodation is reserved for Service requirements up to fourteen days before the sailing date. If, seven days before the 'sailing date, it is found that the Service authorities do not want it all, then arrangements are made to switch over the unwanted accommodation, and to make it known in the towns that there will be vacant berths available for civilians. The best that can be done locally appears to be done to give everyone a fair chance, but the principle is that the Serviceman shall have priority. I am rather inclined to think your Lordships will desire that that principle should be maintained.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I ask the noble Lord two questions. As regards the supplementary information he is gong to give the House, as there is a great interest in all quarters of the House on facilities between one part of the Commonwealth and another, will he undertake to arrange that it will be given in answer to a written question, so that we can all have the benefit? Everybody, I think, would want to give Servicemen priority, but there are also a great many others who were doing war work and have not been able to visit their homeland for, may be, eight or nine years, and they are entitled to consideration. Would the noble Lord, with the appropriate Ministers, consider whether more notice can be given when passages are thrown up? Is it not more likely that the military, who have to control only one battalion and can know quite a long time in advance whether they are going to use passages or not, are able to throw up passages early? It is very difficult for civilans

611
at seven days' notice, much less forty-eight hours, to be able to be ready to leave on a ship.
LORD WALKDEN: I fully appreciate the noble Viscount's points and certainly will raise the matter with the Minister. I would be very happy to reply either in a written answer or an oral answer if the noble Lord would be kind enough to put down on the Order Paper the separate points.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy; he is always very courteous in answering questions. May I ask him when the arrangement to which he referred was made? I think it would have been made in war-time between the shipping companies. I want to make it clear that I was not discussing the question of demobilization. I think everybody is agreed about demobilization. What I asked about was the one battalion which is over there composed entirely of young soldiers.
LORD WALKDEN: I have no information as to the date of the agreement to which I have referred. I imagine it was made soon after the end of the war, when the men were to be brought home.

COLONIAL REAFFORESTATION.
2.43 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg to put the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what measures of reafforestation are being undertaken in view of the increased production of timber in the Colonies, and in particular in British Guiana, the Gold Coast and Nigeria?]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the Governments of Colonies possessing significant forest resources are including in their development programmes provision for development and reafforestation. In particular, the Governments of British Guiana, the Gold Coast and Nigeria are taking all possible steps to ensure the regeneration of their forests. Provisions to this end are being included in timber concessions granted in British Guiana and
612
Nigeria. In the Gold Coast the position is more difficult owing to the fact that the grant of concessions is entirely in the hands of the African Chiefs, but the Government are doing everything possible to encourage them to adopt a sound forest policy.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his extremely satisfactory reply, and express the hope that so far as the Gold Coast is concerned some method will be found of making a sound forestry policy effective there, too.

PAISLEY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Presented and read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation (Scotland) Procedure Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and to have been reported from the Committee.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Presented and read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation (Scotland) Procedure Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and to have been reported from the Committee.
COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TUNBRIDGE WELLS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
CITY OF STOKE-ON-TRENT ORDER.
BOROUGH OF BURY ST. EDMUNDS ORDER.
BOROUGH OF CREWE ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF ALDRIDGE ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF GAINSBOROUGH ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF WILLENHALL ORDER.
LORD WALKEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, he approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTRICITY BILL.
2.48 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1
Main functions of Electricity Boards.
(6) In exercising and performing their functions the Electricity Boards shall, subject to anti in accordance with any directions given by the Minister or Secretary of State under this Part of this Act—

(a) promoted the use of all economical methods of generating, transmitting and distributing electricity;

(b) secure, so far as practicable, the development, extension to rural areas and cheapening of supplies of electricity;

(c) avoid undue preference in the provision of such supplies;

614

(d) promote the simplification and standardisation of methods of charge for such supplies;

(e) promote the standardisation of systems of supply and types of electrical fittings;

and shall also promote the welfare, health and safety of persons in the employment of the Boards.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (6), to insert after paragraph (b):
"(c) minimize and where practicable void payment of contributions to the cost of electric lines from persons requiring supplies provided such persons enter into agreements to consume or pay for definite amount: of electricity on reasonable terms."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a very short and modest Amendment which I hope the Government will see their way to accept. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, told us in a very frank speech the importance which the Government attached to developing electricity in rural areas, a view shared by all sides of the House. Your Lordships will remember we all agreed that we should put into the Bill a provision that in constituting the area boards the Minister should have regard to persons with agricultural knowledge. Your Lordships may say that these general clauses are rather in the nature of a pious aspiration of what these great nationalized undertakings are going to do. Of course they are not going to give us cheap and abundant electricity. That was only in the Election manifesto. The Lord Chancellor has made it plain that that is now out of date, and electricity in future will be neither cheap nor abundant.
There are a certain number of what I suppose we ought to call exhortatory provisions, which exhort the Central Authority and the boards to do certain things, but we do not say a lot about agriculture, and I would like in these exhortatory provisions to insert these words:
"Minimize and where practicable avoid payment of contributions to the cost of electric lines from persons requiring supplies provided such persons enter into agreements to consume or pay for definite amounts of electricity on reasonable terms."
That leaves a pretty wide latitude, but I think it would be wise to put this in, because one of the things which in the past has handicapped the rural areas, whether in electricity or telephones, is the connexion charge. I am not saying you can get rid of it all at once. The thing must vary with the different areas; it is

615
more practical in some than in others. It may interest your Lordships to know that the words I have put down are, I think I am right in saying, exactly the same as the agreement entered into between the electricity companies and the farmers in this country. They were quite agreeable on both sides—and it seemed to me a very fair thing—that they should all go forward with this, not only as a sort of gentleman's agreement, but as set out in the concordat. I do not think the nationalized undertaking ought to do less for agriculture than free enterprise (or controlled enterprise, as it was in electricity) was prepared to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, let me make it quite plain at the outset that I have never said that electricity may not become cheaper, and that electricity may not become abundant. But not having the gift of prophecy, I refuse to prophesy that either of these happy events will happen. All I do say is that if you pass this Bill there is a good chance of electricity being cheaper and more abundant than it otherwise would have been. Whatever system of electrical supplies you have you will have a rise in the cost of coal, and I think we must all face up to the fact that, whatever Party is in power, and whatever the system may be, there will never again be cheap coal if it means sweated labour in the mines. All you can do is to produce your coal as scientifically as you can, and that is the desire of all of us.
Then there is this question about putting in these words. I say at once that I think this is an imaginative and up-to-date approach to this problem. It has been tried, as your Lordships know, in Dumfriesshire; it has been pressed by the National Farmers' Union; and it is at the present time, I believe, the subject matter of an inquiry by the Electricity Commissioners. I think there is much to be said for it. But, after all, this is typically a matter which we ought to leave to those bodies—the Central Authority and the area boards—with whom we are charging this task. If they think this is a practicable way of dealing with it, no one will be more pleased than I shall. If they
616
think it is not practicable at the present time, or not practicable at all, then it is for them to decide. It seems to me that this is a typical illustration of a matter of good business management. I have no doubt that the up-to-date companies to-day—and there are many of them—have been considering this sort of thing. This must be considered now by the bodies which we have, for better or for worse, put in charge of this industry. If I may say so, I do not think it is for us to lay down this principle. I think it is for us rather to trust these bodies, with full authority, to do what they think best; and I sincerely hope that in considering what line they should pursue they will look favourably at the suggestion in this Amendment. At the same time, I do feel it is for them and not for us, and I think it would be a mistake to put it in the Bill.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I would like to say a word or two on this Amendment. I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount thinks that this would be out of place in the Bill. Once you get a board with a large staff, and a whole series of priority duties, those are the things which engage the very busy people who are on a new corporation like this, and they forget all these pious undertakings in Parliament unless they are in black and white in the Bill along with the other things. I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount cannot agree to some form of words in this respect. There is no doubt that one of the major grievances of the agricultural industry is not only the introduction of double summer time but also the ordinary summer time. The milking in the dark is prolonged for weeks and weeks all through the winter into the spring, which is a terrible hardship and, incidentally, causes great difficulty in all those larger dairy farms which have not got electric light, and the rest of it.
Speaking as a milk producer, I want to say that we in this country are still far behind Canada and Switzerland, and some other countries, in the eradication of diseases conveyed by milk. Some progress has been made, and is being made, but I am satisfied that we shall never get milk, particularly in the hot summer months, free from bacillus, and all the rest of it, unless the bigger dairy farms of the country are properly electrified. In the interests of health, and in the interests of farming, that should be very high on the priority

617
list before this new electricity corporation. I am very sorry that words cannot be inserted in this Bill, if only in a tentative form, to make that one of the premier targets to be aimed at.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3:
Constitution of Central Authority and Area Boards.
(3) Every area board shall be constituted as follows—

(a) the chairman and not less than five or more than seven other members shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst persons appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, electricity supply, local government, industrial, commercial, agricultural or financial matters, applied science, administration, or the organisation of workers; and

(b) there shall be one other member who shall be the person for the time being holding the office of chairman of the consultative council established under the following provisions of this Part of this Act for the area of the area board:

Provided that, until the consultative council has been established, an area board shall be deemed to be properly constituted notwithstanding that the Board does not include the member referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection.
(4) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being a member of the Central Authority or any area board so long as he is a member of the Commons House of Parliament.
(5) The Minister shall appoint one or more of the members of the Central Authority to be deputy chairman or deputy chairmen of that Authority, and shall appoint one of the members of each of the area boards to be deputy chairman of that Board.
3.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), after "Minister," to insert "after consultation with the Central Authority." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, may I say this, and this only? I have never pretended that the area boards are perfectly free. On the contrary, it is quite obvious to anybody who studies this Bill that there is a very severe limitation placed upon them by the Central Authority. But that fact seems to me to be no reason whatever why we should place them still further under the control of the Central Authority, and therefore I suggested to your Lordships that if it is a question between the Central Authority and the Minister it is much better to
618
have the Minister. Your Lordships did not think so, and I suggested a compromise, which was that it should be the Minister who appoints, but he appoints after consultation with the Central Authority. I think that idea commended itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, after ("Minister") insert ("after consultation with the Central Authority").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Viscount has completely carried out the pledge he gave.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the end of subsection (3): "and, during any period before the vesting date, an area board shall be deemed to be properly constituted if the chairman and three other members have been appointed." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee the Government accepted an Amendment to provide for the vesting date to be not less than three months after the establishment of all the area boards and the definition of their areas. It was finally included in an Amendment to Clause 14, but on consideration we found that that provision might cause difficulties. For instance, supposing there were one appointment still to be made to only one area board, the vesting date would have to be postponed, and that really would be unreasonable. The minimum number of members of an area board will eventually be seven, including the chairman of the consultative council. The chairman of the consultative council is not required to be appointed by the vesting date. But even if the chairman of the consultative council is not counted it would be necessary to make 84 appointments—that is six times fourteen—by a date three months before the vesting date, and if there had been only 83 appointments the vesting date would have to be postponed.
Since it is the intention that the regulations relating to the quorum of area b cards shall provide for the area board quorum being fixed at four members, it seems reasonable to provide, as is done in this Amendment, for the area board to be considered as sufficiently established before the vesting date if it consists of four members--namely, the chairman and three other members. The Amendment only covers the period up to the vesting

619
date, and it will be incumbent on the Minister to fill the remaining vacancies on any area board up to the minimum number of the chairman and not less than five other members before the vesting date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE had an Amendment on the Paper, to insert, after the second "shall" in subsection (5), ("after consultation with the Minister"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, a clerical error has crept into this Amendment, which as it stands is meaningless. The words should be "after consultation with the Central Authority," and with your Lordships' permission I would move the Amendment in that form. The Minister now appoints the area board in consultation with the Central Authority; he appoints the chairman in consultation with the Central Authority, and I am proposing what I think is reasonable, that in appointing the deputy chairman he should also consult the Central Authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 46, after ("shall") insert ("after consultation with the Central Authority").—(Lord Hawke.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I am not able to accept this Amendment now. I confess that in the very few minutes I had to look at this Amendment I was very puzzled by it as it appeared on the Paper. It obviously had no meaning, and therefore was quite unworthy of the noble Lord. Whether or not I shall be given any instructions to look kindly towards this Amendment if the words "Central Authority" are substituted I really do not know, but at the present moment I have no instructions about that aspect of the matter. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment now I will find out what view those who control me have about it, and I will communicate with him.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I quite agree that the Amendment ought now to be withdrawn, but I hope that my noble friend will put it down on Third Reading in the right form. I am sure the Lord Chancellor will agree that we all
620
came to an understanding that the Minister should appoint after consultation. The whole idea is that they should work as a team and work together, and if they are to consult as to who shall be chairman they must consult as to the deputy chairman. I should have thought this Amendment would have been accepted out of hand.
LORD HAWKE: I apologize to the noble and learned Viscount for having puzzled him, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9:
Compulsory purchase of land.
>9.—(1) The Minister may authorize any Electricity Board to purchase compulsorily any land which they require for any purpose connected with the discharge of their functions, and the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946 (except Section two thereof), shall apply, in relation to any such compulsory purchase. as if the Board were a local authority within the meaning of that Act and as if this Act had been in force immediately before the commencement of that Act.
3.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to insert in subsection (1):
"Provided that nothing in this section shall authorize the compulsory purchase of any land which, at the date of the first notice for the purposes of the compulsory purchase of such land, is used or authorized to be used by any gas or water undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, at the outset I should apologize to the Lord Chancellor. An Amendment somewhat similar to this but not, I think, quite so accurate, was put down in my name at an earlier stage and my noble friend Lord Simon moved the Amendment, eliciting from the Lord Chancellor a somewhat elaborate reason why, in his opinion, the Amendment was not well founded and ought not to proceed. The reason why I wish to apologize to the noble and learned Viscount is that closer examination of the speech he made to your Lordships on the subject has shown what is not really surprising, having regard to the great complexity of the subject, two errors of some importance. I had intended to visit the Lord Chancellor personally and state to him what happened, but on the occasions I have tried I ascertained he

621
was so busy with other matters that he would not welcome any expenditure of half an hour or thereabouts in being informed from a legal point of view of this very troublesome matter. Therefore, if he should say—as I can quite understand he may say—that he wishes to look into it further I shall at once give way, because I do not think it is fair to discuss before your Lordships at length at this stage of the proceedings a very very troublesome point of law.
At any rate, I should explain exactly what it is, which I think I can do in a very few words. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on the information given to him, no doubt, was of the opinion that the present position was that compulsory purchase of land was permissible even though the land should belong to gas or water undertakings without statutory authority. I am very anxious that gas and water undertakers, whether statutory or not, should not be within this general clause. The Lord Chancellor rightly pointed out that these statutory undertakers were already outside the clause, and he told us that non-statutory gas or water undertakers were, at present, not protected by any provision in any existing Statute; and that, I think, was a mistake. Those undertakers under the existing law are free from compulsory purchase by Section 24 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, which is, in fact, repealed (your Lordships will find it, I think, on page 121 of the present Bill.) Section 24 is the one which at present protects gas and electricity undertakings from compulsory purchase although they have no statutory authority. They are ruled by statutory orders of various kinds; some of them are to be utility undertakings, and they are, at the moment, protected.
The noble and learned Viscount made one other slip, if he will allow me to say so—it is the easiest thing to do; I have made many myself—he suggested that Provisional Order procedure was as extinct as the dodo as the result of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. But that cannot be absolutely accurate, for it was a dodo that by subsequent orders could be revived and allowed to flap its wings; and the Provisional Order, in fact, can be used by Section 26 of the Act of 1919, which empowered the Electricity Commissioners
622
to exercise, by special order. the power of the Board of Trade to authorize by Provisional Order, the compulsory purchase of land. That left alive the restriction in Section 24 of the Icon Act; and that is the reason why it to be repealed by the existing Bill.
I would urge upon the noble and learned Viscount that he might consider the matter further. The gas undertakings of this country are in some danger unless the Amendment before your Lordships' House is accepted. Some of the water undertakings in Scotland, I am told, and practically all the gas undertakings in the land, are undertakings that have no statutory authority. And that is also true of a large number of gas undertakings in this country. For the m the position is that electricity undertakers (who have often settled down alongside the works of the gas undertaking) might very well want to extend their powers by acquiring the adjoining land, and that is a thing of which certain gas undertakings are very much afraid. I should imagine the same thing is true of water undertakings. Therefore there is an overwhelming reason why gas and water undertakings who, by accident, do not happen to have statutory authority, because they could get all they wanted without statutory authority, ought to be protected every bit as much as those who have statutory authority.
Whether the Lord Chancellor wants me to argue the whole point now, or prefers to consider whether what I have said with reference to the law is correct, is a matter which he must decide. The law is one which prohibits compulsory acquisition of land, of gas and water undertakings, whether with statutory authority or not, and that is not to he changed. I would strongly urge that, as a matter of protection, it is far better to keep that provision in force. Commercial concerns are customers of the electricity supply authorities, whoever they may be, but gas and water undertakings are competitors with these electricity authorities who will, in future, be the Electricity Commissioners, and therefore they ought: to be protected. I shall certainly urge noble Lords to vote in favour of the Amendment, which simply retains the status quo. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 38, at end, insert the said new words.—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I ask for time to consider this matter it is only because if I have made any error in my law I should naturally like to put it right. I am very conscious of the fact that I may have made some such error, and I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, says he is in the same boat. I very often do make errors of law, and if I have done so now I shall be the first to acknowledge it. On the other hand, I think the principle behind this is quite plain and is one which makes it impossible for me to accept this Amendment, either now or on any subsequent occasion. The noble Viscount is quite right in his description of the Act of 1909. Section I of that Act conferred certain powers to make Provisional Orders, and by, I think, Section 24, a limitation was put upon the generality of the powers conferred by Clause I. In particular it said that nothing therein should enable any Provisional Order to be made adversely affecting any gas or water undertaking. Your Lordships will observe that those words are wide enough to cover both statutory and non-statutory undertakings. It is really rather ancient wording because it is now quite certainly a fact—I hope this is not an error of law—that, so far as a local authority is concerned, by reason of the Act of 1946 they are empowered—.there was an Amendment made in the Act of 1946 to the Act of 1909—now compulsorily to acquire gas and electricity undertakings by the procedure which is now appropriate, that is to say the Authorisation Procedure Act. So that we have now got to this position: a local authority, notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 1909 restricting the making of Provisional Orders, can under the Act of 1946 compulsorily acquire land of gas or water undertakings. That is so far.
The position as I see it to-day is this: so far as you are dealing with a statutory undertaker, they can insist on the special Parliamentary procedure and, without going at length into that, your Lordships know that it is something not unlike a private Bill. That is what they contend. So far as the non-statutory owners of gas and water undertakings are concerned, they have the protection,
624
no more and no less, which every landowner has if his land is going to be taken—namely, they can insist on a local inquiry and they can insist on their objections being taken into account. If, notwithstanding, the Minister decides to approve the suggested order, then the order has to go; so there is no absolute protection. But, on the other hand, although there is no absolute protection, before approving an order in regard to the land which is actually being utilized by a gas undertaking—and usefully utilized for the benefit of the public—can one conceive that the Minister in his right mind would approve such an order if the effect of it would be to put a gas or water undertaking out of business?
But, when you are dealing with land which a gas or water company is authorized to take but have not yet taken, or perhaps never will take, it seems to me impossible to say that an electricity authority cannot with Ministerial approval have the right compulsorily to acquire that land. I cannot see why the Central Authority or the area board should be in any worse position than any local authority; any local authority can acquire it compulsorily. Why on earth should you put the Electricity Authority or the area boards in a worse position there? To that I have no answer. Although I am very sorry if I have misstated the law, yet I am quite satisfied that the essence of this thing is that you must trust these bodies and the Minister not to act in a stupid way and, for instance, let an electricity authority come and nestle against a gas undertaking and thereupon compulsorily acquire all their gasometers. That would be ridiculous and no Minister would approve it. There should be no absolute bar any more than there is for a local authority and, accordingly, I am unable to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, and in fact I will not intervene at all on the matter of law, because it would be a pure impertinence for a very ex-junior counsel to put himself between these two most eminent jurists. But on the practical side of what will happen here, I am bound to say, speaking for myself, that I do not think the danger is great enough for us to wish to divide the House, although

625
I think it is very desirable that the matter should have been raised and explained as fully as it has been.
The Act of 1946, whether we like it or not, has made a difference in this matter, but I agree that even though we passed the Act of 1946, if we were running into great danger here or going to do something obviously unfair, we ought not to be prevented, by something we did in 1946 advertently or inadvertently, from doing something better here. Is there a real element of danger here? On this I would carry Viscount Maugham with me. So far as land is just land which is not being used for the public purpose, it seems to me that a non-statutory undertaking ought to be treated like any others who are landowners; I do not really see why they should have a special protection. On the other hand, where, of course, they are, so to speak, servants of the public—not that all good landlords are not servants of the public—and where they are concerned in providing gas or water, then obviously we must be very careful that we do not risk a public service.
But in fact, I do not think there is any danger of that here, because any Minister, whatever his political complexion—even a Communist Minister, if we ever have one!—if for instance he is the Minister of Health will, I suppose, still have the function of looking after water supplies and being their guardian and trustee. If the Minister is concerned with something else, he will still have to look after, for instance, gas, and so on. He is going to look after that, or he will get into great trouble, local and general. He is going to look after it whether the undertaking which is providing is technically statutory or non-statutory, and therefore, in reality, I would have thought that we were not running into great danger. After the extremely sound legal arguments we have heard here, I thought we might not have to divide.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the gas and water undertakings will be by no means satisfied with the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount, but, in all the circumstances, I think I cannot do otherwise than withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.27 p.m.
Clause 13 [Bodies to whom Part II of Act applies]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert in subsection (1):
"Provided that any company who are not authorized undertakers, a power station company or an electricity holding company but who hold securities of, or rights in respect of monies owed by, authorized undertakers or power station companies amounting to a substantial proportion of the assets of the first mentioned company, may serve on the Minister, not later than two months after the passing of this Act, a notice stating that they wish to be treated as an electricity holding company, and the Minister may, on the service of such notice, if he thinks fit, by order direct that this Act is to have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if the company were an electricity holding company, and the Act shall have effect accordingly.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment gives a company the option to come in. So generous, will you please observe, are the terms which we are offering that we have been approached by at least one company which is not technically a holding company because they do not own 75 per cent.—it is something rather smaller; they have asked us: "Please may we come in?" Therefore, I move this proviso in order that such a company may serve a notice and may come in and get this rare and refreshing fruit which we are proposing to offer. It is purely optional; they may serve a notice if they are so minded; whether they would be wise to be so minded or not is for them to decide. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I must congratulate the Lord Chancellor that there is joy in the Cabinet over one capitalist coming into their camp. There must be a great many others who have gone into the other camp.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
Special provision for electricity holding companies.
.—(1) This section applies to any electricity holding company who shall, not later than three months after the passing of this Act serve on the Minister notice in writing stating that they wish this section to apply to then by reason of the fact that they were, at the

627
date of the last audited balance sheet of the company, before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, either directly or indirectly, the beneficial owners of extraneous assets specified in general terms in such notice and being property situate outside Great Britain, or being property situate within Great Britain which is not reasonably required for the efficient and economical administration or operation of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers or power station company:
Provided that no such notice as aforesaid shall have effect unless accompanied by a certificate signed by the auditor of the company and stating that the company was at such date as aforesaid the beneficial owner of the extraneous assets specified in the notice.
(2) Every company to which this section applies shall be deemed not to be an electricity holding company for the purposes of the provisions of this Act.
(3) If, not later than three months after any company to which this section applies shall have served a notice under subsection (1) of this section, the Central Authority shall, by notice in writing to the company, require that all such, if any, of the property of the company as is reasonably required for the efficient and economical administration or operation of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers or power station company shall vest in the Central Authority, then the beneficial interest of the company in all such property shall, on the vesting date or one month after the date of such notice, whichever shall be the later, vest, by virtue of this Act and without further assurance, in the Central Authority.
(4) There shall be paid by the Central Authority to the company by way of compensation for the property vested in accordance with the last preceding subsection such sum as may be agreed between the Central Authority and the company or, in default of agreement, as shall be determined by arbitration under this Act as the fair market value of the beneficial interest of the company in such property.
(5) Not later than two months after any company to which this section applies shall have served a notice under subsection (1) of this section, either the Central Authority, or any person employed by the company wholly or mainly in the administration or operation of any one or more authorised undertakers of power station companies, may serve upon the other and upon the company a notice in writing requiring that any agreement for personal services made between the company and such person, and in force at the vesting date, shall apply and have effect as though such person had been employed by an electricity holding company, and thereupon the employment of such person by the company shall, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act, be deemed to be employment by an electricity holding company.
(6) Any question arising under this section as to whether any property is reasonably required for the efficient and economical administration or operation of any authorised undertakers or power station company, or as
628
to whether any person was employed wholly or mainly in the administration or operation of any one or more authorised undertakers or power station companies, shall be determined, in default of agreement, by the Minister."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope the Lord Chancellor will be in an equally accommodating mood upon this clause. If he does not take instructions but consults his own good sense and his own fairness and judgment, I am quite sure that he will be equally accommodating. I am not going again through all the very long discussion which we had on a previous occasion when the whole case for the holding companies was deployed. I undertook then to try to find a simpler solution which would obviate all the very complicated chain of Amendments which my noble friends and I had put upon the Paper, and I have succeeded in this one single simple clause. Your Lordships will see that there are no consequential Amendments to it anywhere in the Bill.
This is a simple solution. It is fair to everybody; it has none of the complications of the original Amendment and, if I may say so, it has none of the injustices which I am sure the Lord Chancellor himself intensely disliked but felt bound to defend because he could not see a convenient alternative. Here is a convenient alternative, and I am sure that he would admit that his own original proposal—the proposal in the Bill—is inconvenient as well as unjust. That it is inconvenient nobody could possible deny. In the first place the Minister is made to acquire a number of assets which he does not in the least want to acquire. In the second place, the shareholders would have to go out and create a new entity, register a new company, and buy back the assets they never wanted to part with, and which the Minister never desired to acquire.
As we proceeded through the Bill and reached, I think, Clause 30, we discovered that there were more difficulties in the way. As the Lord Chancellor explained to us, foreign courts and, indeed, Commonwealth courts, would not recognize the title given by this Act of Parliament, and all these assets might become, in foreign or Commonwealth countries, bona vacantia; nobody could claim them—the Minister would not get them, the company had to part with them, and the Minister had to direct them to be sold. It was a very cumbersome and stupid business, we all agreed—the Chancellor no less than others of your Lordships. It was

629
unfair, too, because nobody has ever denied that the company would have to buy back a, proportion of its assets, with which it should never have parted, at a higher price than the Government gave for the part which they had bought.
The new clause on the Paper has been very carefully vetted and I understand that, so far as it goes, everybody is agreed that it gives the Minister exactly what he wants. It transfers to him what he wants, at the price which the Government themselves have laid down in the Bill. We are all agreed what ought to be taken over, and about what are called extraneous assets. What ought to be taken over are the electricity assets in the United Kingdom—that is, the authorized undertakings and the power stations and anything else which is reasonably required for the generation and distribution of electricity in this country, and the operation of that business. The rest are extraneous. Let us see, just for a moment or two, how effectively that simple operation is achieved by this clause, for which I thank and pay tribute to a much more ingenious and skilful draftsman than myself. Subsection (1) gives the holding companies the right to claim the retention of extraneous assets. The onus is on them. They have to say, "We have these extraneous assets and we wish to claim them and to carry on." Your Lordships will see that we have safeguarded that further by saying that their notice must be accompanied by a certificate from an auditor.
Then the very simple little subsection (2) has this effect: it means that the company will not be treated as a holding company, but will be treated like anybody else who holds electricity assets; that is to say, the Central Authority or the area boards will get them exactly as the Bill lays down—every one of them. It will get the quoted assets at the Stock Exchange quotation and it will get any assets that are unquoted at the price the Bill lays down—namely, an agreed price or a price to be settled by arbitration, on the rather odd formula "as near to what they would have been if they had been quoted." The Government has the right under subsection (3), to claim any ancillary assets. There cannot be many that fall between the two stools, but if they say: "There is something else which we would like to take over," they can give
630
notice that they want to take it over. If your Lordships will look at subsection (6), you will see how fair we are to the Government. There may be a dispute as to whether something is an ancillary asset or not. I must admit that the ordinary course would be to put up an independent arbitrator, but we have been content here to leave it to the Minister, and to say that, if there is a dispute as to whether a thing is reasonably ancillary or not, the Minister can take the decision himself. Then the price of these ancillary assets—and there may not be many of them, I understand—is an agreed price or a price settled by arbitration as being the far market value, which, as the Lord Chancellor said, is what you would have to pay if you had sold the assets and were buying them back again.
Lastly, in regard to subsection (5), your Lordships will remember that really the Lord Chancellor last time did not defend this curious transaction on any ground except that he had to have it in order to get the staff. Any people who are the staff of the subsidiary companies, a power company or an authorized undertaking, of course, will go over, and the benefit of the contract of service will go over, and it was for that reason that the Lord Chancellor advanced this extraordinary proposition last time. If I may call it so, here in subsection (5) is the David and Uriah subsection. The contracts of service with the holding companies can be assigned subject, of course, to whatever rights the individuals have. We must not override those. That relieves the Lord Chancellor of the last vestige of an excuse for rejecting this clause and it also relieves him—and it must be a great relief to the House and to himself—of this disagreeable necessity, if necessity it was, of emulating the late King David in one of the most disreputable episodes of his career. I think this is a simple, a practical and a fair proposal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, may I say a word in support of the Amendment which has been moved? When we were discussing this measure in Committee, the Lord Chancellor took exception to my description of the offer which he had made to meet the case which we had put to the Committee. I

631
think I had described it as amounting to little more than a suggestion that holding companies with non-electrical assets might save the Minister the trouble of finding a purchaser hereafter for those assets which he did not want, by selling them before the vesting date, and the purchase price which they obtained would then vest with the Central Authority. The Lord Chancellor accused me of wishing, not only to be compensated for my assets, these extraneous assets, but desiring also to keep them in my possession. Of course, that was not my suggestion at all, and I think the difference between us arose from the Lord Chancellor's contention that the purchase of shares at Stock Exchange values represented full payment for these extraneous assets. Our contention is that it is nothing of the sort.
Let me make plain to your Lordships just what it is for which the holding companies are asking. In so far as they possess any electrical assets they want the Central Authority to take all of them. It is their desire that anything that the Central Authority may require for the purpose of generating or distributing electricity they shall be at liberty to take. The holding companies do not wish to withhold anything that may be needed for the purposes of this Bill. But in regard to the extraneous assets which are not wanted, which, as the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has told us over and over again, are not needed, and which, if taken over the Central Authority would be obliged subsequently to sell, the holding companies wish to have the option of retaining them. That wish was not met by the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount during the Committee stage, and it has not been met by any suggestion put forward by the Government at any time during the discussions on this Bill, either here or in another place. We do not want to part with the assets which the Minister or the Central Authority would not want. We wish to keep them and keep them without payment. There is no suggestion that we should, first of all, receive payment, and then keep the assets.
It is quite possible, as the Amendment provides, to distinguish between these two electrical assets—those which are wanted and will be handed over, and the non-electrical assets which are not wanted
632
and which will be retained, and compensation will be paid only for what is taken. Nothing will be paid for what is left. This Amendment seems to me to give the Government all that they want, and to leave the holding companies all that they, in their turn, wish to retain. For that reason I give my full support to the Amendment.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I too, would like to support the Amendment. I think that it has the merit of simplicity, and that it does get the Minister and the Government out of a great difficulty of having to do something which they admit themselves that they do not wish to do—that is to take over assets which they do not want. The Amendment has the further merit, which perhaps may not be so popular, of taking over the assets which the Board do want for the value of those assets instead of taking over the whole holding company, including those assets, for something that is probably less than the total value of the assets of the holding company, and then selling the assets which are not wanted. If that is the real reason it is a discreditable reason, and I would not expect the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to refuse to accept this Amendment for the insertion of this clause on such grounds.
But I think that the grounds on which this Amendment are valid and good are grounds which have appealed to others in another place, for I see that in the course of a debate which took place in another place on this subject of holding companies Mr. Gaitskell himself expressed considerable doubt—or perhaps I should just say doubt; for I do not wish to exaggerate—of the wisdom of taking over holding companies. I think that he added that, if sufficiently cogent arguments could be put forward for maintaining the holding companies while taking those assets which the Central Authority do want, he, speaking for His Majesty's Government, might be open to persuasion. It is because of the very cogent arguments put forward here in your Lordships' House by the noble Viscount who has moved the Amendment that I ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to consider whether this is not a solution of the difficulties, and if it will not obviate the Government being involved in the accusation which is bound to be made that the real purpose of taking over holding

633
companies and acquiring things which the Board do not want, is for the purpose of obtaining things which the Board want at a cheaper price than is justified.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may say so, your Lordships have been very good in that you have not repeated all the arguments relating to this matter which we had at such very great length on the last occasion. I propose to follow the good example which has been set, and to treat the arguments which were put forward on the last occasion, if I may do so, as having been here restated and repeated. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment. I did not know until quite a few minutes ago what form this Amendment was likely to take, though, of course, I knew that there was likely to be such an Amendment. I understand that representatives of the holding companies have had discussions with officials of the Minister. That was very much wiser than having them with me because the Minister's officials were able to speak authoritatively. On the other hand, it puts me in a slight difficulty in that I do not fully appreciate the arguments which the representatives of the holding companies advanced. But I can only say that so far as I am concerned the Amendment is quite impossible.
I know that your Lordships attach importance to it. I appreciate, as I always do, to the full, the strength and cogency of the arguments advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, both on the last occasion and on this. If you regard the system of taking over on Stock Exchange valuation as a bad system, then, of course, this Amendment must commend itself to you, because the effect of the Amendment is to get rid of the Stock Exchange basis of valuation, root and branch. You have only to say that you have got a hat or a dog, or whatever it may be, which is not necessary for the purpose of the electricity part of your business, serve a notice, and, thereupon, the Stock Exchange method of valuation ceases to apply, and you have got to have arbitration. On the last occasion when we discussed this, I ventured to suggest that, having regard to difficulties of the franchise and that sort of thing, these arbitrations were almost impracticable, and that you could not arrive with
634
any sort of approach to scientific accuracy at a figure. The Amendment gets rid of the Stock Exchange valuation basis. Whether, for that reason, it endears itself to some noble Lords, I do not know. I rather gathered from the noble Lord, Lord Rennell—who I think, to a certain extent, let the cat out of the bag—that that was the reason why he liked it so much. That is the reason why we do not think it is a good Amendment.
The substance of the thing is this: There are, substantially, eleven holding companies who will be caught under the terms of the Bill—there is one other that wants to come in though it is not caught. The amounts involved of these extraneous assets, whether they be foreign securities or internal assets, are really quite small. They are not substantial at all having regard to the value of the electricity undertakings, and most of them, oddly enough, consist of some sort of transport undertakings which of course will be taken over under the Transport Bill. And there remains very little else—some foreign securities which are quoted and valued and therefore can be assessed quite easily, but very little else. We feel that we must maintain the clause as we have it. We believe that this Stock Exchange method is a fair method of taking over. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept an Amendment which knocks that method on the head and substitutes an entirely different method. of valuation, and does it for the reason, ostensibly, that there are some extraneous assets involved, which are quite small really. We say the right thing is to accept our Stock Exchange method. Then if you want to get your extraneous assets, the Minister has said he is willing to help you, by means of a sale, or anything of that sort. I do not wish to waste your Lordships' time by saying anything more upon this—always provided, of course, that your Lordships do not think that I am treating the Amendment with any disrespect—because the arguments were put forward at great length, and dealt with, on the last occasion. I merely say I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to hear he speech of the noble and learned Viscount. He said he did not wish us to think that

635
he and the Government are treating this Amendment with disrespect, but I do not think they have given it what I call objective consideration. One thing is agreed, that these holding companies represent assets some of which the Government require under this Bill and some of which they do not require. It seems a perfectly simple process to put these securities into two categories, those representing the assets the Government want and those representing the assets they do not want. The extraneous assets should not come within the purview of this measure at all. Then we are left with those assets they want and those quoted on the Stock Exchange are to receive Stock Exchange valuation, but those not quoted on the Stock Exchange are to be calculated on an arbitration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Marquess forgive me, on a point of accuracy? This Amendment means that if there are any extraneous assets, the Stock Exchange valuation principle goes by the board for all assets.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not speak with great authority on these subjects, but I cannot see that. I frankly
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
cannot see that. Certain securities represent the assets which are not required by the Government and that does not in the least affect those other securities which represent assets required by the Government. The assets which are not quoted on the Stock Exchange are to be taken on arbitrated value. The Lord Chancellor said it is quite impossible to get an arbitrated value. I do not agree at all. It is something which is constantly done. The Lord Chancellor poured scorn on the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, because he said the only reason for refusing this Amendment was that the Government wanted to get all the assets. The Lord Chancellor said that might be true and that was the reason the Government refused this Amendment. I thought that a very cynical remark. We are trying in this country to give value for money and the Government ought to do that, and to say that this method was a method of getting something below market price is not a very reputable thing to do. I am afraid this must be taken to a Division.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.

Elibank, V.

Gifford, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Long, V.

Gisborough, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Maugham, V.

Grenfell, L. [Teller.]

Reading, M.

Mersey, V.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Monsell, V.

Harlech, L.

Willingdon, M.

Ridley, V.

Hawke, L.

Samuel, V.

Hazelrigg, L.

Airlie, E.

Simon, V.

Kenilworth, L.

De La Warr, E.

Swinton, V.

Llewellin, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Wimborne, V.

Lloyd, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Polwarth, L.

Grey, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Rennell, L.

Howe, E.

Barnby, L.

Rochdale, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Braye, L.

Rushcliffe, L.

Lindsay, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Selsdon, L.

Lucan, E.

Broughshane, L.

Sinha, L.

Lytton, E.

Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)

Soulbury, L.

Manvers, E.

Stanmore, L.

Perth, E.

Cherwell, L.

Teynham, L.

Rothes, E.

Courthope, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Selkirk, E.

Denham, L.

Windlesham, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wolverton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Henderson, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Addison, V.

Holden, L.

Morrison, L.

Kershaw, L.

Nathan. L.

Ammon, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

3.59 p.m.
Clause 14:
Vesting of assets of electricity undertakings.
The vesting date shall be not less than six months after the establishment of the Central Authority and not less than three months after the establishment of all the area boards and the definition by order made under Part I of this Act of all the areas for which those Boards are established.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "and shall not be earlier than the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-eight." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the insertion of the words, "and shall not be earlier than the first day of April, 1948." This carries out an undertaking I gave. I had hoped I might be able to go one better, but I have not been able to do so. I may tell your Lordships, that, unless something stupendous happens, we expect the vesting date to be some time in the month of April, 1948.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 21, at end, insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 30, after ("section") insert ("and Section seventeen of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Provisions as to undertakings of local authorities]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 7, leave out ("which vests") and insert ("rights, liabilities and obligations which vest").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 9, leave out ("held or used") and insert ("rights, liabilities or obligations
638
held, used, acquired or incurred").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Composite companies]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is little mare than drafting. It is necessary in order to make it clear that questions arising under Clause 15 (2), which is applied by Clause 17 (4) to composite companies, should be decided by arbitration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 31, after ("Minister") insert ("and any question whether any property is or was (for the purposes of the said subsection (2) as so applied) held or used partly in the said capacity and partly in other capacities shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration under this Act "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Disclaimer of agreements and leases.
18.—(1) Where any Electricity Board in whom are vested the rights, liabilities and obligations of any body to whom this Part of this Act applies, being rights, liabilities and obligations under an agreement made or varied on or after the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, are of opinion that the making or the variation of that agreement was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the activities of the said body or that the agreement was made or varied with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the said body, the Board may, by notice in writing given to the other parties to the agreement before the expiration of three months from the vesting date, disclaim the agreement:
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "not," to insert "expedient or." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, it is my fate in connexion with these nationalization Bills to be constantly moving Amendments at the request of nervous people who are afraid that the words of the Bill may bear a meaning which would be very adverse to common sense. On some occasions I have been perfectly right, and I have succeeded in getting words added which have made tine matter clear. This is an example—it is quite simple, and is not a legal question at all—and I appeal to your Lordships to realize what I am going to say. The notion of the Government was that after November 19, 1945, certain persons

639
whose rights were probably going to be acquired as the result of a future Bill—meaning this Bill—would try to get benefit by making agreements, or varying agreements, which agreements or variations were not really necessary for the purposes of the activities of the undertaking, whatever it was. To take an example, a director of a company might make an agreement with a relative under which the relative was to get some benefit which the director would not ordinarily have given him but for the notion that the undertaking was going to be taken over by the Government. Or, again, properties might be paid for at exorbitant prices.
The words chosen are these. The Bill refers to the Board being of opinion that the making or variation of the agreement in question
"was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the activities of the said body or that the agreement was made or varied with an unreasonable lack of prudence."
This is the difficulty. What do the words "not reasonably necessary" mean? Take the case of an electric lighting company which in the ordinary course of business acquired some adjoining property for the purposes of extension of their business, or acquired land for a factory for the workmen, or did any one of the numerous things that an electric lighting company might do in complete good faith, having an eye to the future, and in particular to the future of their undertaking. Are those things that are reasonably necessary? It will be said: "They are not necessary, because it was not necessary for you to extend your undertaking, or to make the calculation that property, contracts, or so forth, ought to be made having regard to the future. Strictly those things are not necessary. You could go on with your undertaking." It might also be said: "It would not hurt the existing activities of your body not to have done these things, and it was not reasonably necessary for you to do anything of the kind." I have not attempted to give all the illustrations which will occur to many of your Lordships who are accustomed to business concerns, and I do not think I need take up your Lordships' time in considering them.
The word which I suggest will remove the doubt which I know exists in the minds
640
of a good many companies at the present moment, is simply the word "expedient." I do not in the least object to people who are managing a business of this sort having to establish that an agreement was either expedient or that it was not in the least degree owing to lack of prudence—in other words, that it was both expedient and prudent. I do not think an ordinary director or manager of a company would object to having to prove that, but if before this Bill comes into force—and, after all, we do not know when it will actually become law—one of these companies is offered a very good deal of some sort, I am told that the directors will not touch it if it is in the least degree one which involves a considerable amount of money and some risk. All your Lordships will know that to take risks is of the essence of successful trading, and that you cannot be certain, if you are buying property, that it will turn out just what you hope, or that a contract will necessarily be a contract which six months later you will be glad to have made. Prices may have gone up, but, on the other hand, they may have gone down. You have to take the risk.
In those circumstances, I do not think it is fair that these companies should be exposed to the serious risk of the Electricity Board saying ex poste facto, in the light of the then known facts, that the agreement made or the variation of it was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the said body—which is one of the things which will make the companies liable—or that the agreement was made or varied with an unreasonable lack of prudence. I am not worrying about the second alternative; it is the first that I am worrying about. Therefore, I suggest that the word "expedient," if I may steal the words from the Bill, is reasonably necessary to prevent injustice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 40, after ("not") insert ("expedient or")—(Viscount Maugham.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount may be able to accept the Amendment of my noble friend. I hope that he will not give us the same answer that he gave in the Committee stage when we were dealing with a similar clause in connexion with the dissipation of assets. I have looked back in horror in my mind, on

641
second thoughts, at the answer he gave there. He said that development must go on, and it is, therefore, of the utmost importance that people should take their problems round to the Minister. They would he frightened to act in these matters—at least I should be—and I do hope a solution for all these things is not going to be for the board to have a cosy chat with the Minister, because I am convinced that the Minister and his senior officials will simply not have the time to give the necessary decisions, or perhaps absolutions, to the board. Wording such as my noble friend has suggested might help boards to make up their own minds, without going round to the Minister.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I would like to say a word in support of this Amendment, because I believe there is some real doubt in the minds of those who are concerned with this. I would briefly refer to Clause 29, which the noble Lord has mentioned. In that case the Lord Chancellor's answer was that the Minister could give his blessing to any such transaction, but in this clause he is not mentioned in that connexion. I think the difference is, first of all, that there is a question of the earlier date—that is to say it refers to an agreement or a lease made before the Bill itself was published. I think it also involves a third party, who may be quite an innocent third party, in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the same way as in Clause 29, referring to dissipation of assets, one cannot but agree that there should be something to prevent wilful misbehaviour by those so inclined; nevertheless I think we must agree that this clause should be drawn in such a way as to allow proper business enterprize to go on for the time being. I feel that the latter part of Clause 29 may have something to do with Clause 18, because Clause 29 (4) refers to disclaimer of leases. True, that is only leases made after the later date of publication of the Bill. I do hope that this Amendment will be accepted to make clearer the intention that it is only to catch people who wish to do something which is harmful to the industry.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I confess that I should have thought these words were quite clear enough as they stood. The word is not "necessary", it is "reasonably necessary",
642
and it is linked up with the phrase "or that the agreement was made or varied with an unreasonable lack of prudence". It is quite obvious, is it not, that what you are hitting at there is an unreasonable agreement, and "reasonably necessary" I should have thought was quite wide enough. Why I object to this additional word is that these words have become almost common form. They were put in the Coal Act without the word "expedient"; they are in the Transport Bill without the word "expedient", and if I put in here the words "or expedient"—which, in my view, are wholly unnecessary—I shall get some ingenious counsel getting up in court and saying: "Ah! when Parliament wanted to say 'expedient' it put in the word, and therefore in the Transport Act and the Coal Act you must not give any such construction at all." To adopt a form of words in this Bill which differs from the Coal Act and the Transport Bill might give rise to the ingenious form of argument I have just mentioned to your Lordships. Therefore, I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I can understand the Lord Chancellor's difficulty, but on the other hand I can tell him without any doubt that business is actually being held up. I would Lot make that statement if I did not know that it was true. He has said that "reasonably necessary" ought to cover everything, but the phrase is "reasonably necessary for the purposes of the activities of the said body ". But observe that the date which is put in here is rot the date of the introduction of this Bill; it is the date when some responsible Minister said that this particular industry was going to be nationalized. I think it was said that the gas industry was going to be nationalized. I do not know whether it is or is not, but I know that people in the gas industry are being held up from doing things because of the words in this Bill. There have been a lot of conflicting statements about iron and steel, and I am certainly not going to probe them now, but what is in these Bills undoubtedly has an effect upon other industries which are expecting that they may come within the ambit. Let us leave out iron and steel but take gas, about which a definite announcement has been made.

643
I know of a company which had made some extremely successful laboratory experiments for a particular process of manufacture which has hitherto been conducted entirely in the United States; they found the experiments going on quite successfully and decided to set up a factory. That was well within their Articles of Association, but it is not "reasonably necessary" for conducting the business of a gas undertaking. They therefore decided that this was a chance they had better not take, and that project is not being pursued. Inevitably, when you engage in these things this sort of legislation will have a stopping effect, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will consider what he can do to make the further, and what I may call the secondary, damaging effects of this legislation as little as possible at a time when we are all trying to get together to improve the productive output of this country and, in particular, to produce things which will be paid for in dollars.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I should like to say a word with reference to the contention put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, as to the problem of making these words "reasonably necessary" clear to the intelligence of the ordinary human being. In my opinion, the contention was not well founded in law. It is not a good argument to say that because in other Acts of Parliament, with other contexts dealing with other circumstances, the phrase used is "reasonably necessary," we should use the phrase here in this connexion. Of course, the noble and learned Viscount is guessing when he says that in the other Acts the words have a well-known meaning. They have not. It may well be that in the other Acts some contracts will be invalidated, on the ground of their not being "reasonably necessary" in such a case as that which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has just mentioned. How can we tell what they will say with regard to the meaning of the words in the other Acts, unless we can say that there is no foundation for the view that "reasonably necessary" is an equivalent to "expedient"?
I am willing to express the opinion quite definitely that "expedient" is not the same as "reasonably necessary"; and that there are cases in which the circumstances
644
would be treated by a tribunal as "expedient" when they were unable to say that it was "reasonably necessary." A thing has to be necessary as well as reasonable, or the word "necessary" would not be there. I cannot help thinking that this notion of slavish adherence to words used in another Act is unprecedented and unsound as a matter of law. I would strongly urge your Lordships to take the view that with this Bill before us we should make this important clause clear and intelligible so that he who runs may read. This is not the case at present.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 20:
Compensation to holders of securities of bodies other than local authorities.
(2) For the purposes of this section the value of any securities of any such body which were quoted in the Stock Exchange Official Daily List on all six of the following dates, that is to say, the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth days of November, nineteen hundred and forty-six, shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be deemed to be the average of the mean of the quotations therefor appearing in the said list on those dates, such addition, if any, being made to that average as is necessary to make it a complete multiple of one penny:
Provided that where—
(b) the average mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this subsection is less than the average of the mean of the quotations for the securities appearing in the said list on all the alternative dates on which a quotation therefor so appeared;
the value of the securities for the purposes of this section shall be deemed to be the average of the mean of the quotations therefor appearing in the said list on the alternative dates.
4.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, for calling attention to what I think was a defect in the drafting, and I have put down this Amendment to put the matter right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 45, after ("shall") insert ("if redeemable").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD RENNELL: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 1, leave out from ("redeemed") to ("and") in line 2, and insert ("in the same manner and at the same times").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved to add to the proviso in subsection (2):
"And provided also that if it shall be proved to the arbitration tribunal that owing to circumstances arising out of the late war the valuation of the securities or any class of the securities of any body to whom this part of the Act applies on the basis of the said quotations on either of the said dates or the alternative dates would be inequitable the arbitration tribunal may fix such other dates as they may think just and any date or dates so fixed by the arbitration tribunal shall be substituted for the said dates and alternative dates."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when the Lord Chancellor was answering an Amendment which I moved to Clause 26 of this Bill he was good enough to exonerate me from any suspicion of trying to seek an advantage for the companies in which I was interested. I hope he will not consider it improper or have occasion to revise the opinion he then expressed if I seek by this Amendment to ensure that certain classes of undertakers who may have already suffered loss of income by reason of their sacrifices in the war, should not also lose part of their capital by being bought out under this Bill at a date when their Stock Exchange quotations still reflected the losses imposed upon the company by their war sacrifices. I mentioned cases when we were in Committee and the Lord Chancellor agreed to look into the matter; but as he has not put down any Amendment to deal with it, I have put down this one to bring the point once more before your Lordships.
The dates selected in this clause for Stock Exchange quotations are all either in the year 1945 or 1946, and those are years when the Stock Exchange quotations reflected either gains or losses which might have been incurred during the preceding years of war. Some of the quotations would have been increased by reason of war gains, and some of them may have been diminished by reason of war losses. I pointed out in Committee that there were cases where companies have suffered very severe war damage at the hands of the enemy, and in consequence have been obliged to reduce their dividends, to raid their sinking funds, and to adopt other expedients—with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners
646
—and the result was still reflected in the price at which their shares were quoted in 1945 and 1946.
I was rather shocked when the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancel or, speaking of this clause in Committee, said that it was obviously true that they were paying too much in some cases and too little in others, but that there was no alternative. Does he really think it just to take one roan's property and pay him less than its value if at the same time you are taking property from someone else and paying more than its value? That is what this clause means. I am not concerned here with whether Stock Exchange quotations represent the fair value of shares or not. I am not concerned with whether it is just to take assets and pay for shares. We have expressed our opinions on that matter already and, if need be, we shall have another opportunity on the Third Reading of saying mare about it; but that is not involved in this Amendment. All that this Amendment seeks to do is to give the right to anybody to whom this Bill applies—and that includes also the Minister—to represent to the arbitration tribunal that if quotations on the dates selected in this Bill reflect either war gains or war losses and therefore not the values which represent the normal trading conditions of the company, then the arbitration tribunal may fix other dates. In other words, it seeks to correct the very inequality which the Lord Chancellor admitted was inevitable under the scheme in this Bill but for which he could find no remedy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 30, after ("dates") insert the said further proviso.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have not been able to find whir: I said on the last occasion, but I think that the gist of my remarks was this: that whatever system you devise, it not: being possible to arrive with complete scientific accuracy at the rates of payment, it is inevitable that you must pay some people too much and you must pay other people too little. It is no good deploring the fact; it is inherent in the fallibility of human justice. When you are dealing with a thing that you cannot assess with precision, that is bound to result. I cannot accept this Amendment and I do rot think I should be asked to.

647
If you assume that the Stock Exchange valuation is a fair basis to take, that is a matter of argument which we have had before. There is no suggestion, I think, that these dates are not fairly selected. I am not one of those who believe for one moment that the price at which securities are quoted on the Stock Exchange reflects merely the dividends they pay. I am quite satisfied that the very intelligent people who invest and advise on investing in shares study the balance sheets and reports of these companies with meticulous care. They know perfectly well whether these concerns are following a conservative policy, whether they are building up reserves, and that sort of thing. To suggest that those great trust companies who largely invest in these shares do not follow these matters is really to insult them. They understand perfectly well that the story of the dividend that is paid is only one factor, and by no means the most important factor, in the strength and stability of a company. Therefore, I cannot accept that we should take any other dates than these which we have already specified.
There is one further element which I would like to point out. By the Amendment which your Lordships have made to-day, you have said that a holding company which holds any extraneous asset at all—as I said before, it has only to be a coat and hat—can be deemed under your clause to be not a holding company and, that being so, that company is washed out. Thereupon you have to assess the value. In the vast majority of cases, those undertakings are not quoted on the Stock Exchange; consequently, you have to provide for arbitration. I would most respectfully say to the noble Earl that, having put that clause upon us, he ought not to have it the other way as well and select further dates so that, if it suits him, he may resort to the method of Stock Exchange valuation. For these reasons and for other reasons which we discussed before, I regret I am unable to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, with regard to the matter of the dates which the noble and learned Viscount has raised, this Amendment, with all respect to the noble and learned Viscount, is not concerned with Stock Exchange values. Does the noble and learned Viscount really think that during the war
648
years, if one company was making large profits and one company was incurring losses, the Stock Exchange quotations on those two companies in no way reflected the gains or losses which were the result of the war? It is obvious that they did. If some companies were making large profits as a result of the war, the value of the shares of those companies went up, and, in another case, where a company was making losses in consequence of war sacrifices, the price of those shares went down. By choosing a date which does not reflect the normal procedure and policy of the company—or, as the Lord Chancellor said, the relative conservative and wise or rash and speculative policies—those factors are not involved at all. By choosing a date in 1945 or 1946, when the effects of the recent war were still felt in Stock Exchange quotations, you are making shareholders who suffered temporary war losses suffer permanently by taking their shares at a price which reflects those losses, and you are enabling those companies which made war gains to enjoy a permanent benefit by taking their shares at an inflated value due to their war gains. That has nothing to do with the Amendment which we have just been discussing, which has nothing to do with Stock Exchange values, I have tried to remedy the point by means of this Amendment. I do not think the Lord Chancellor has answered the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry the noble Earl does not think that I have answered the question. The only way in which you want to value securities instead of valuing assets is by availing Yourself of the Stock Exchange method; otherwise, there is no point in valuing securities. Therefore, it is not accurate for the noble Earl to say that this clause does not deal with the Stock Exchange basis. It can only be addressed by that method.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 22:
(5) Any payment made by the Central Authority or the local authority under the foregoing provisions of this section which would, but for this Act, have been debited or credited as a capital payment, shall be deemed to be a capital payment, and any other such payment shall be deemed to be an annual payment.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved in subsection (5), after "payment" where that word occurs a second time, to insert "or any

649
payment made in respect of the liability for the redemption of a loan or the repayment of an advance." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this Amendment, I think the House will probably appreciate that this is a matter of vital concern to the urban district councils, of whom there are well over 100 whose electricity undertakings will, under the Bill, be vested in the proposed electricity boards. Clause 22 makes provision for the repayment by the electricity boards of sums which the urban district councils will have to continue to disburse out of their rates in respect of sinking fund charges on outstanding electricity loans.
I think perhaps I may most easily make the case that has been put before mc by taking a simple example. If a local authority, for instance, have borrowed, say, £100,000 for the purpose of their undertaking for a period of years, they will continue to be liable for the payment for some years to come of, say, £6,000 per annum in respect of the repayment of principal of the loan and, say, £3,000 per annum in respect of interest. In the Bill as it was introduced in another place, arid even as it passed the Committee of that other place, it was expressly provided that the payments to be made by the Central Authority, so far as they represented( principal, should be by way of capital payment. It was necessary so to provide as regards net interest, as Income Tax was in the ordinary course to be deducted from the payment of interest and the local authority would pay the amount net. Therefore, under the Bill as introduced, taking what I have said above as an example, the Central Authority would pay to the local authority £6,000 net in respect of the principal and £3,000, less Income Tax, in respect of interest.
That is as matters stood after the Bill passed through the Committee in another place. The Bill, however, was re-committed in another place, and these subsections (2) and (5) of Clause 22—the clause to which this Amendment is proposed—were added. The words that I have already quoted "by way of capital payments" do not appear in the new clause, but instead the words "capital payments" have been related to the conditions which will apply before the transfer of the undertaking. Therefore, I think it is clear that Clause 22 must be read as distinguishing between payments
650
which at the present moment are (a) debited as capital payments in the books of the local authority, and (b) other payments, such as payments of interest, which, in the books of the local authority, are debited as annual payments. No question arises as to these latter "other payments" but, as regards the first matter, I am advised—and I hope I am wrongly advised—that it is quite clear that repayments of principal by a local authority annually or half-yearly are debited as annual payments and not as capital payments.
Therefore the position would seem to be that, if the Bill is passed in its present form, the Central Authority will be entitled to deduct Income Tax, not only on the interest of the hypothetical figure of £3,000 which I mentioned but also for instalments of the principal of £6,000 per annum. This will mean that the local authorities, instead of being properly compensated in respect of the loss of the undertaking, will suffer in respect of serious financial loss by having to pay instalments of principal gross, and only receiving from the Central Authority such amounts less tax. I trust that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to give us an assurance on this matter. because this point has only been appreciated at a comparatively late stage, and. I hope very much that this argument which has been put forward really will be answered by the noble and learned Viscount. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 10, after the first ("payment") insert ("or any payment made in respect of the liability for the redemption a loan or the repayment of an advance")—(Lord 0'Hagan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have had a strange experience. I looked at this Amendment before I came here, and I thought it was a bad one. I look at my instructions, and my instructions are that I am to oppose it. However, I must say, having heard the noble Lord's argument, that I confess he has converted me. I think there is substance in what he has said, and I will take it upon myself to accept it.
LORD O'HAGAN: I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount, if I may.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.43 p.m.
Clause 25:
Compensation to composite companies.
25.—(1) Every composite company shall be entitled to be paid by the Central Authority, by way of compensation for the vesting in that Authority or in any other Electricity Board of property and rights of the company, and in lieu of any other compensation in respect of that vesting, an amount calculated as follows:—
(c) the amount of the compensation shall be an amount bearing to the aggregate value of the said securities the same proportion as the said average net revenue of the electricity undertaking bears to the said average net revenue of the company's undertaking as a whole.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), after "be," to insert:
"the aggregate of the following amounts—(i)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which has been tabled to comply with an undertaking given by my noble and learned friend in answer to an Amendment moved in Committee by Lord Wolverton, to pay companies compensation for severance as assessed by arbitration. The Amendment now proposed will give the companies compensation at the fiat rate of 5s. per thousand units of electricity sold in 1946, that is to say a payment as related to the size of electricity undertaking itself. This flat rate is the equivalent of the global sum of £5,000,000 to be given to local authorities, and a global sum itself would not be possible here as the option given under Clause 17, subsection (1), makes it uncertain how many companies will actually be affected. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this Amendment substantially meets the point which was raised by the noble Lord, and that it is acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 17, after ("be") insert ("the aggregate of the following amounts—
(i)").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD WOLVERTON: I thank the noble Lord for this Amendment. It brings it in line, I understand, with the local authority compensation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 22, at end insert—
("(ii) an amount, by way of compensation in respect of the severance of the electricity undertaking from the remainder of the company's undertaking, consisting of a sum of five shillings for each complete one thousand of the units of electricity which, in accordance with the figures accepted by the Electricity Commissioners for the purposes of Section seven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, were sold (within the meaning of that section) by the company during the year nineteen hundred and forty-six.").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Control of dividends, interest and other Payments]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, there are several Amendments here which, with your Lordships' consent, I should like to take together. First of all there is the one which has been called, then the one at line 16, the one at line 20, and also in Clause 27 on page 45, line 2, and also on page 45 at line 4. This group of Amendments deals with net revenue, and it has been tabled with a view to fulfilling a promise which was made by my noble and learned friend in Committee. I do not think I need explain them in detail. I just beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 15, leave out ("with the approval of the Minister").—(Lord Chorley.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think I suggested the words "in accordance with the normal practice." I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 40, line 16, after ("applicable") insert ("in accordance with the normal practice"').
Page 40, line 20, leave out ("with the approval of the Minister").—(Lord Chorley.)
Clause 27 [Final payments of dividends and interest]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I have already mentioned the two Amendments to this clause, which I now beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 45, line 2, after ("applicable") insert ("in accordance with the normal practice").
Page 45, line 4, leave out ("if the Minister authorises them to do so").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
4.48 p.m.
Clause 29:
Re-opening of transactions resulting in dissipation of assets.
29.—(1) This section shall apply in any case where on or after the tenth day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, any body to whom this Part of this Act applies, being a company have—
(a) made any payment to any person without consideration or for an inadequate consideration;
and the payment, sale, disposal, acquisition, agreement or variation thereof, or other transaction was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the body or was made with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the body:
Provided that this section shall not apply:

(i) to any payment or other transaction to which Section twenty-six of this Act applies;

(ii) to any payment or other transaction made or entered into for any charitable purpose; or

LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL moved to insert in the proviso to subsection (1):
"(iii) to any payment or other transaction made or entered into in connexion with a submission to arbitration under this Act or any proceedings before any tribunal established by regulations made under this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this raises a point which was discussed in Committee arid provides for payments which may be made, and to which Clause 29 will not apply. In connexion with the submitting of a question to arbitration, it has been pointed out that, when a matter is submitted to arbitration, it would obviously be considered reasonable—and the Lord Chancellor said that would be so—that the expenses during the arbitration should be met. But there also arose the question of expenses in anticipation of an arbitration, and, in order to make sure that this should be considered proper, I beg to move the insertion of the paragraph which is printed on the Order Paper. I do not think I need elaborate that. There was a good deal of discussion on it in Committee, but I think it only right and reasonable to all concerned that the obtaining of expert opinion and legal assistance in anticipation of an arbitration would be right and proper payment to exclude by the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 38, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Rennell.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, we undertook to look into this matter after there had been tome discussion about it on the Committee stage. That has been done and we are advised that these words are really quite unnecessary. In order to reopen a transaction under the clause the matter would not only have to be brought under one or other of the heads (a) to (e), but it w mid also have to be shown that the transaction "was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the body or was made with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the body." Expenses in connesxion with and preliminary to arbitration an all part of arbitration, and are allowed in taxation of costs as being part of the whole process of securing an arbitral award. It seems quite beyond question that the authority could hardly claim that they were in fact not necessary for the purpose of the body, and even more difficult to maintain that they were made with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the body. I do not think it would be possible to discharge the burden of getting them out of the part of the clause before (e), because there again it is necessary to show that there was excessive consideration or that the transactions were of an onerous nature, or something of that kind. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will not desire to press this Amendment.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I car riot say that I am quite happy about the reply. I am not disputing the wording of the part of the clause preceding the proviso. We had considerable argument about that, and I expect that wording is sufficient to cover most ordinary payments. I would like to point out—and I think I am right in saying this—that by the time the transaction has to be reopened, the company, in fact, will have ceased to exist. There will not, therefore, at that point be any assets out of which to pay expenses except those which are properly payable by directors who are being accused of doing something which they ought not to have done. Obviously, a company, after it has ceased to exist, will not have any assets to pay for arbitration. But I can visualize many cases which might arise before the company has been wound up and taken over. The directors who are in doubt about the result of certain actions and decisions on their part ex abundanti cautela might take technical

655
and legal opinion, which would involve the company in considerable expense, against such time as the transaction might be reopened after the company ceases to exist. I want it to be quite clear that expenses of that kind will be considered reasonable even if there is no arbitration, or if no reopening of the transactions is to take place. Therefore, I am not quite happy about it being understood in the preamble to which the noble Lord has referred.
LORD CHORLEY: The whole of this clause is of course concerned only with the reopening of transactions. Only on that basis can the matter arise at all.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, surely, the point is this. I had hoped that it was covered by the noble Lord when he said that you ought to be able to take counsel's opinion before the company is wound up. Clearly, a board have to consider what the position is to be under the Bill—whether they can come to an agreement or whether they should go to arbitration. To do that they may have to decide whether they have extraneous assets, and whether that matter is to be dealt with in the way which the Lord Chancellor proposes or in the way which the House has now laid down. As things are now, all sorts of boards of directors—as well as the Government—are sitting down to consider the position under the Bill. Wretched people who are conducting these businesses find themselves in great difficulty and in need of advice. Sometimes they come to me to ask for advice—not that that is worth very much.
Of course, they have to take the best advice they can. They have to take the advice of actuaries, of counsel—generally speaking, of the best authority to deal with their problem. I suggest that either there ought to be words in the Bill or there ought to be a most emphatic statement from the Government which obviously will be binding upon Ministers that in respect of everything which the companies do now—I do not of course mean starting new businesses—for ascertaining and securing their position under the Bill, they may not only have authority to do it, but they shall be told: "The right thing for you to do, in the interests of your shareholders, is to consult the proper authorities, legal and actuarial."
656
We ought to have that stated in quite clear language. Arc we not entitled to have an answer upon this? We can divide upon it of course, but I suggest that it is not treating the House with decency if we are not given an answer now.
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid that I made rather a blunder in speaking twice. I can, of course, speak only once unless I have leave of the House to speak again. If I may have leave of the House I will add a few words.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: You may take it that you have it.
LORD CHORLEY: I thought that I had in fact covered the point which the noble Viscount has made. It does seem to me that it would be quite impossible to say that expenditure of the kind to which he has referred was not reasonably necessary to the body. But I shall certainly be very glad to look at this again, and I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD RENNELL: I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment on the assurance that this will be looked into again. I think that there is a very considerable gap in the case of companies who to-day take steps to provide themselves against an emergency which might happen in the future, and in future might have the expense of that disallowed, and the full amount charged against the directors. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after "shall" insert "unless the tribunal otherwise directs." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down following a suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. It was a question as to whether or not all directors would have to be parties to the application. It occurred to me that whilst not leaving it to the discretion of the Central Authority we might leave the tribunal with some discretion in this matter. I think that this will go a long way towards meeting the noble and learned Viscount's point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 5, after ("shall") insert ("unless the tribunal otherwise directs").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30:
Provisions as to foreign investments.
(3) If any such body contravene or fail to comply with the provisions of this section or any regulation made thereunder, all persons who were directors of the body at the time when the contravention or failure occurred shall be jointly and severally liable to make good any loss suffered by the Central Authority in consequence of the contravention or failure.
4.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "be jointly and severally" and insert "subject to the next following subsection, be." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment goes with the next at page 50, line 19. These two Amendments go together and they give effect to a promise made to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, on the Committee stage. I promised to cover the substance of the long Amendment which he then moved and I think that I have here done it. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 17, leave out ("be jointly and severally") and insert ("subject to the next following subsection, be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment to which I have just referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 19, at end insert—
"(4) Any claim under this section by the Central Authority against the directors of any such body shall be made before the expiration of a period of twelve months beginning with the vesting date and shall be determined by arbitration under this Act, and all persons who were directors of the body at the time when the alleged contravention or failure occurred shall, unless the arbitration tribunal otherwise directs, be made parties to the proceedings, and, if the arbitration tribunal decides the claim in favour of the Central Authority, it shall make such orders against all or any of the said directors in respect of their liability under this section as it thinks just. having regard to all the circumstances."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Fixing and variation of tariffs:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved after subsection (1) to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The tariffs fixed under the last fore-going subsection shall be so framed as to show the methods by which and the principles on which the charges are to be made as well as the prices which are to be charged, and shall be published in such manner as in the opinion of the Central Authority will secure adequate publicity for them."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to give effect to an undertaking I give to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton He was anxious that the tariffs should show the principle on which they are framed. I was a little ignorant at the time and did not know if I could do that. I am with him in his desire for publicity, and I hope he will think that this drafting has made good my promise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is entirely satisfactory.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: As I moved the Amendment concerned, I also wish to say that I think this meets it admirably.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the same point again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 39, leave out from ("the") to the end of line 40 and insert ("methods by which and the principles on which the charges are to be made as well as the prices which are to be charged, and shall be published in such manner as in the opinion of the area board will secure adequate publicity for them").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Accounts and audit of Central Authority and Area Boards]:
LORD DEL'ISLE AND DUDLEY LORD DEL'ISLE AND DUDLEY moved to add at the end of subsection (3) the following proviso:
"Provided that no person shall be qualified to be so appointed unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies:
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

659
The Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors;
The Society of Accountants in Edinburgh;
The Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow;
The Society of Accountants in Aberdeen;
The Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants, Limited."
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House may recollect that in Committee stage I moved an Amendment to ensure that persons employed to audit the Central Authority and area board accounts should be properly qualified persons. The Amendment as set down at that stage apparently did not find favour with His Majesty's Government. I understand there is a precedent for this Amendment which I now move, and I hope, therefore, that it will be commendable to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord DeL'Isle and Dudley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Although not a member of the profession which the noble Lord adorns, I am at one with him in thinking that it is of the utmost importance to British industry that the accountancy profession should be recognized for what it is and raised in status, and that the accounts of all important companies should be audited and looked after by properly qualified accountants. I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Acquisition of non-statutory undertakings]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. The clause relating to local authorities refers to the capacity of a local authority as authorized undertakers and other capacities of the authority, and the corresponding phraseology for non-statutory companies is to refer to the purposes of the electricity undertaking and other purposes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 38, after ("undertaking") insert ("for references to other capacities of the local authority there shall be substituted references to other purposes of the company").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment
660
similar to the drafting Amendment we have already made.
The same problem arises in the case of non-statutory undertakers as arose in the case of composite companies, and a similar Amendment is therefore required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 42, at end insert ("and any question whether any property is or was (for the purposes of the said subsection (2) as so applied) held or used partly for the purposes of the electricity undertaking and partly for other purposes shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration under this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54:
(3) Regulations made under this section shall not be invalid by reason that in fact they do not secure that persons having pension rights are not placed in any worse position by reason of any such amendment, repeal, revocation, transfer, extinguishment or winding up as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, but if the Minister and the Secretary of State are satisfied or it is determined as hereinafter mentioned that any such regulations have failed to secure that result, the Minister and the Secretary of State shall as soon as possible make the necessary amending regulations.
Any dispute arising as to whether or not the said result has been secured by any regulations made under this section shall be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for his or their determination thereon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (3), after "Service" to insert "after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is similar to that which was made in the Transport Bill by the other place when they disagreed with our Amendment. It drags me into the thing, perhaps unfortunately for me, but it may be as well that I should be able to keep my finger on the pulse of arbitration and find out how it is going. When I was asked to agree to this I raised no objection, and I hope it will give your Lordships—it sounds rather conceited—some satisfaction about the methods of arbitration and the arbitrator.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 2o, after ("Service") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to bring the drafting of this subsection into line with Clause 55 (5) and also the new subsection (5) to be inserted in Clause 54 by the next Government Amendment. There is no reason for any distinction between the three cases. It might be said that the provision stating that the decision of the referee or board is to be final is no longer necessary in view of the Government Amendment we are coming to. That may be so, but the provision is a common one and makes the position a good deal clearer to the ordinary man. The best course, therefore, seems to be to add these words rather than leave them out in the other two places.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 21, at end, insert "and the decision of that referee or board shall be final."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) Subject to any regulations made under this section, the provisions of this Act which vest liabilities and obligations of a body to whom Part II of this Act applies in an Electricity Board shall apply in relation to customary obligations of the body in respect of pensions, notwithstanding that the body was under no legal obligation in respect of those pensions, and if any question arises as to the existence or extent of any such customary obligation the question shall, in default of agreement, be referred to a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor, or where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the decision of that referee or board shall be final, and the Electricity Board shall give effect to that decision."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is submitted to give effect to a promise I made to the noble Lords, Lord Teynham, Lord Hawke and Lord Rochdale, who had an Amendment down with regard to what I may describe as customary rather than legal obligations. I hope the noble Lords will think I have fully met their desire and carried out my promise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 33, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Compensation to office's in connection with transfers]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is similar to the previous Amendment which has been agreed to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 23, at end insert ("after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Cause 55 to insert the following new clause—
"Arbitration Act not to apply to proceedings before referees or boards of referees.
Nothing in the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, shall be construed as applying to any proceedings before a referee or board of referees appointed under either of the two last foregoing sections by the Minister of Labour and National Service."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, we had a long discussion about this. The question was as to whether we should insist on strict and more legal methods or whether we should content ourselves with the Ministry of Labour referee. On the whole your Lordships thought it wiser not to insist on the legal method because people did not want it. It might be foolish, but if they did not want it, you were not going to insist. We must not leave it ambiguous but must state it clearly. By this Amendment the Arbitration Acts do not any longer apply, aril it is to clear up what might be an ambiguity that I move this new clause.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 55 insert the said new Clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Application, amendment and repeal of enactments relating to electricity supply]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, made necessary because we accepted the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, to insert "being adaptations and modifications required in consequence of the provisions of this Act." When we accepted that we did not realize that this Amendment would be necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 44, at end insert ("(including the foregoing provisions of this section) or of the Act of 1943").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59:
Setting up of Electricity Appeal Tribunal
No member of the Central Authority or of any Electricity Board and no person employed by them shall be qualified to be a member of the Tribunal.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Electricity Appeal Tribunal to approve the maximum tariff fixed for each area and for the supply of electricity for railways and to consider—

(a) any representation from any person other than an area board with respect to the prices charged for the supply of electricity by the Central Authority or the Electricity Boards and any representation from any person in regard to any allegation as respects any undue preference or undue discrimination by an Electricity Board;

(b) any representation in regard to the matters specified in the preceding paragraph which may be made to the Electricity Appeal Tribunal by a consultative council either upon the request of any person or otherwise;

(c) any question which may be referred to it for consideration by the Minister or by the Central Authority.

(3) When the Electricity Appeal Tribunal have considered any such representation or question as aforesaid they shall report to the Minister upon their conclusions and shall make such representations to the Minister in connection with those conclusions as they think expedient.
(6) The Minister and the Central Authority shall provide the Tribunal with such information and other assistance as the Tribunal think expedient for the purpose of assisting them to discharge their functions.
5.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Electricity," where that word last occurs, and insert "Area." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I would like to explain in a sentence or two the next three Amendments. The first and the third are purely drafting Amendments. The other Amendment, which looks formidable, is really quite simple. Your Lordships passed an Amendment on Committee stage to set up this arbitration tribunal, and there were three matters left over for further consideration. We asked the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to give us his advice as to whether the tribunal ought to deal with discrimination
664
and undue preference, or whether that should be a matter for the court. He advised us that under the Bill as it stands it was already a matter for the court, and that we would be wise to leave it there. We have taken that advice, and have cut out "discrimination and undue preference."
There was then the question of the price to the railways. We have already dealt with that in the Bill, and we have agreed that the price must be one which will not show a loss. The railway price—although it was always, and is still, subject to approval by the Electricity Commissioners—we can leave, as it is provided for in the Bill. I have recast subsection (3) in order to make it more intelligible, and to bring it more into line with the existing practice. That is the matter of individual appeal. I have inserted the local authority, who have a right of appeal to the Commissioners to-day. I propose to provide that the application on behalf of an individual has to be made on behalf of twenty people. That is the practice to-day, and it has been found convenient in cutting out one tiresome purpose. The third case, which seems to be obviously right, is where there is a genuine application by a trade or industry. I think that recasting definitely improves the clause as your Lordships passed it, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 1, leave out ("Electricity") insert ("Area").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I follow the noble Viscount aright—he will correct me if I am wrong—these are Amendments to the new clause which he inserted on the Committee stage as a result of the Division.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That being so, it is his child, and he has the right to dress up his child as he thinks makes her look most attractive. It is not my child, and I take no responsibility for the dress the child wears. I must reserve the right in due course to object to the whole "caboodle"—the child, the dress and all. Meantime, as it is the noble Viscount's child, I do not think I shall serve any useful purpose in resisting any Amendments which he makes to the clause. It is probably better that when it is considered in another place it should

665
be put forward in what he considers to be the most attractive dress. I will not now resist this Amendment, or any other Amendment to the clause, but it must be understood that in not resisting the Amendments I am in no way committing myself to any sort of acceptance of the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 4, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert the following new subsections:
("(2) It shall be the duty of each area board to submit to the Electricity Appeal Tribunal the tariffs from time to time fixed by them and the Tribunal after such enquiry as they think fit may either refuse to confirm any tariff or may confirm it with such alterations if any as they think fit and no such tariff shall come into force until it has been confirmed by the Tribunal.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Electricity Appeal Tribunal to consider—
(a) any representation from—

(i) any local authority having jurisdiction in the area of any area board;

(ii) such number of consumers not being less than twenty as the Tribunal think sufficient having regard to the population of the area;

(iii)any consumers who in the opinion of the Tribunal sufficiently represent any particular trade business or interest in the area

with respect to the prices charged for the supply of electricity by the Central Authority or any area board;
>(b) any representation in regard to the matters specified in the preceding paragraph which may be made to the Electricity Appeal Tribunal by a Consultative Council either upon the request of any person or otherwise;
(c) any question which may be referred to it for consideration by the Minister or by the Central Authority.
When the Electricity Appeal Tribunal have considered any such representation or question as aforesaid they shall report to the Minister upon their conclusions and shall make such representations to the Minister in connection with those conclusions as they think expedient").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 1, leave out ("the Central Authority") and, insert ("every Electricity Board").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62:
Provisions as to prosecutions and as to offences by corporations.
(2) Where an offence under the last foregoing section or any regulation made under this Act has been committed by a body corporate, every person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a point upon which I think the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, can advise us. The subsection which it is proposed to leave out begins by saying that: "Where an offence under the last foregoing section" (or any offence) has been committed, and then says: "shall be deemed to be guilty." The noble and learned Viscount will remember that there was a good deal of "to-ing" and "fro-ing" on a similar clause in the Transport Bill. It is difficult to follow the different provisions of the Transport Bill. The experts who have been advising me have been at it, and they assure me that in the Transport Bill, as it will come back to us with the approval of the other place to the Amendments we made here, the peccant section is omitted. If that is so, it ought not to be in here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 6, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I am in a complete state of confusion as to what the Transport Bill does or does not contain at the present time. I think all I can do on this occasion is to read out what I am told by those advising me. I am told that a similar Amendment was moved on Report in the other place; and was rejected after the Amendment had been pressed to a Division. That may be on this Bill. Similar provisions to this clause also occur in the Transport Bill (Clause 121), tie Civil Aviation Act, 1946 (Section 47), the

667
Exchange Control Act, 1947 (Fifth Schedule, Part II, paragraph 1 (2)), and other Acts of this Session. It is now the settled practice to insert this provision in all Bills which make corporations subject to criminal proceedings. There is no question of upsetting a fundamental principle of English justice, because the offence must be proved by the prosecution to have been committed by the corporation, and only then are the directors in peril. There are many Bills passed by Conservative Governments which contain provisions in a similar form—that is to say, placing the onus on directors—the Dentists Act, the Betting and Lotteries Act, the Public Health Act, 1936, the Building Societies Act, 1939, and others. For that reason, your Lordships will see that I cannot, as at present advised, accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I might add one word. My feeling about this is that if we put this in the Transport Bill it ought to be in here. On the other hand, if we have left it out in the Transport Bill, it ought to be left out here. Our instructors do not seem to be in agreement. I do not know about the Betting and Lotteries Act.
LORD HENDERSON: It is in the Transport Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is what I thought, but I was assured that it was not. The noble and learned Viscount has said that we can look at it between now and Third Reading, and I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Provisions as to regulations and orders]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 20, after ("orders") insert ("or regulations").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [Interpretation]:
"net revenue," in relation to any body, means the revenue of that body, after deducting there from all charges which are proper to be made to revenue account, including, in particular, proper provision for the redemption of capital and proper provision for depreciation
668
of assets or for renewal of assets, but not including provision for interest on debentures and debenture stock;
"securities", in relation to a body corporate, means any shares, stock, debentures and debenture stock of the body corporate, and "holder of securities", in relation to any body to whom Part II of this Act applies, means, except in the provisions relating to the appointment of the stockholders' representative, a person who, immediately before the vesting date, was the holder of securities of that body, or his successor in title;
5.19 p.m.
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL moved, in the interpretation of "net revenue," after "capital" to insert "in pursuance of any obligation to make such provision." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, was good enough to give me an analogous Amendment earlier on about irredeemable debentures. I think it appropriate to insert a similar Amendment here for the same purpose. In the course of the discussion on the Committee stage, the noble Lord answering for the Government said that the words "proper provision for redemption of capital" covered the cases where debentures were not redeemable, or where a certain part of the capital had no redemption. All the same, it seems to me to be very much clearer if instead of saying "proper provisions for the redemption of capital," the words of my Amendment, "in pursuance of any obligation to make such provision" are inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 42, after ("capital") insert ("in pursuance of any obligation to make such provision").—(Lord Rennell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think I ought to accept this Amendment, and I do not share the noble Lord's view that this is on all fours with the previous Amendment. Here we have to consider the words "proper provision for the redemption of capital." If you make a provision for redeeming something which is not redeemable I cannot regard that as proper, and I can only consider the words "proper provision for the redemption of capital" as meaning proper provision for the redemption of capital which is redeemable. I do not think that the Amendment would have the effect which the noble Lord wants. It seems to me that it is restricting and

669
narrowing. The proper provision for the redemption of capital is obviously wider than the proper provision for the redemption of capital sub modo. It seems to me the noble Lord is narrowing the clause in a way I do not think he intends to do, and I think we had better leave the words as they are.
LORD RENNELL: I would not venture to cross swords with the noble and learned Viscount on the interpretation of a drafting point. If he says it is so, it is the third time it has been said in your Lordships' House; and, as in the case of Mohammedan divorce, when it has been said three times it is absolute. I suppose in the circumstances this is absolute, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the definition of "securities", after "corporate" to insert:
"and also includes any mortgages of the body which were quoted in the Stock Exchange Official Daily List (within the meaning of section twenty of this Act) on all six of the dates first mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.
"The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, we have found that there is one company which has an issue of 5 per cent. mortgages, so-called, which is dealt in and quoted on the London Stock Exchange in just the same way as debenture stocks. The Amendment extends the definition of "securities" to cover this particular issue without, however, bringing in the generality of mortgages which are to be recognized by the new boards as liabilities to be discharged. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 39, after ("corporate") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Application to Scotland]:
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to subsection (2):
"and for any reference to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, there shall be substituted a reference to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 9 of the Bill applies the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, except Section 2, to the compulsory purchase of land by an electricity board
670
which is authorized by the Minister or the Secretary of State as the case may be, This is a formal Amendment to provide that the new Scottish Act, corresponding to the 1946 Act, which it will replace when the Bill now before Parliament becomes law, shall apply in the case of the compulsory purchase of land by electricity boards in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 21, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Area electricity boards]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the provision defining the area of the London Electricity Board, after "Kent" to insert "Middlesex." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I would like to move this Amendment in manuscript form in order to avoid doing it on Third Reading. The Electricity Commissioners have just discovered that the area of supply of a certain undertaking which will be comprised in the South Eastern area just creeps over the Middlesex border. It would be a great pity to have to split the undertaking between two areas, and this is the right course to adopt to enable the South Eastern area to include this little bit in Middlesex. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 8, after ("Kent") insert ("Middlesex").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Adaptations end modifications of enactments: Part II—The Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943]:
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, in Committee Clause 46 (2) of the Bill—which relates to the form of the accounts of the Central Authority and the area boards—was amended by the addition at the end of the words now proposed to be inserted in the Fourth Schedule. The effect of the Amendment now proposed is to apply the same provision to the accounts of the North of Scotland Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 37, after ("Board") insert ("and to show as far as may be the financial. and operating results bf each such activity")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

TRANSPORT BILL.
5.25 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Consideration of Commons Amendments in lieu of certain Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to Lords Amendments.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments in lieu of certain Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Addison.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before we proceed to the examination in detail of the Reasons advanced by His Majesty's Government for rejecting practically all the Amendments which were sent down by your Lordships for further consideration in another place, I feel it may be proper that I, who have the privilege of leading the Opposition here, should say a few words of regret, and indeed of modified but most sincere whole-hearted protest, at the course which they have seen fit to adopt. As the House and, I think, the country know, your Lordships have devoted immense time and trouble to this Bill. We are fortunate to include among our ranks a number of Peers who have long personal experience of all aspects of transport and it has throughout been the object of these noble Lords in particular, and indeed of the House as a whole, to examine the provisions of the Bill, not with the object of destroying the measure, but with the object of amending and improving it and making it a more workable proposition.
It should not be forgotten that this Bill came to us in a singularly undigested form. There were various clauses—a great many of them—which had not received what we consider proper consideration in another place, and there were quite a number which had received no consideration at all and had not even been discussed. They had been passed often without debate by the ruthless use of the guillotine. It was, therefore, a Bill which clearly needed considerable alteration to make it an efficient operative measure. Indeed, as your Lordships will
672
remember, a considerable number of Amendments were introduced by the Government themselves, and there were many others which were adopted by general agreement in all parts of the House. There remain, however, a residue, a relatively small number, upon which it had been found impossible to obtain agreement between the Government and the Opposition. There was the Amendment relating to the appointment of Executives; there was the Amendment relating to the radius of operation of small-range hauliers who should be exempted from the scope of the Bill, and there was the Amendment which placed the onus of proof as to whether an operator was to be taken over under a scheme upon the Government and not upon the operator himself. There were one or two others, and there were a few consequential Amendments on those main propositions.
I do not for a moment suggest that these Amendments were not Amendments of substance; of course they were. They raised many important principles, but no one could say they were intended to wreck the Bill. Indeed, on several occasions we studiously avoided wrecking Amendments. Moreover, the House made no attempt to modify the compensation provisions—though we all felt that they were thoroughly inequitable—as we regarded this part of the Bill as a matter, perhaps, of Privilege under the Parliament Act. I think, therefore, it will be agreed by all—equally by noble Lords opposite—that we could not have acted with more moderation than we have, in the circumstances in which we were placed. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House himself, on the occasion of the Third Reading, was good enough to pay a tribute to the spirit in which your Lordships tackled your task.
And, indeed, there was a wide measure of approval outside Parliament for the particular Amendments which have now received such cavalier treatment in another place. The Times, in a leading article on Wednesday of last week—and The Times has not been universally in favour of the Opposition—said:
"It is greatly to be regretted that the Minister proposes—with possibly a few minor exceptions—to reject all the Amendments which were not immediately accepted by the Government during the Lords' proceedings."

673
And the article added:
"Several of the changes would almost certainly improve the measure, either by making for a more coherent administrative organization or by establishing better principles of democratic control."
Clearly, therefore, these Amendments were not frivolous and not offensive They were serious and well-intentioned. And one had hoped that they would at least have been given the sympathetic attention which was clearly their due, even though all were not accepted.
But it seems that the Government recommended that practically all of them should be rejected root and branch; and no discretion was in fact given to the Government majority in the other place to consider these Amendments on their merits at all. Therefore many of us on these Benches cannot help being driven to the conclusion that the course was adopted merely because the Amendments came from this House; that it was part of a deliberate policy on the part of the Government to reject any Amendment from the Second Chamber; and that the same policy is only too likely to be adopted with other Bills as they come before the other place. This conclusion is, I am afraid, fortified by recent speeches of Ministers, and notably the Minister of Health, who spoke, if he will allow me to say so, in a rather undignified manner, to the effect that he hoped your Lordships would "behave like good boys" He talked of the necessity of giving us "toys to play with," and so forth. That really is hardly the way to speak of a body which contains some of the greatest experts in the country, men of lifelong eminence and discretion, men who have worked for many days and nights in order to improve this Bill, without any financial reward and entirely in the interests of the country. That is not the way to speak of this House, and I am bound to register a protest.
I can well understand, if I may say for the first time something slightly controversial, the desire of the Minister to try to draw a red herring to divert the attention of the public from the more embarrassing aspects of the conduct of affairs by the present Administration and, in particular, from his own personal failure in the sphere of housing and health. It is not uncommon for Ministers and Governments to take a course of this kind, and especially Ministers who are ambitious and who perhaps have not produced
674
all the results which were expected of them. But if the result of these rather shady Party manoeuvres by him and other Ministers is to deprive the country of valuable improvements in legislation, I cannot help thinking that the result for the country will be very unfortunate. We in your Lordships' House need not worry. It is not our prestige which is going to be injured by this type of thing. It is the prestige of the Government majority in another place. But it does make rather a travesty of Parliamentary government as it has grown up in this country over many centuries, and it really approximates very nearly to Single-Chamber government in a rather veiled form.
Our course in your Lordships' House is perfectly clear. We shall continue to try to amend and improve legislation to the best of our ability, and we believe that by doing so we shall gain the respect and support of all the more reputable sections of the community. In the present case it is not our intention to insist on Amendments which have already been rejected in another place. That would be merely to start a sterile wrangle which would not be very dignified and which would be unlikely to lead to fruitful results. We do, however, propose to send back to the other place a limited number of Amendments in lieu, which are moderate, which have been carefully considered, and which are genuinely designed to meet objections raised in the debates in another place. We believe that these Amendments should afford a legitimate ground for compromise, and they are intended for that purpose. I am certain that if the Government can see their way to accept them they will strengthen and improve the Bill. I hope they will receive in the other place better and more courteous treatment than the earlier Amendments received.
I have done my utmost in what I have said to-day to avoid an offensive or controversial tone. I do not want to exacerbate feelings. We want to obtain results beneficial to the country. But the present attitude of the Government in the other place, and what one might describe as the unmerited abuse which has accompanied it, will not only injure the Government's own position—I do not very much mind that—but it will have the effect of impairing the authority of Parliament, and that is a matter of concern for all of us, in whatever part of the House we sit. I

675
therefore beg the Government to consider very carefully before they reject these Amendments, which cannot interfere with the underlying principle of nationalization, and which are genuinely designed to improve the working of the machine and to secure justice for the small man, for whom Parliament above all is trustee.
5.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Marquess was going to speak on this topic in this way. If so perhaps I might have fortified myself with some observations before he did so. But I cannot help thinking that he has been rather led away by some of his ill-informed advisers as to the facts. I would myself like to pay tribute to the standard of our discussions. As the noble Marquess knows, I objected to certain Amendments because in my view they were calculated to defeat the main purpose of the Bill, and where that was the case we never hid our opinion and frequently we found ourselves in a minority in the Lobby. But there were not very many cases of that kind, ten or a dozen perhaps. I was sorry to hear the noble Marquess say that he was verging on the slightly controversial; I must say that he was giving what might be called a manifestation of the "slightly controversial" which was interesting and to me unique. However, I will accept the noble Marquess' description.
He said that practically all the Amendments were rejected root and branch. What are the facts?—the facts are the important things. As your Lordships are aware—and if any noble Lord would wish to refresh his memory I would recommend him to read the speech which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, made on the Third Reading of the Bill, in which he reviewed the Amendments in an exceedingly compact and informative review—a very large number of Amendments were the result of negotiations between the two sides. It is no secret to say that the conferences which took place in my room in trying to arrive at agreement between the two sides were both numerous and prolonged. That is a true statement. We made great efforts and succeeded, in a very large number of cases, in arriving at agreements on Amendments. Some of them were of an extremely far-reaching character. For example, there was a series of Amendments
676
relating to the limitation of the power of the Commission or the Executives to engage in manufacture; that question occupied our attention for a great many hours at different times. I was apprised of the views of the Opposition on these matters—and I would like to pay tribute to the help that I received from the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—and we discussed them with the Ministry and the Ministry discussed them with the industry at considerable length, as a result of which a series of exceedingly complex Amendments was introduced into the Bill by agreement. They were not rejected root and branch by the other side; they were accepted
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did say all this.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, I did. I can repeat my words. I said that there were three categories of Amendments; the Government Amendments, a large number of Amendments which were agreed by general agreement of the House, and I think I said there was "a small residue" which remained—I think those were the words which I used. I was not complaining of the consideration which the Government had given the Bill in this House, which I think was perfectly fair, but I was complaining of the fact that in another place the Government did not intend the remaining subjects of disagreement to have fair consideration at all. I am not complaining of what was done in this House. We owe to the Leader of the House a great debt for his constant courtesy.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I thank the noble Marquess for that; I knew that that was the view between us, but I still must hark back, I am afraid, to my theme that the noble Marquess said it was "practically all rejected root and branch." I am quite sure that any person reading that in the papers or even listening to the noble Marquess's speech would receive the impression that the other place had rejected practically all our Amendments "root and branch." I exclude, of course, the Amendments that were introduced by the Government; they should be excluded in a review of this kind. But the point I am seeking to make in reply to the noble Marquess is,

677
that the number of Amendments initiated by the Opposition, sometimes withdrawn, sometimes modified, sometimes the subject of negotiation, was a very large number indeed, and none of them was rejected—I repeat, none of them was rejected.
When you come down to figures, I had a sort of thought beforehand—it is just my general political sagacity—that this kind of point might be raised, though I did not quite think it would be raised in this exceedingly important way. However, I find this: there were 210 Amendments inserted by this House. A very large number of them, quite half, were Amendments agreed between us from the kind of process which I have described, and 173 Amendments out of the 210 have been accepted by the other place. That is the actual figure—173 out of 210. The noble Marquess is a fair-minded man and he and I have exchanged words across this Table many times. I am sure he would not wish to misrepresent the situation, but, with the greatest possible respect, I must say to him that I think he has seriously misrepresented the situation here. Of the Amendments that we sent down 173 were agreed to completely. The number disagreed to was 37, and there were 173 accepted. I must say that I think it is fair to say that to put that correctly is not to suggest that "practically all our Amendments were rejected root and branch." Certain Amendments, which we knew and which we said at the time we felt quite sure would not be accepted, were rejected, and, if the noble Marquess will really look through the list, a large number of those Amendments which figured on the List were consequential on the major Amendments and, of course, were just accepted and put into the Bill in the ordinary way. Even so, they make a modest total of only 37 out of 210; so that really I do think that the noble Marquess is not being quite fair.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would not like that to be said by the Leader of the House. It was certainly not my intention to create that impression. If he reads what I said in Hansard, he will see that I put the position entirely fairly. I said there were a large number of Amendments moved by the Government; I said a large number were passed by agreement and I said that there was a "small residue
678
left"; it was of the "small residue left" that I was talking. That residue, which comprised, all or many of them, important Amendments, have not received the consideration which they ought to h lye received, and I still think that. If the noble Viscount thought I was misrepresenting the situation, I do not think that is so, because I say that there were a number of Amendments which mere agreed to in this House, and which m ere said by a large number of people to be a series of considerable Amendments, which have not received consideration at all.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We shall be judged by the facts, and the noble Marquess knows perfectly well that I am the last man in the world to wish to misrepresent the situation. That is certainly the impression I gained from listening to his speech, and I think it would be the impression received by most people reading it. The facts are as I have stated them. In conclusion let us come to the other part of the proceedings. I myself have had, and so has the noble Marquess, a very long experience of observing Amendments to Bills in Parliament, both in the other place and, to some extent, though not so extensively, in this Hot se. I think it is fair to say that I cannot remember a Bill of a very controversial character (which is admitted) in which a greater number of important agreed Amendments were inserted than in this Bill. I think that is a fair statement. I pay tribute to noble Lords opposite, and to those who helped us in arriving at agreement, but there were some exceedingly important Amendments dealing with the most important character and parts of the Bill which, as a result of much negotiation and friendly interchange of comments, became agreed Amendments. They are in the body of the Bill, and not one of them has been altered. I think that tact should be borne in mind. However, I am sorry that the noble Marquess takes the view of it that he does. For my part, I think that we have got to bear in mind—and nobody bears it in mind more acutely than he does—that the position of this House is a very exceptional one--I put it no higher than that. But every one of us, I am sure, on both sides of the House, has a keen regard for the interests of our Parliamentary institutions in the test sense, and would be very loth to do anything to damage it. That is the spirit in which we tried to conduct our discussions

679
on this Bill. I am quite sure that in many vital respects it was much improved by common consent. That is a true statement, and I feel certain that that spirit will govern the rest of our deliberations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.51 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 65 as first printed in the House of Lords.]
Clause 4, page 6, line 30, at end insert—
("Provided that the Minister shall not give to the Commission a direction in relation to any matter the effect of which, taking one year with another, will be or will be likely to be, that the revenue of the Commission will be less than sufficient for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, unless the Minister shall at the time of the giving of such direction notify the Commission that it is given in the interests of national security.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment might unduly restrict the powers of the Minister in an emergency
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, with regard to the first Amendment on the Paper, might I suggest for your Lordships' convenience that when we come to some other Amendments—for example, the one that follows, where the noble Marquess has an Amendment to the Amendment, perhaps it would be more agreeable to your Lordships if I move, as it is my duty to move, that we do not insist, and then leave it to the noble Lord opposite, who has an Amendment to the Amendment, to intervene. The first Amendment in the name of the noble Marquess is: "That the House do not insist on the Amendment, but propose to move the following Amendment in lieu thereof." That would be the Amendment in Clause 5, page 7, line 36. What I was suggesting—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That when we come to an Amendment in lieu we should move that we do not insist? That would be quite convenient.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is what I was proposing to do. I move that this House do not insist.
Moved, That the House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I would say only one word on this, because I think the issue is extraordinarily narrow
680
here. I said so on the Third Reading, and it is important that the country should know what the position is going to be. There is no question here—it is common ground and, indeed, as I understand it, the best lawyers consider it is laid down in fact in the Bill, that this Commission has got to pay its way and that, broadly and largely, the Minister would be breaking, if not the letter of the law, certainly the spirit of the law, if he gave the Commission any instructions which were ontrary to that. The only issue that this narrows down to—and I do not think there is much difference between us—is that there might be an emergency of a national character in which it was necessary for the Minister to give some instruction which might create a temporary deficit. We have always treated national emergencies as matters in which the Government of the day, subject, of course, to the approval of Parliament, have to take special action. I really do not believe there is anything between us on this.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 5, page 7, line 36, leave out from ("be") to ("but") in line 37 and insert ("decided by the Commission").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment and seventeen others for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendments would lessen the control of Parliament over these matters through removing the Minister's responsibility for them.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I gather that the Government will certainly agree to the Amendment which we are proposing in lieu. That would make this Bill entirely in line with what we all agree that we should do upon the Electricity Bill; that is to say, that the appointment of these Executives, the equivalent, so to speak, of the area boards in electricity, will be by the Minister in consultation with the Commission, which, of course, he appoints. I beg to move that this House do not insist on its Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, then I beg to move an Amendment in lieu of the proposed Amendment at page 7, line 37.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 37, after ("Minister") insert ("after consultation with the Commission").—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, we think that this is in keeping with the other principles, that the Minister certainly would consult the Commission on these matters, and we are quite willing to accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for what he has said. I think this Amendment is one which would give general satisfaction and would meet the point that we all have in mind.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 5, page 7, line 37, leave out ("other provision is made by such an order") and insert ("determined otherwise by the Commission").
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this Amendment, and a long series which follow from it, are verbal Amendments and are consequential upon the Amendment which I moved that this House do not insist on, that the Commission rather than the Minister should appoint the Executives. The other place disagreed with that Amendment, and I move that we do not insist. All the group of other Amendments on the next page are merely verbal and consequential. I move that we do not insist on the first one, and perhaps I might move the others collectively afterwards.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 5, page 9, line 13, leave out from ("where") to ("abolish") in line 14, and insert ("the Commission")
Clause 98, page 106, line 23, leave out ("the Minister and")
Clause 99, page 107, line 37, leave out ("the Minister and")
Second Schedule, page 129, line 25, leave out from ("by") to ("the") in line 26.
Second Schedule, page 129, line 27, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Second Schedule, page 129, line 34, leave out ("the Minister and").
Second Schedule, page 130, line 5, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Second Schedule, page 130, line 5, leave out ("himself") and insert ("themselves")
Second Schedule, page 130, line 8, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Second Schedule, page 130, line 8, leave out ("himself") and insert ("themselves")
Second Schedule, page 130, line 10, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Second Schedule, page 130, line 11, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Second Schedule, page 130, line 12, leave out ("him") and insert ("them")
Second Schedule, page 130, line 12, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Second Schedule, page 130, line 13, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Second Schedule, page 130, line 13, leave out ("his") and insert ("their")
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendments would lessen the control of Parliament over these matters through removing the Minister's responsibility for them.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to move all this group of Amendments. They are entirely verbal and consequential. I move that we do not insist.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 5, page 7, line 40, after the second ("Executive") insert ("the Scottish Transport Executive").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment would cause difficulties in the transitional period, while the Purposes of the said Amendment can be secured if it is later found desirable under the provisions of the Bill without the said Amendment.
5.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I move that we do riot insist on Ibis Amendment. This was the subject of prolonged and repeated discussion in which we all revealed our views, and I feel that we should not proceed with them any further.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I would like to say a word on this, because I think there is an element of principle

683
here, quite apart from the details. First of all, I would like to make it clear what the effect of this is, that all the municipal transport undertakings in Scotland, all the private passenger road transport, and all the hauliers will in fact come under the direction of London. These, at the present time, are run by responsible organizations which control them entirely in their own locality. The second point I would like to make is, that this is in fact the right Amendment, and I would draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 5, subsection (9) (b), which says that the Executives will be the employers. It lays down that all persons under the Commission will in fact be employed by the Executive. I will say, further, that nobody at any time in the discussion has questioned that this Amendment is desired by the great body of people who live in Scotland. At no period of the discussion has that been questioned.
I would be the first to acknowledge that popularity is not necessarily a basis of legislation. I am sure that His Majesty's Government would agree that good government is the first duty of any Government. Whether a measure is popular or not has only a limited bearing on whether it is conducive to good government. When one comes to examine the reasons which have been given for disagreement with this Amendment, I think one may take it that the Minister's reasons are twofold. The first is that it is anomalous, and that it would cut Scottish transport away from the rest of the United Kingdom. With great respect I submit that that is completely misrepresenting this Amendment. It would not cut off Scottish transport. It would leave it still subject to the Transport Commission and subject to whatever is delegated to it. Further, the Amendment is not anomalous. It can be quite clearly seen from the wording of Clause 5 that any powers whatsoever can be delegated to any Executive. I challenge the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to deny that if this were simply a Road Passenger Executive it would be 100 per cent. on all fours with the London Passenger Transport Executive. It is, therefore, a complete misrepresentation to say that this is anomalous. It lies geographically in exactly the
684
same line as the London Passenger Transport Executive.
Another reason which the Minister mentioned—and I think that this was his real reason—was that he wished to promote integration and co-ordination. What does integration and co-ordination mean in practice? I am going to submit that in practice—and we have seen this in many other Bills which have passed through this House—it means placing very large powers under a narrow oligarchy in London. This I suggest is characteristic of a very large number of Acts which have gone forward. The desire for power, the lust for power, is a very human feeling. Extremely few people who have had the opportunity have not taken power when they could. There is no doubt that His Majesty's Government are anxious to keep as much power in the hands of a small number of people as they can. And that is what is happening now.
I submit that this Amendment embodies an element of decentralization, a process which I feel is gaining great popularity, and the importance of which is gradually being realized in all sections of this House and outside. One notes that, in this connexion, there has already been a very big change from the view which was taken twelve months ago. I mean by decentralization broadening the sphere for individuals to do creative work—making it wider and wider for more people who can do it. It also means, in my view, diffusing responsibility as widely as possible. If I may, I would like to draw an immediate example in this respect from this House. In this House our procedure is the responsibility of every noble Lord present, and it is a curious thing but we very rarely get into procedural difficulties. Our procedure runs exceedingly smoothly, I think, and diffusion of responsibility is not unconnected with it, I consider that it is a pity, whilst we recognize that some measure of diffusion of responsibility is necessary, His Majesty's Government, so far, have seen no means of carrying it out, and, so far, have given no reason for not doing so.
It is clear that there is no point in pressing this Amendment. We know that a Transport Executive can be abolished under Clause 5 at any time. Equally, however, I think it is right for the members of this House to express their views

685
on this matter .as they have done, with great clarity. I would like to take the opportunity of thanking noble Lords in all parts of the House for the support which they gave me in moving this Amendment.
6.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I have no desire to detain you for more than a very few moments. I would like to join with my noble friend the Earl of Selkirk in expressing gratitude to those noble Lords who were good enough to support us before in your Lordships' House. Now that this Amendment has been sent back from another place we would not of course expect support in making this a constitutional issue. But I believe that the contentions which we have put forward in respect of this particular matter will prove to be right in the end, and that at no very distant date. Nevertheless I wish to repeat what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, which is that we roust emphasize that the feeling in Scotland is very strong about this. Those noble Lords who come from north of the Border feel extremely strong about it, because as a result of bitter experience—if I may be allowed so to term it—we believe that the system which is to be achieved under this Bill will not work.
I can, I think, give your Lordships an example indicating how this is likely to work out by referring to your Lordships' House and the work which is being done in it to-day. If the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will allow me to do so, I would especially refer to his case. At the same time I would like also to pay a tribute to the great work which he has done on behalf of Scotland this summer. May I say that not only has he added lustre to his own name, but that he has enhanced the reputation of your Lordships' House by the excellent work that he has done. He is an example, and an outstanding one, that may be quoted in connexion with this matter. He has been obliged to stay in London most of his time to do this work, and he has admitted to me that, inevitably, as a result of doing so, he has lost: touch to a certain extent with Scottish affairs. There are other noble Lords, including myself, who are sometimes called the "thousand league booters," who spend a great deal of our time travelling the hundreds of miles between here and Scotland. We find it
686
extremely difficult, and I admit for my own part that I do not always do my duty properly. I spent three nights in the train last week, and if I were going to do my duty properly this week l should probably have to spend three nights in the train again. But it is too much to expect one to carry on in that strenuous fashion. I am not an old tram but neither am I a young one. I am over fifty and I cannot continue in that way. Now I think you will find that this sort of thing will apply in respect of these boards. You will not get the best work on behalf of the board and on behalf of Scotland.
With regard to the reasons which have been given for rejecting the Amendment in another place, may I say that we do not think very much of them? I that without rancour or bitterness. I maintain—sorry though I am to say it—that the record of His Majesty's Government has been one of putting Party first and country second—shibboleths have come first and practical politics have had to take a second place. In view of that tendency we, in Scotland, most strongly feel that we should get a delegation of control of our domestic affairs. I thought: I sensed—though perhaps I was a little too quick in doing so—a slight awakening in His Majesty's Government to this pressure from the North, in the words which fell from the lips of my noble friend Lord Morrison.
For what it is worth may I say that, in my view, His Majesty's Government should realize that this is an issue that is going to face them in the future? It is not only from Scotland but also from the North of England—as I think was mentioned in your Lordships' House by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley—that this present will come. It is going to come from the North of England, from Wales and from other parts. I suggest that His Majesty's Government should without delay take steps either to set up a Royal Commission, or something of that nature, to try to go into this matter and to see how they can best meet this difficult situation. His Majesty's Government have got to face the position sooner or later. If you proceed to delegate to the people of Scotland a measure of what is their rightful business you will find that you will hold Scotland instead of losing her—if you have not lost her already. If you stick to

687
the other way you merely have an unwilling, stubborn and unhappy partner. Surely you do not want that.
If I may perhaps make use of a simile may I say that what you have done in India—which is, of course, a far bigger issue—will, I believe, result in something very big coming back? I believe that you will find that when you get unity in India—as I believe and hope that you will—it will be clear that you have performed one of the greatest acts of statesmanship, probably, in the history of this country. The action that you took was in effect a throwing off of the ropes rather than trying to bind India tighter. In a similar way, with regard to my own small country of Scotland we believe that if you act on similar lines great good will come of it. I have no wish to be unkind, but I cannot help feeling that perhaps you threw off the ropes in the case of India because you did not know what else to do. In other words you have pursued a policy of living from hand to mouth and from day to day and, not through any particular act of vision, you have stumbled on a treasure that might prove very valuable to us for our future conduct with other small States. And if we found the way rather by luck than by good management, could you not pursue that course?
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.0 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 5, page 9, line 19, leave out from ("Commission") to end of clause and insert ("the scheme shall include, or, where there is no such scheme, the Minister shall by Order make such transitional provisions as to the parties by and against whom, legal proceedings are to be instituted or continued, and such other transitional provisions, if any, as appear to the Commission and the Minister to be expedient").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment, in lieu thereof, to the words so restored to the Bill:
Page 9, leave out lines 20 to 24, and insert ("shall include such transitional provisions as to the parties by and against whom legal proceedings are to be instituted or continued, and such other transitional provisions, if any, as appear to the Minister, or to the Commission and the Minister, as the case may be, to be expedient.")
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on our Amendment and agree to the Commons Amendment in lieu thereof.
688
This is another example of an Amendment made to the Bill as a result of representations from noble Lords opposite. This was a case in which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked us to secure provision for legal proceedings where an Executive was set up, and I am informed that it has been considered carefully with a view to improving it. The proposed new words effect in a clearer and better way your Lordships' wishes than the Amendment in its original form. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed and agree to the Commons Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 39, page 48, line 24, leave out ("forty") and insert ("eighty")
Clause 39, page 48, line 27, leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("fifty").
Clause 39, page 48, line 36, leave out ("forty") and insert ("eighty").
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendments would unduly hamper the commission in the adequate performance of their duties under the Bill.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM had given Notice that he would move, That this House do not insist on the said Amendments but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
Page 48, line 23, leave out from ("undertaking") to ("in") in line 24.
Page 48, Line 27, leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("forty").
Page 48, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if the next two Amendments are discussed at the same time. I intend to refer very briefly to the application of Clause 39 as it reached this House from the other place, and as it is now. It sets out in formula the basis on which road haulage undertakings would be absorbed by the Transport Commission and which is defined in this clause as ordinary long-distance carriage. During the debate in this House, both during the Second Reading and the Committee stage, the interpretation

689
of this clause was widely discussed, and certainly on this side the clause was considered to be very ambiguous. The Government, in my opinion, gave no satisfactory answer or explanation as to the correct interpretation.
As the clause is now drawn there is a double qualification of radius and distance, upon which will be determined whether an undertaking will or will not he absorbed by the Commission. One qualification lays down that an undertaking will be considered ordinary long distance carriage if the vehicle is more than twenty-five miles from its operating centre. There is no difficulty in understanding that qualification, but it is when we come to the second qualification that doubt arises, not only as to its interpretation but, equally important, as to its application. This second qualification lays down that an undertaking will be considered as ordinary long-distance carriage and therefore absorbed by the Commission if goods are carried by one vehicle or a succession of vehicles for a distance of forty miles upwards inside the radius of twenty-five miles from the operating centre. We maintain there is no valid reason for this second qualification. In fact, it is open to doubt whether the interpretation I have given is the correct one. There may be quite a number of interpretations: if we take my interpretation as correct, how can the Government explain how the distance is to be determined in this question of forty miles?
During the debate on this clause on the Committee stage, it was pointed out that many thousands of journeys would have to be examined in order to find out and arrive at a decision which would determine whether an undertaking would be absorbed by the Commission. We maintain that this is an impossible and unnecessary task. The Amendments to line 23 and line 36 seek to strike out this quite unnecessary qualification of distance inside a limited radius. I propose to refer to the first qualification. The Amendment on line 27 seeks to increase the radius from twenty-five to forty miles inside which a vehicle may be excluded from the Commission. The Government have strongly opposed any attempt to increase the radius both in this House and in another place on this particular clause, largely on the grounds that any increase would substantially cut down the number of undertakings and vehicles which would
690
be taken over by the Commission, arid that the reduced numbers would be insufficient to set up a good organization properly integrated.
Let us look at this claim a little closer and see what it means. In another place, and I think also in this House, the Government have stated that the number of vehicles which would be absorbed by the Commission based on the radius qualifications of twenty-five miles would be approximately 20,000 with an additional 10,000 railway vehicles. 71-1e whole matter is how these figures have been obtained. The industry is quite unable to determine these figures or any other figures on the basis of Clause 39 as now drafted, and it is equally impossible, I fear, for the Government to do it. I feel sure the figures given by he Government have been obtained from the Government Road Haulage Organization in operation during the war, when be qualification of ordinary long-distance carriage was a distance of sixty miles, and had nothing to do with radius. I wish to stress that this distance is roughly equivalent to the distance a vehicle could operate within forty miles and therefore any argument that this proposed increase of radius would reduce the number of vehicles taken over below the figure desired by the Government, falls completely to the ground. It will be seen if the approximate figures are worked out for a distance of sixty miles. that the radius would be 37½ miles. The Government figures are, therefore, really based on a radius of roughly forty miles and we are asking in our Amendment for this radius. In these circumstances I think we are justified in pressing the Government to accept this Amendment which stands in my name.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and propose the following; Amendments in lieu thereof:
Page 48, line 23, leave out from ("under taking") to ("in") in line 24
Page 48, line 27, leave out ("twenty-five and insert ("forty")
Page 48, line 36, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Teynham.)
6.20 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I have only a few words to say and I say them chiefly in order to separate completely the Amendments on Clause 39 from the subsequent Amendment on Clause 52. It is perhaps unnecessary to make that separation

691
in this House, but I notice that the other place dealt with these Amendments on Clause 39 and Clause 52 together, which I think is a sign of the confusion which sometimes besets that Assembly, because they have absolutely distinct objectives. Clause 39 is concerned with what undertakings shall be taken over. Clause 52 is not concerned with what undertakings shall be taken over, but with what shall not be done by the undertakings which are not taken over. To lump those two things together, and treat each of them as things to reject—as they have done in the other place—on the ground that it would interfere unduly with the Commission, is, I venture to repeat, a sign of confusion.
I only want to make that point because, whatever happens to this Amendment on Clause 39, I feel that the case for the Amendment to follow, on Clause 52, is much stronger than that on this clause. Even so, I still think the case put up for this Amendment is very strong indeed. I use in defence of it words used by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack when we were discussing this clause before, when he said:
"Our proposition is to take over long-distance haulage, and the test of long-distance haulage is something over forty miles."
Those are the actual words he used. The difference between long-distance haulage and other haulage is that long-distance haulage is over forty miles. This Amendment is simply designed to take those words out of the mouth of the Lord Chancellor and, if possible, to put them into the mouths of members of the other place.
Having spent some time in studying what was said in another place in rejecting all our Amendments, I want to speak in full warning against another argument which was used there: that is, that if the fifty-mile limit which was then proposed were adopted, the Commission would have so few vehicles that it could not manage its business. Actually, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said that on that basis they would have only 8,000 vehicles. That was obviously nonsensical, because in any case they would have the 10,000 vehicles of the railway companies. The real issue is between the 18,000 vehicles, which the Amendment would have given, and the 30,000, which is what the Bill as originally introduced would have given. It seems to me very unreasonable
692
to suggest that an undertaking cannot make a success of 18,000 vehicles. There are a large number of private undertakings which could well do that. This is another of the confessions of the failure of Socialism. I suggest that the Government should abandon that line of argument.
As to the question of forty miles or less, I would like to refer—in case any noble Lord from Scotland does not refer to it—to the complete absurdity of forty miles in relation to Scotland. May I also, finally, suggest that the transport industry is, or was, a progressive industry. At one time a speed of twenty miles an hour was a very fast rate for a motor vehicle, and to go fifty miles was a long journey. But to suggest to-day that anything over twenty-five miles is a long journey is absurd. I hope the Government will be able to take the words of their Lord Chancellor and accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I recognize the ingenuity of the noble Lord. He has suggested that the reduction of 30,000 vehicles—I think that was his figure—down to 18,000 does not matter much.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: 24,000 to 18,000.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That was the figure given by the noble Lord, and for the purposes of discussion I am assuming that it was correct. I should have thought it made a good deal of difference, supposing it were true. This matter has been the subject of prolonged discussion, and I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long in dealing with it. It is clear that this Amendment, which is limited to extending the radius from the operating centre and does not deal with the other part, means that there would be excluded from the operation of the Transport Commission a greatly augmented number of vehicles. That is the fact, and that is the intention of the Amendment. If the noble Lord says that he does not want the Commission at all, we cannot complain if he wants to whittle it down to the state where there would be substantially nothing left. That is understandable. It is not understandable, however, when he says that while the process is going on it does not matter.

693
As the Bill stood originally, a twenty-five mile radius gave the man with a vehicle an operating area of 2,000 square miles, which is a good big area to work in. Within the radius of twenty-five miles it would, in fact, be possible—and, of course, would be a daily occurrence—that along the roads within that radius you would go a good deal more than forty miles. That is not in question. But as soon as you say anything is not long-distance haulage, and you double the radius, you are making a substantial difference to the area of operation which you are excluding from the possibility of the Transport Commission. The area of operation under this Amendment would be 5,000 square miles, instead of 2,000 square miles, which would be excluded from the possibility of the operation of the Commission.
LORD TEYNHAM: If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, it is not a question of the Commission being excluded from operating in any area. The Commission can at any time, and anywhere, operate alongside private enterprise.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It means that the number of firms they would be able to take over under the definition of long-distance haulage would be reduced. That is really the effect of the Amendment—that they would he excluded from taking them over, and that would pro tanto reduce the number of concerns and vehicles of which the Commission would be authorized to make us. And it would, in fact, increase the excluded area in a radius of 40 miles from 2,000 square miles to 5,000 square miles. My right honourable friends have considered this with the best will in the world, and in their considered opinion, and the considered opinion of their advisers, to accept an Amendment of this sort would undermine the whole scheme of the Bill. I am sorry, but we cannot accept this Amendment.
6.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I must say that I think your Lordships will agree that that was a very unconvincing answer. There are, it is quite true, two issues here, although we are taking them in one for the purpose of debate. There is, first of all, what is to be taken over; secondly, there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, what is to be the area of operation of the permitted private undertakers who will still be allowed to
694
continue. There was really no answer from the Leader of the House on the second point with regard to the facilities to be given to the people who are still to be allowed to operate, and I should very much like to know—and the House would welcome the noble Viscount addressing us again, I am sure—if any concession is going to be made to us cal the area of operations which the no ale Lord, Lord Beveridge, rightly distinguished from the area of take over
Now what are the arguments which he used, and were used in another place, to justify keeping either or both of those within the limitation of 25 miles? Oddly enough, I do not think the Leader of the House mentioned the blessed word "co-ordination" to-night. I missed it if he did. But the whole purpose of this Bill. as we were told by the Lord Chancellor, was that it was co-ordination and not ownership that mattered. Nobody can pretend that ownership is necessary for co-ordination. If their argument really would hold water, then the Government ought to take the lot and not just those which come within the 25-mile limit—a ad no doubt some of the more greedy of their supporters would be very glad to see that happen.
I am not going to waste time over that argument, because it all concentrated on the prejudice which this great Government undertaking would suffer; its inability to discharge its statutory duty to give a decent service unless it took over everything except the 25-mile or less radius, and unless everybody who was permitted to continue was to be confined to his 25-mile radius. Well, really, is that not great nonsense? I will make the noble Lord a present of his figures rather than take the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, as to how many thousands of vehicles are to be affected. If we extend the 25 miles to 40 milts, and say that we do not take over those which are within the 40 mile radius, there is still going to be an enormous number—10,000 of the railway vehicles is it? And 8,000 or i8,000 of the others? At any rate, it is a great many thousand vehicles. It is a much bigger undertaking than that of any of the fellows w to are to-day conducting an admirable business. It may need co-ordination, but nobody pretends that they are rot giving the most excellent service, as

695
every trader and farmer says they are. Why do the Milk Marketing Board want to keep the business as it is? Because they are getting such excellent service. Those people who are giving that service do not say: "We cannot give this service unless we have 20,000 vehicles or more." This is paranoia; this is megalomania. The noble Viscount ought not to suffer from these diseases; he ought to know much more about them.
The great danger to-day is for businesses to get too big, not for businesses to get too small, and in a business like road transport which serves individual needs, I think anybody who knows will admit that is a real danger. The noble Viscount has forgotten another thing. He talks as if 18,000 was to be a very small undertaking and they could not do the job without them. But he is not necessarily confined to that number. The can go and order as many new lorries as he pleases as soon as the Commission is established, and I have no doubt they will always get priority as against the other unfortunate permitted operator. He can go and place all the orders he likes if he thinks this 18,000 or 28,000—whatever the number of vehicles is which he is going to take over—is too small for his little business; he can go and order another 10,000 immediately. It really is fantastic. Is this the fair chance which the Lord Chancellor said that the Commission must have? What do we mean by fair chance? We may mean a fair field and no favour. Is this great Government undertaking not able to compete unless it has a cartel, a monopoly and all the dice weighted in its favour? I make this claim not only in fairness but in both justice and common sense. Goodness only knows, 25 miles is not the right test to take for long haul—a radius which would prevent a haulier going across Greater London, prevent his going between Liverpool and Manchester and prevent his going between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Can anybody, without the most frightful misuse of words, pretend that operation within those areas is really long distance? Of course it is not. Forty miles is a much fairer distance.
There is one person I was waiting to hear mentioned in all the defence which the Leader of the House put up, and
696
indeed in everything which was said in another place, and that was the wretched consumer, the user of the road transport. I never heard him mentioned once. He has some rights. He has the right to be served. What is his interest? His interest is that there should be an efficient Commission and efficient hauliers, and that he should have a reasonable choice between the two to be able to send his goods by one or the other on what is a reasonably short haul. Not only would the haulier not have a fair chance if he is limited to his 25 miles, but the consumer, the farmer, the trader and the manufacturer would be unable to get that service out of the permitted haulier that he can give to-day, that he is only too anxious to give and that the Bill purports to provide should go on.
For all those reasons I say that this is right, in taking the test of what should be taken over. Although 40 miles must be a little arbitrary—during the war you made it 60 miles—if you please, the thing must be arbitrary to some extent; but as between 25 miles and 40 miles I do not believe any man of fairness and common sense would deny that 40 miles is a much fairer test. But when you come to the area in which he is to be permitted to operate, then I say if you refuse to give a radius of operation of 40 miles you are not only doing what is unfair to the haulier, but doing something which is much more serious: you are depriving the whole of the public of a chance of a fair service.
EARL GREY: My Lords, the noble Lord made great play of his calculation of 2,000 square miles as if it was a ridiculous area to give. A great many lorries are based upon the ports all round the country and your 2,000 square miles presumably would be half at sea and half on land. I do not think the noble Lord's calculations are really worth very much.
LORD GIFFORD: Speaking of calculations, I am sure the noble Viscount did not intend it, but he said it is upsetting the whole structure to double the radius. As far as I know 40 miles is not double 25 miles.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I did not say "doubling the radius." What I said was that the included area in a radius of 25 miles was 2,000 square miles.
EARL GREY: Even if you are based on the shore?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Of course not.
EARL HOWE: I have attended many hours of discussion, and I have been hoping to hear an explanation from the Leader of the House or from some other Government spokesman as to how the figure of twenty-five miles came to be decided upon. What does it mean? If the noble Viscount can give any really good reason for the figure of twenty-five miles it will have a great deal of effect on many people like myself. But I have not heard any single reason for the figure. On the other hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has already pointed out that a twenty-five miles' radius will not enable you to cross the Greater London area. Twenty-five miles seems to have everything wrong with it from the point of view of the road haulier. Forty miles is a reasonable figure; it is the distance, for instance, between Edinburgh and
Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.
6.50 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 52, page 66, line 8, leave out ("twenty-five") and insert' ("fifty.")
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment
Glasgow, between Liverpool and Manchester, and so on. I appeal to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to give us some sort of an idea as to why twenty-five miles was chosen and what it represents.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think I can add any more. We have discussed this matter at great length. With regard to the point about the Greater London area, the noble Earl must not assume that every operator has the base of his operations on the circumference. Many of them would be inside the area.
EARL HOWE: But why was that figure chosen?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It was estimated that that was the figure that was necessary in order to have a sufficient basis of operating vehicles.
On Question, Whether the said Motion be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Hailsham, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Cholmondeley, M.

Maugham, V.

Reading, M.

Portal, V.

Gifford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ridley, V.

Gisborough, L.

Willingdon, M.

Samuel, V.

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Hawke, L.

Beatty, E.

Swinton, V.

Hazlerigg, L.

De La Warr, E.

Swinton, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Grey, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Lyle of Westhourne, L.

Howe, E.

Barnby, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Beveridge, L.

Polwarth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Bingley, L.

Remnant, L.

Lucan, E.

Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)

Rennell, L.

Munster, E.

Rochdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Cherwell, L.

Soulbury, L.

Radnor, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Teynham, L.

Rothes, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Selkirk, E.

Courthope, L.

Wardington, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Wolverton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Woolton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Faringdon, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Addison, V.

Henderson, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Kershaw, L.

Morrison, L.

Ammon, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Walkden, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

to which the Common; have disagreed, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof: Page 66, line 8, leave out "twenty-five." and insert "forty." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will 13e very brief. I do not propose to repeat all the arguments in favour of an increase in the radius except under one or two of the main headings. We have had a

699
declaration from the Minister in another place that the radius of twenty-five miles was merely a nice sensible proposition, and we made it clear during the Committee stage of the Bill that twenty-five miles is far too short a distance for private enterprise to work efficiently, and that trade and industry would thereby suffer. We pointed out that it would not be possible to send goods in one vehicle even across Greater London, and we also raised the difficulty of the distance between such large towns as Edinburgh and Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester, and so on.
There is a much more important and psychological reason for an increase in radius in Clause 52 as proposed by my Amendment, which I ventured to put before you during the Third Reading of the Bill, and that is the importance of a contented and well-organized private transport industry running alongside that of the Commission. Of course, if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to ensure that the Commission will eventually drive and swamp the private transport industry out of business, it is an entirely different matter. But I feel that that is not the intention of the Government, and we earnestly ask them to accept this very reasonable Amendment which will provide for a contented private transport industry and will allow it to build itself up alongside the Transport Commission. There is an old nautical saying: "Why spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar?" Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House, will take heed of the adage, and accept this Amendment which is put forward in the best interests of transport and of His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on the said Amendment, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 66, line 8, leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("forty").—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We need not repeat our arguments. I am interested to know from the noble Lord that this will lead to a contented and well-organized industry, whereas it is only quite a few days ago that we were told that the necessary figure was "fifty"; now we will achieve the same beneficent result by "forty"; that is very gratifying to know.
700
I need not repeat my arguments and I am sorry that, for the reason that geometry remains the same, it is a radius of forty miles instead of a radius of twenty-five miles, and that is that. But perhaps I might suggest a matter of convenience to your Lordships which is quite in accordance with your usual practice. You have just moved the same Amendment practically in effect to another clause, to which we have objected, and, of course, we retain our objection to this one too, but, rather than subject your Lordships to wandering through the two Lobbies, I hope it will meet your Lordships' convenience if, when this Amendment is moved, we say either "Not-Content" or "Content" and thus avoid a Division—merely to register our dissent or otherwise.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I agree that that would be the most practical arrangement; it would save a great deal of time, with the same result.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, there is not much left on the Order Paper and perhaps this would be a convenient moment at which to adjourn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: IS it the intention of the Leader of the House that a Division should be taken in the same way as this last one?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I had not counted on that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It makes a difference about adjourning or not adjourning now. A Division takes ten minutes or so. If there are two Divisions, that will take us twenty minutes unless the noble Lord is willing to let the Amendment go under protest.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I say at once, without anticipating the arguments, that His Majesty's Government are not able to accept either of the Amendments which are before us. I believe that perhaps your Lordships do wish to state a case on them. As far as I am concerned, I am in your hands and, if that is the case, I suggest that the House do adjourn.
[The Sitting was suspended at three minutes before seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 39, page 48, line 29, after ("that") insert ("the carriage of goods in a vehicle

701
authorised for use under a licence granted under subsection (1) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because there are not sufficient grounds for making the exception granted by the said Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is a restrictive Amendment about which we had considerable discussion, and as the other place is not able to accept it I move that we do not insist.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 39, page 48, line 32, after ("meat") insert ("the carriage of milk")
Clause 39, page 66, line 19, after ("livestock") insert ("or milk")
Clause 39, line 19, at end, insert—("or
(c) the vehicle is a vehicle authorised for use under a licence granted under subsection (I) of Section seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933; or")
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because there are not sufficient grounds for making exceptions granted by the said Amendments.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: These are all the same type of restrictive Amendment, limiting the materials that a vehicle may carry which was objected to before in the other place. The other place has disagreed, and I move that we do not insist.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT,
Clause 40, page 49, line 27, at end insert—
("(6) In any proceeding under this section before the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act the burden of proof that an undertaking is such an undertaking as is specified in the last preceding section shall be upon the person contending that the undertaking is such an undertaking")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment is inappropriate having regard to the nature of the proceedings in question
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved, that this House do not insist on the said Amendment but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 49, line 27, at end insert the following new subsection
"(6) In any proceeding under this section before the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act the obligation of giving to the tribunal all information in his power as to the manner in which the undertaking or the relevant part thereof was carried on during the period mentioned in Clause 39 (1) (a) shall rest on the person on whom the notice of acquisition has been served and provided that such obligation has been duly performed the burden of proof that the undertaking is such an undertaking as is specified in Clause 39 shall be placed upon the person contending that the undertaking is such an undertaking."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, when this point was originally before your Lordships' House there was a certain amount of discussion as to what was the correct position and what was the correct procedure in a matter of this kind. Your Lordships may remember that the point was put originally by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I, amongst others, ventured to support him on that occasion in insisting on, and ultimately carrying to a Division, the point that the. question of the burden of proof was one of very great importance; that in this case there was no ground for taking any other than the normal course and insisting that the burden of proof should lie upon the party alleging a particular series of facts before the tribunal; and that that party should be called upon to appear before the tribunal and prove his case.
In the course of the discussion which took place on that occasion, I think that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack did point: out that difficulties, might arise, owing to the Commission nit being in a position to produce the necessary information without the assistance and co-operation of the individual undertaker. And on further reflection that has, I think, satisfied my noble and learned friends, Viscount Maugham and Viscount Simon, that there was, if I may respectfully say so, virtue in the point that difficulty might well arise if the Commission were called upon to appear before the Tribunal, owing to the fast that they had not in their possession, and therefore could not place before the Tribunal, the necessary information to

703
enable the Tribunal to come to a satisfactory conclusion. Having adopted that part of the case put forward by the noble and learned Viscount in originally opposing the then Amendment, it was decided to put it in the terms now before your Lordships on the Order Paper, which your Lordships will see do make a difference by amplifying the original Amendment which we discussed and including in it a provision in regard to the party upon whom is placed the duty to make the necessary disclosure of the relevant facts.
Therefore, as the Amendment is now proposed, it lays it down that in the proceedings which are the subject of this particular part of the Bill, the obligation of giving to the Tribunal the information that is required shall be placed on the persons, on the undertaker, who has to appear before the Tribunal and make his case. That is the primary duty, and until he has done that the Tribunal is not in a position to come to any conclusion. But when he has done that, and the Tribunal being seized of the necessary information, the moment then arrives when the burden of proof is as it was placed in the original Amendment. That is why when he has once performed that duty of disclosure, then the burden of proof is placed upon the person contending that the undertaking is such an undertaking as ought to be taken over—in other words the original Amendment that we submitted. The difference, therefore, is that we have now put forward an Amendment in which disclosure has to be made by the person contesting that he comes within the Act. When he has performed that duty then, as in the original Amendment, the burden rests upon the person claiming that the undertaker comes within the Act to prove his case in the normal way. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 49, line 27, at end insert new subsection:
("(6) In any proceeding under this section before the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act the obligation of giving to the tribunal all information in his power as to the manner in which the undertaking or the relevant part thereof was carried on during the period mentioned in
704
Clause 39 (1) (a) shall rest on the person on whom the notice of acquisition has been served and provided that such obligation has been duly performed the burden of proof that the undertaking is such an undertaking as is specified in Clause 39 shall be placed upon the person contending that the undertaking is such an undertaking").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
8.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what the noble Marquess has said, though he has, I know, very clearly explained the effect of our substituted proposals. I think that in order to apprehend the force of the new proposals one really has to look at Clauses 39 and 40 and see what the Commission is authorized to do. Clause 39 begins:
"Where the Commission are of opinion with respect to an undertaking the activities of which consist wholly or partly on the operation of any vehicles authorized to be used under any A licence or B licence——"
And then there are two conditions mentioned, first that the undertaking or any part thereof was carried out during the whole or any part of the year 1946, and second, that the activities of the undertaking in that year, so far as they consisted in the carriage of goods in goods vehicles, consisted to a predominant extent in ordinary long-distance carriage for hire or reward; and it shall be the duty of the Commission to give a notice of acquisition to this body. To a large extent, and in many cases, the Commission must be acting on first impressions—I will not say a guess, but it does its best on any information then before it, and it may in those circumstances give notice of acquisition that an undertaking is going to be taken over and is going to be managed by the State agents and it will be a criminal offence for the undertaker any longer to carry it on himself. Observe how it goes on in Clause 40:
"A notice of acquisition given by the Commission with respect to an undertaking shall be in writing and shall be served on the person carrying on the undertaking."
We have now got to the point that the Commission have formed a first impression and served a notice on the undertaker which says in effect, "We are of the opinion that you come within the ambit of the scheme." Then one of two things may happen.

705
"If a person on whom a notice has been served by the Commission with respect to an undertaking desires to contend that the undertaking is not such an undertaking … he may by notice in writing served on the Commission require the Commission to withdraw their notice."
It is quite natural that the challenged undertaker should communicate to the Commission the reasons why he thought he was not in the scheme at all. Then the Commission might take one of two courses. They might feel in the light of what is pointed out that the original claim was wrong and withdraw it.
"Where the Commission receives such a. notice as is referred to in subsection (2) . . they shall, if satisfied that the contention of the person carrying on the undertaking is correct, withdraw their notice …"
They can say, "I beg your pardon, we thought you came within the Government scheme. Now we find you do not and we do not make any claim." The alternative is that if the Commission do not feel they should withdraw the notice,
"the question whether or not the notice given by the Commission is to have effect shall, unless the owner of the undertaking withdraws his notice, be determined by the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act."
I do not think anybody, lawyer or layman, will dispute that the arbitration tribunal sits as a tribunal to decide a dispute which exists between the Commission on the one hand and an objecting undertaker on the other. The tribunal is, in effect, the judge. There is nothing technical about this. There is no difference between a court of law and any other tribunal of that sort. It is the judge and the two sides appear before it.
When I made these observations on Committee stage, I may be flattering myself, but it appeared to me that what I said carried a good deal of weight in different parts of the House. Frankly it an unfortunate thing that the tribunal can say, "If you want to get out of this, get out of it." The Commission which is claiming to embrace the man within the scheme of the State service should be required to prove it and that was the nature of the Amendment which I moved and which was carried, and which is now subsection (6) of Clause 4o. With that before them, the other place, under the advice of the Solicitor-General, have largely rejected the proposal, as it was quite within their rights to do. I will not criticize the speech of
706
the Solicitor-General, although I do not regard it all as quite what I should have thought was good law and good sense. But his main point was a good point. It was: If you leave it like that, and you say the Commission have to prove their case, there may he instances in which the Commission have not got the necessary information to prove their case.
A man who is unwilling to be absorbed into the State system might refuse to give information; or, owing to the fact that his records were destroyed, he might get away with it and keep outside the State scheme merely because he said: "You have got to prove it." I think that is a good point, and I accept it as a good criticism. Therefore, the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, self and others—I think it is warmly supported by other noble Lords on the Front Bench here—have suggested that. while that is perfectly right, the proper way to get over that difficulty is not to perpetrate what at any rate in my experience—for what that is worth—is an extraordinarily anomalous assertion—that is, for a man to escape on the claim that he is within the State scheme—but that the proper provision is this. I call attention to the words on the Amendment Paper:
"In any proceeding under this section before the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act the obligation o giving to the tribunal all information in his power as to the manner in which the under-faking or the relevant Part thereof was carried on during the period mentioned in Clause 39 (1) (a) shall rest on the person on whom the notice of acquisition has been served … "
I think that is right. If I had thought of it in time, I would have put it in. In so far as that was omitted from our original proposal, I venture most respectfully to say that I think the Solicitor-General in another place had a good point: we do not want to encourage anybody to get out of this measure by sitting mum and refusing to give information.
Once you have made that the duty of private undertakers, then I submit to the House the proper principle is what here follows: that it
"shall rest on the person on whom the notice of acquisition has been served and provided that such obligation has been duly performed the burden of proof that the undertaking is such an undertaking as is specified in Claire 39 shall be placed upon the person contending that the undertaking is such an undertaking.

707
I really think your Lordships, sitting in any part of the House, will see that I am trying to talk what is reasonable and good sense. It seems to me that once you have put upon the person who is said to be within the State scheme the obligation of disclosing everything ("Put your cards upon the table; show us what your past history is; let us know as much about it as you know about it"), it is a rather monstrous thing, and certainly undesirable and very improper, that you should then say that what is called the burden of proof does not rest on the people who claim that the undertaking is within the scheme of the Act.
Your Lordships must remember that the result of an undertaking being declared to be within the scheme of the Act is not only that the private livelihood of the man carrying it on becomes illegal; he is not allowed to carry it on any longer, and has to take whatever compensation comes his way—which some think is not very much. Not only is it illegal in the sense that it is contrary to these clauses, but it becomes a criminal offence. Surely if a private individual gives you all the information and says: "Those are my records; those are the journeys I have travelled; this is what I have done", it cannot be right to say after that that anybody should be entitled to declare that he is to be deprived of his livelihood and is a criminal breaking the law, liable to be prosecuted in the criminal court, when he has done everything which can be done to disclose the actual facts.
I notice that in another place the Solicitor-General used an argument which, to me at least, is entirely mysterious. I wish to speak with the greatest moderation, because obviously a great responsibility rests upon legal members of the Government in either house who are advising the House at large as to how the matter will stand, and 1 am sure we should recognize that that is the first thing the Lord Chancellor in this House is always most scrupulous to observe. What the Solicitor-General did was this. He said that this inquiry by the Transport Tribunal will be an inquiry which is governed by the Arbitration Acts, and subject to some severe limitations—which do not matter. Then he proceeded to say something which, with great respect, made me doubt whether he was well acquainted with the Arbitration Acts. He said that the Transport Tribunal
708
will be in a much better position to find out these facts than the Transport Commission. I speak humbly, but with a considerable knowledge of the way in which the Arbitration Acts work. As a matter of fact, an Arbitration Tribunal does not itself go inquiring into facts at all. It is, of course, a Tribunal consisting, as it happens, of some legally trained person sitting as the President and a couple of others. It does not set about inquiring into facts.
What happens in a case like this, since it is under the Arbitration Acts, is that the Commission, which is one of the claimants, asks for the necessary order for discovery; that is to say, to compel either side to produce anything and everything they have which is relevant, or it may even ask questions, which we call Interrogatories. The Tribunal does not seek to ferret out one side or the other. Either side may ask that an order should be made for all this disclosure. I think it was a little unfortunate that it was suggested in another place that the Tribunal, because it was sitting under the Arbitration Acts, had some function of ferreting out the facts. I never heard of such a thing! After all, I have attended hundreds of arbitrations in my life and it is really quite contrary to what the popular understanding of an Arbitration Tribunal is.
My submission therefore is this. I am quite willing to admit that in the original proposal I made I went too far. I think it was perfectly right that the Amendment as I proposed it—and as others supported it—went too far, because it sought to throw this burden of proof on the Commission at an earlier point than was in common sense and justice proper. It certainly would not do for the undertaking which they seek to get within their scheme to sit mum and say nothing, or say, "Prove it if you can," as a criminal sometimes does in the dock who says, "You accuse me of murder—well, prove it." I am sorry I made that mistake, and if I had realized it I would have protected myself from that in the first instance. I ask the House to support me in making this correction now. The effect of this Amendment is to throw upon the person who denies that he comes within the Government scheme the absolute obligation to disclose the whole of his transactions. Put that upon him as a duty, and do not say that the burden lies on the

709
Commission to prove their case unless he discharges that duty. But if he does discharge that duty, and really reveals all that he knows, so that it is possible for the Tribunal to form a just judgment, then I must say I think it is rather astounding that you should still persist that it is the claimant who has got to prove what he asserts.
The Lord Chancellor was good enough, on the last occasion, to say that he did not differ with me on the general principle at all. I felt sure he would agree. It is not a lawyer's point, it is just a common sense point, that if you are going to claim that so-and-so is the fact, normally speaking the person who makes the claim has got to prove the fact. But I realize that I struck too soon in this Amendment. I think the matter has been put right, and I suggest that in the general interests of justice we ought to put before another place this modified proposal. I hope very much that if we do so the other place, which I am sure wants to do the right thing, may be disposed to accept it.
8.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I make reference for a moment to the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. He said, in effect, that he wanted another place to show themselves reasonable in considering our Amendments, and so on. I think your Lordships know me well enough to realize that I have devoted a great deal of time and care in trying to get Amendments which seemed to be reasonable accepted in another place. I have been at great pains, and generally I have succeeded. Sometimes I have not succeeded, but more often than not I have. It is only right to say, quite plainly, lest I should be thought to be sheltering myself behind the Minister, that I have not advised him to accept this Amendment. I do not think it right to do so, and I should like to tell your Lordships why.
I got a great deal of advice on the last occasion, particularly from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who, perhaps with the traditional knowledge derived from his distinguished grandfather, was good enough to tell me that in a case of murder the onus of proof is upon the prosecution. I was aware of that fact. But here we are dealing with a very different proposition. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, as one would expect, has made his point
710
with perfect correctness. But it would be interesting to go a little further and see what the next clause, No. 41, provides. The test of what is a predominant extent of long-distance carriage is there set up; and the test is either of two things. Either you have to show, to be within the definition of long-distance carriage, that the total weight of the goods which were the subject of ordinary long-distance carriage for hire or reward exceeded half the total weight of all the goods carried in those vehicles; or you have to show that the receipts from the undertaking in respect of those goods exceeded half the total receipts of the undertaking. Your Lordships will observe—and there can be no question whatever about this—that those facts are, in the nature of things, and must he, peculiarly within the knowledge of the man who runs the undertaking. It is a very difficult thing lo determine, and if anybody knows what the answer to this question is, it is surely the man who runs those undertakings.
Conscious that we were faced with this difficulty, we put in a proviso. It begins on the fifth line of page 50. The noble Viscount referred to it on the last occasion and said he thought it was without precedent, and I agree. I have never seen its counterpart. We put it in quite deliberately because we felt this difficulty, and we said in effect: "Provided that, if the tribunal have not enough information"—I am paraphrasing it very crudely—"you must do the best you can on the information you have got." That is, I think, the broad substance of it. There is a principle of law which is well known to all lawyers—we generally have our principle s written for us in well known works and, having got a principle written, we then proceed to explain it away. I have no doubt that this principle in regard to certain aspects of the criminal law is too wide, but it is very well understood and it is written down in what is the classical text book on this subject—Taylor On Evidence. I cite from the Twelfth Edition, paragraph 376.
There is nothing technical about this; I think it is common sense. I will read it to you:
"In several of the instances above given the Legislature has adopted a principle which the Common Law also recognizes, and which may here be noticed as a second exception to the general rule that the burthen of proof lies at the party who substantially alleges the affirmative. The exception is this, that, where the

711
subject matter of the allegation lies peculiarly within the knowledge of one of the parties, that party must prove it, whether it be of an affirmative or a negative character, and even though there be a presumption of law in his favour."
That is the proposition. I am not going to say that I accept that proposition in its full width with regard to the criminal law of this country, but I do accept the proposition as a rule of some common sense, and I do say that, where facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of one person, it is not unfair to say that the burden of proof should be cast upon that person in whom rests the knowledge of the facts.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Would the noble and learned Viscount forgive my interrupting, but I merely want to know this? Has his attention been called to the first five lines of the Amendment which I am proposing, because those five lines exactly embody—do they not?—the principles to which the noble and learned Viscount is calling our attention?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am coming to that but, for the moment, I regard that intervention as valuable, because it seems to me that the noble Viscount entirely accepts this proposition which I think, whether or not it is perfectly correct in regard to the criminal law, is a rule of sound common sense. Therefore, as the noble Viscount rightly says, he in his Amendment, I have no doubt, intends to accept that proposition. I am not quite sure that he does it, but he says this:
"In any proceeding under this section before the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII … the obligation of giving to the tribunal all information in his power as to the manner in which the undertaking or the relevant part thereof was carried on during the period mentioned … shall rest on the person on whom the notice of acquisition has been served."
But that has nothing to do with the onus of proof; that has to do with the obligation to give the information, and the obligation is already there, apart from this Amendment. The obligation is expressly stated, I think, in this Bill, in Clause 51, imposing upon the person that he has to give all information. If he does not give information—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: He goes to gaol.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is an obligation to give all the information in his power under Clause 51, subsection (2). If he does not give information, that becomes an offence. You will find on Page 121, at Clause 119 (2), that any contravention of the Act subjects the person so contravening to a penalty of, I think, one hundred pounds and a fine of five pounds a day. So that, before ever this Amendment was drafted, you had the plainest obligation that the person must state the relevant facts and, if he does not state the relevant facts, he commits an offence.
Now see what this Amendment does. It does not alter the law already in the Statute, and it does not, as I see it, in any way deal with the onus of proof.
It says: "provided that such obligation has been duly performed." Imagine yourselves, if you will, in the position of this Tribunal. How do you know whether the obligation has been duly performed? That is the point. Take the case of a man whose vehicles we are seeking to take over. The man comes along, and you get an impression, from the way he answers questions, that he is not being, shall I say, so forthcoming as he might be. You suspect that there is some little cupboard in his house in which there is a little book, and if you could only unlock that cupboard and look at that little book you would get a great deal of information. But you cannot prove it. You do not know it. You just get an impression that the man might give you more information than he is giving. What do you do then?
Suppose, to take the two most common cases in recent years—and I have met this sometimes—you get a man whose books you want, and he says "I am awfully sorry but I cannot produce my books. We had a fire and my books were burned." The number of times you find that relevant books have been burned in a most unfortunate fire is truly remarkable. It may have been true, and there may have been a fire—but who lit it one does not like to investigate. There is sometimes a greater refinement, and we get nowadays the man who says: "There is a tremendous demand for waste paper. We have all been asked to contribute, because there is a shortage of paper, and I have contributed all my old records, and I do not remember anything about them." Suppose you have cases of that

713
sort, and that you have—I will not put it higher than this—a suspicion in your mind, a strong suspicion, that the man is not being as forthcoming as he might have been: what do you do then? Do you say that the onus has shifted or not? Because, assuming the first part casts the onus on the man, the conditions of the onus have shifted the other way round, because it is "provided that such obligation has been duly performed." That is the whole point. That is what you never know.
In my opinion, as these facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of one party to the arbitration, if you are going to adopt a definite onus of proof you should not have it shifting on an uncertain fact like that. I should put it boldly, fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the man, because he has got the peculiar knowledge. But it was to avoid that very fact which we thought might be hard that we put in this very odd proviso, the like of which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and I have never seen before in our long experience, to try to avoid getting to that position. And if it is said to me: "You really must have an onus of proof," then I should say: "Well, do not have an onus of proof which shifts upon the performance of something which you cannot prove has been performed. If you want an onus of proof, put it fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the man who knows the facts."
The Commission here are not claiming anything, they are not asserting a right, they are doing that which the Statute tells them they have to do. If they believe that a man comes within a certain category, Whether they like it or not, they are bound to take the next step and serve what is called a notice of claim. He can serve a counter-notice, and unless they are satisfied that the countor-notice is right they are bound to go on. It is a case of the Commission performing a statutory obligation. I say that this Commission have to perform what I have called a dichotomy of putting these various undertakings into one camp or the other. They must do the best they can. I believe that this question of onus, particularly of shifting onus, is wrong and is undesirable, and would have the result, if people were disposed to try to dodge this Statute, of enabling them by not producing all the relevant documents perhaps to
714
get out of the obligation which Parliament intended should be forced upon then. Therefore I say, with great regret, that I cannot, in this case, see my way to assist your Lordships in getting this Amendment accepted.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I should imagine that never in the history of this House has so strange a speech been delivered from that place. I am not going to speak as a lawyer, though a long time ago I was one. I am going to speak merely as a common man, hitherto accustomed in this country to what we have been pleased to call common justice. Just observe what is going to happen here. Stripped of all the nice webs of legal terminology which have been woven around this very simple question, every road haulier, big or small, who I as hitherto been regarded as a decent man giving a decent service, who has not found his way into the law courts, who rendered pretty good service in the war, whether driving lorries, at the Front or through the bombardment from the air, a man who certainly has not been prosecuted more frequently than any of the rest of us, is to be treated by the Government, through the highest legal luminary of the land as their spokesman, as a potential if not as an actual criminal.
I justify the words I have spoken. What did he say: "Documents have a habit of disappearing"—"Curious how many fires there are." When I was a very young man at the Bar, I used to hear that kind of thing said sometimes at the Old Bailey. And I sometimes heard the Judge say: "Mr. So and So I think you are going a little too far." With great respect, my Lord Chancellor, I thick that to-night you have gone a little too far. These men are not criminals. These men are not potential criminals. Way should they be treated as if they were? Stripped of legal verbiage, I think there is only one instance which can be cited—there may be another: I do not know—where the onus of proof is shifted in this way. He is the man popularly known as the "fence," a probable receiver of stolen goods. Where a man is found in possession of stolen goods which have been recently stolen, the British law shifts the onus of proof on him to show why he is in possession of these goods. The ordinary criminal or indicted man is not treated as a criminal until the case is

715
proved. These wretched road hauliers are not in possession of recently stolen goods. They are in possession of goods doing a good service which are presently to be taken from them. Upon whom then should lie the onus of proof? I speak again as a common man. I do not care whether it is in Clause 51. I leave aside the miserable suggestion that these men go and burn the evidence. If you can prove that a man has done so there is a perfectly good legal procedure, and that man should he taken by the Public Prosecutor to the Old Bailey.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Viscount tell me with what offence he can be charged?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not know. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nor I.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I defer to the Lord Chancellor's legal knowledge. understand that deliberate destruction of evidence is an offence. It is not? Be it so. I bow to the Lord Chancellor's greater knowledge, but that does not get the Lord Chancellor out of his insinuation that these honest men are the kind of people who go and destroy evidence. That is not a suggestion—
LORD AMMON: Nonsense.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Lord Ammon may find it amusing but I do not mind saying that I am hot under the collar. We do feel it a disgusting thing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount accuses me again. I do not intend to stand that sort of language from him. I did not say anything like what he said. I am pointing out that it is quite wrong that the onus of proof should depend on the production of documents, and I gave illustrations of the sort of thing that could happen. I do not suggest for a moment that these people are dishonest men.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Do not let us mince words. Let us be frank. The noble and learned Viscount and I know one another well enough to be frank.
716
He said these were the kind of things that would happen. What was the point of his speech at all?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount and I know each other well, and if he were not heated he would see that I have a right to my opinions just as he has to his. He knows that I gave these facts as showing how wrong it is to make the onus of proof depend on the question of whether or not there has been a full production of documents. That is all.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect, I am extremely glad that the Lord Chancellor has reduced it to that.
LORD CHORLEY: Withdraw.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If he has withdrawn the suggestion—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I withdraw nothing. If the noble Viscount at this time is unable to understand what I say it is not my fault.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am in the recollection of the House and will content myself with saying this: either there is a charge that these are the kind of people who would destroy evidence or, if that charge is not made—and I am delighted that it is not—then the whole case the Lord Chancellor advanced falls completely to the ground. What we have done is that we have said that any information which these people have must be brought forward. The law calls it "discovery." Let me use a term better known to noble Lords—what Mr. Bevin called "Cards face up on the table." We ask that this hand should be played with the cards face up on the table; and then we ask that the common principle of English justice shall apply, with the cards on the table, that before an honest man is deprived of his livelihood the onus of proof shall rest on the man who seeks to turn him out.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.

Portland, D.

Hailsham, V.

Digby, L.

Long, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, [Teller.]

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Portal, V.

Cholmondeley, M.

Ridley, V.

Gifford, L.

Reading, M.

Simon, V.

Gisborough, L.

Salisbury, M.

Swinton, V.

Grenfell, L.

Hawke, I,.

Beatty, E.

Barnby, L.

Hazlerigg. L.

De La Warr, E.

Bingley, L.

Hylton, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)

Kinnaird, L.

Howe, E.

Llewellin, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Cherwell, L.

Lloyd, L.

Lindsay, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam

O'Hagan, L.

Munster, E.

Remnant, L.

Radnor, E.

Courthope, L.

Rochdale, L.

Rothes, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Teynham, L.

Selkirk, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L.

Wolverton, L.

Briilgeman, V.

Deramore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Ammon, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Addison, V.

Kershaw, L.

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

Stansgate, V.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Quihell, L.

Walkden, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
9.25 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 58, page 74, line 4, at end insert:
("(c) This section shall not apply to any vehicle used for the carriage of any goods for distances not exceeding eighty miles or for the carriage for any distance of any of the goods specified in provisos (a) and (b of subsection (1) of Section fifty-two.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment and three others for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendments are inconsistent with the general scheme and intention of the Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg formally to move that the House do not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That the House do not insist upon the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved as an Amendment in lieu thereof—
Page 74, line 4, at end insert:
("(c) If on a complaint made by the holders of an A or B licence to the licensing authority that the Commission, in the exercise of their function of providing transport service for the carriage of goods by road, not being ordinary long-distance carriage, are competing unfairly against the aggrieved licence holders by seeking to provide more than a fair proportion of the facilities required, the licensing authority may, if it thinks fit, refer the matter with its report
718
and recommendations to the Minister, who may make such order as in all the circumstances he may deem to be just, requiring if necessary the Commission to withdraw or alter such facilities.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I now beg leave to move the Amendment in lieu which your Lordships will see on the Paper. I would remind your Lordships of the principles which this House followed on the two sets of Amendment; with which the other place have disagreed. The first principle was that the law should be the same for the Government corporation and for the permitted operator; that the Government monopoly should be neither outside nor above the law; and that there should be in this country no droit administratif, which has always been a horror to us here.
The second principle was the one to which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has appealed, and which we readily accede to: that there should be a fair field for the Government corporation. But we always insisted that this meant a fair field and no undue favour. We understood that it meant that we should put the Commission and the operators who are permitted to operate under this Bill in the same position vis-à-vis the regional licensing authorities; and that we should retain to the licensing authorities their jurisdiction over passengers and goods, subject to any charges scheme approved by the Transport Tribunal or to any road passenger scheme promulgated

719
by the Minister and duly approved by Parliament.
As your Lordships will see from the paper, the other place disagreed with these Amendments on the ground that the Amendments are inconsistent with the general scheme and intentions of the Bill. Frankly, I find that reasoning difficult to follow. I think there is an arguable case on passenger road transport, for this reason: that all passenger road transport, to start with, is left as it is; then the Commission have to make a scheme, and that scheme in due course comes before us here. Presumably any scheme that is made will provide for its area of operation, for the facilities to be provided, and for its expansion to meet the public need. But I am sure that there will have to be a devolution in the interests of the public, and I dare wager that when these schemes are produced that necessary devolution will be to the well-proved and well-tried. licensing authorities in the regions. That there is some case that passenger transport should be differently treated, I admit.
As to goods, and the hauliers who are not touched by any scheme of that kind, I cannot see that there is anything inconsistent in our proposal. After all, the Bill, as introduced, has as its general scheme and intention that the Commission and the short hauliers shall both function and both serve the public to the best of their ability, and that the public shall have this limited right of choice. But if you leave the Bill as it stands, what chance have these permitted hauliers to serve the public, or the public to be served by them? Under the Bill, the A and B licensees will have to go to the licensing authority for any additional lorries they want to put on the road. Moreover, they will have to go to these licensing authorities when in two or three years' time the A and B licences have expired. They will have to go for the renewal even of their existing licences, for their existing permitted number of vehicles. But, in the meantime, the Commission are to be free to put all the vehicles they like upon the road.
Something was said about taking the cream of the business, though why the poor, limited number of permitted hauliers, with their limited renewals, should be permitted to take the cream, when the Commission can come in and
720
take what they please passes the wit of man to understand. The people who can take the cream and scoop the pool are the Commission, who can take all the extra facilities; they can do so because, in the first instance, there is no limit upon them under the Bill at all. They could put on so many extra lorries that, when the A and B licensees came to ask for the renewal of their licences, the licensing authorities would be bound to say: "The Commission have put so many vehicles on the road that we cannot even grant you the renewal of the licence to do what the Act allows you to do with your permitted number of vehicles." I ask in all humility, is that a square deal? I should have thought that common sense and common justice would put the Commission and the permitted hauliers on an equality. But we propose now something much more modest. I will not say that we are willing, because I do not think that would be fair, but in our attempt to get at any rate some measure of justice for the wretched trader and for the public, we propose to leave the Commission all their powers and all their privileges under this Bill, and they do not have to go to the authorities at all. We leave the hauliers, subject to the law as it stands to-day and will continue for them, having to go to the licensing authority for any extension, for a single extra lorry, for any renewal. But we propose this: we say—and these are the words of our Amendment:
"If on a complaint made by the holders of an A or B licence"—
and let me repeat to you that the A or B licensee will be a man permitted under this Bill to operate—
"to the licensing authority that the Commission, in the exercise of their functions of providing transport service for the carriage of goods by road, not being ordinary long distance carriage"—
that does not come in at all—
"are competing unfairly against the aggrieved licence holders by seeking to provide more than a fair proportion of the facilities required, the licensing authority may, if it thinks fit"—
they have got to be satisfied that there is a good case—
"refer the matter with its report and recommendations"—
the licensing authority will make its report—
"to the Minister, who may make such order as in all the circumstances he may deem to be just, requiring if necessary the Commission to withdraw or alter such facilities."
Observe how reasonable that is. It leaves the final decision with the Minister. There is a fair hearing on complaint, there is the report to the Minister, and the Minister is the final judge although he is also the owner of the Commission. Can anyone say that that plan is inconsistent with the general scheme and intention of the Bill? Can anyone say that less than that will fail to do justice either to the permitted operator or to the general public? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 4, at end insert:
("(c) If on a complaint made by the holders of an A or B licence to the licensing authority that the Commission, in the exercise of their function of providing transport service for the carriage of goods by road, not being ordinary long-distance carriage, are competing unfairly against the aggrieved licence holders by seeking to provide more than a fair proportion of the facilities required, the licensing authority may, if it thinks fit, refer the matter with its report and recommendations to the Minister, who may make such order as in all the circumstances he may deem to be just, requiring if necessary the Commission to withdraw or alter such facilities.")—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: When we were discussing the Bill before I thought that with the exercise of much ingenuity and, may I say, of infinite good will, I had gone as far to meet the noble Viscount's claims in respect of this class of haulier as even his utmost ingenuity could suggest. He has now, however, thought of something else. I want to point out what the scheme of the Bill is. There are these services provided by the Commission, or by the Executives with the Commission's authority, and, if you look at the governing conditions in Clause 3, Subsection (3), you will see that the Commission:
"shall so conduct that undertaking and levy such fares, rates, tolls, dues, and other charges, as to secure that the revenue is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another.—
In other words, the Commission have got to pay their way.
This Amendment, so far as I can understand it, suggests that the Commission will be providing more than a fair proportion of the facilities required; that is to say, I suppose, that they will be providing more vehicles than are required for the traffic. That would be completely inconsistent with the governing condition of the Commission, that the scheme was to pay its way, because if they were providing
722
an unnecessary number of vehicles clearly it would not be an economical proposition. I cannot imagine that any body of men in their senses would go out of their way to do anything of the kind. That is the first supposition. The next is this, that the noble Viscount wishes this matter to come before the licensing authority. We had this battle out before, both on Committee and Report, and the Government object to subjecting the Commission to the licensing authority, because there are specific provisions in the Statue for dealing with all the matters liable to arise, and which properly arise, in this connexion. It cannot be accepted—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Would the noble Viscount permit me to interrupt, because I would like to know, where is the provision under which the permitted operator can go and complain if he says he is being unfairly treated?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am coming to that. I am now on the point of subjecting the Commission to the licensing authority, which is something quite cut-side the scheme of the Bill. The Commission are responsible, and there is a special tribunal provided to deal with the rates, fares and charges and all the rest of it. Perhaps the noble Viscount will remember that I undertook—I think on the Report stage, after a promise given on the Committee stage—that we would try and provide an opportunity for anybody who felt himself aggrieved by the service, to have his case examined. In other words, his case would be examined by the proper body; not by the local licensing authority, but by the tribunal set up under the Bill. And, under Clauses 78, 79 and 80, there is in the Bill now a special provision that I myself, in concert with the noble Viscount, introduced in the Report stage, that arty body representative of any class of persons providing for hire or reward services or facilities similar to or comparable with the services or facilities to which the scheme relates, who desire to contend that the charges provided for in the draft scheme are unduly low may lodge an objection to that effect—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect the Leader of the House has not read the new Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Oh yes, I have.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: All right; but what he is reading now deals with passengers, does it not?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes it does. It is a passenger road transport scheme.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: If the noble Viscount will look at it he will see that this deals with the charges which are provided under a scheme. There will be schemes of all kinds. Consider the case of a person who feels himself prejudiced in some way by one of these schemes. If he wishes, he can make his complaint through the consultative committee. As a matter of fact, the scheme bristles with opportunities for such people to make their grievances known and get them attended to. Quite honestly, I think it is an impossible suggestion to make that the Commission would deliberately put on the road an unnecessary number of vehicles, which is the supposition of the Amendment. I cannot imagine any body of men in their senses doing such a thing. Certainly if they did they would be infringing their governing instruction in the Bill, which is to make their services a self-supporting proposition. Really, the idea is quite unthinkable.
In any case we could not agree that an outside body, the licensing authority, should be brought in when there are abundant opportunities in the Statute itself for all legitimate complaints to be heard and dealt with. Therefore, I am sorry to say that we cannot possibly accept this Amendment, and I think the finding of the other place was right when it was said that the Amendments "are inconsistent with the general scheme and intention of the Bill." I think that they clearly are, and I am sorry that the noble Viscount has introduced an Amendment of this kind.
9.48 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords I am sorry to hear the speech made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I have no doubt that he has spoken in entirely good faith, as he always does. But he will not have convinced any of us. If I may say so, with great respect, he seems to have quite misunderstood the purpose of the Amendment. First of all he said that no sensible
724
Commission would put too many vehicles on the road because they would not pay their way. But here you have to deal with a situation where a great corporation with infinite funds are opposed to a number of small men with very limited capital. That is the position with which you will be faced for every district, urban and rural, in England. Does the noble Viscount really say that it is impossible for a great corporation to drive these others out of business? I would like to mention the case of the Standard Oil Company—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I interject a question? As I have understood him, the noble Marquess has contended all through that private enterprise is so much more efficient than public enterprise that it can hold its own very well in these cases. Is that not so?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree—when there is fair competition. That has always been the contention of the Party to which I belong, and of the Liberal Party as well. Nobody defends the action of an immense aggregation of capital in driving small men out of business. No one has defended that. The case which I was going to quote was held up in the United States as a scandal. It was the case of the Standard Oil Company of the United States. The accusation against that body was that they bought up small company after small company, persistently undersold, in fact took every means they could to drive them out of business; and in a great number of cases succeeded. I do not think that anyone, however much he might be in favour of private enterprise, would defend proceedings of that kind. The noble Viscount may say that no State enterprise would do a thing of that kind, that they are ordinary decent people and not brigands or robbers. I am, of course, anticipating what he may say if he speaks again. In fact, the Party to which he belongs does not believe in private enterprise; I do not say in competition. They would think it perfectly all right to drive these people out of business.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly there is this difference between us—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not admit to the noble Marquess a better ability to interpret the opinions of my Party than I have. He is quite wrong.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why drive all the long distance road hauliers out of business? That is one of the main purposes of this Bill. Certainly it is. It is gradually being driven home to the country that that is what is happening. We cannot accept the contention that these people are not being driven out of business. If we are wrong, there is not the slightest reason why the Government should not accept this Amendment. They might consider that. The noble Viscount said that in any case the private owner is perfectly protected; he has a Tribunal which deals with fares and rates. The Tribunal does not deal with road hauliers; it deals only with passenger traffic. I am open to correction.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Our proposal leaves it open to everybody.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Not on the number of vehicles, only on rates.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It deals only with rates. I am not concerned with rates, but with the volume of traffic. What we are asking is that in the case of a private citizen without unbounded resources, who feels he is aggrieved and makes a good case he has the right of appeal to the Minister. That does not seem to me to be a very reactionary proposal. The Minister maintains absolute control of the position. All he does is sit in his office receiving appeals and considering them, but it does give to the private man some feeling of security that there is somebody to
whom he can appeal for the reversal of any decision about traffic and the amount of vehicles run by the Commission in his own area. It is not an extreme, but a very modest proposal. We have been at infinite pains to find something which would satisfy the Government and bring comfort to the road hauliers. We felt that if the Minister was the final arbiter, it would be acceptable to the Government. If it is not acceptable, we have failed in our endeavour to find a compromise. I ask them to believe this. We do feel passionately that we must try and protect these small people and their future. It is not a mere debating point for us. It is something very, very deep-seated. In the last Amendment we tried to make it unnecessary for a man to prove his innocence, at any rate not of a crime but of a potential crime. In this Amendment we try to give him some appeal against this immense machine which will, willy-nilly, whether it be the will of the Government or not, gradually grind him out of existence. It is something we feel strongly about and something the people of this country feel strongly about. We have sought by every means in our power to find a line where we can meet. I am bound to say that many hundreds of thousands of people in this country will be bitterly disappointed with the attitude the Government is taking on these Amendments.
On Question, Whether the said paragraph shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Long, V.

Rigby, L.

Chohnondeley, M.

Portal, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Reading, M.

Ridley, V.

Gifford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Samuel, V.

Gisborough, L.

Swinton, V.

Grenfell, [Teller.]

Beatty, E.

Hawke. L.

De La Warr, E.

Addington, L.

Hazlerigg, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Hylton, L.

Howe, E.

Bingley, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)

Llewellin, L.

Lindsay, E.

Lloyd, L.

Munster, E.

Cherwell, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Remnant, L.

Radnor, E.

Rennell, L.

Rothes, E.

Courthope, L.

Rochdale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Craigrnyle, L.

Sinha, L.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teynham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Denham, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hailsham, V.

Deramore, L.

Wardington, L.

Wolverton, L.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Ammon, L.

Marley, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

Addison, V.

Kershaw, L.

Quibell, L.

Hall, V.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Walkden, L.

Stansgate, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 64, page 78, line 41, leave out ("not").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment is inconsistent with the general scheme and intention of the Bill.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this Amendment, together with following Amendments, relates to the licensing authorities and was disagreed with by the other place for the same reason as I indicated a few moments ago. I hope your Lordships will not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 64, page 78, line 45, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 15 on page 79 and insert ("otherwise than under Part II of this Act provided that the licensing authority shall give effect to the relevant provision of any scheme made under section sixty-three and sixty-four of this Act").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment is inconsistent with the general scheme and intention of the Bill.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, the same remarks apply to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 80, page 93, line 27, at end insert new Clause:
("Fixing of Fares.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act the fares to he charged by—

(a) the Commission in respect of passenger road transport services provided by them otherwise than under Part II of this Act, and

728

(b) any person other than the Commission in respect of passenger road transport services provided by him under a scheme under section sixty-two of this Act,

shall be approved by the appropriate licensing authority for public service vehicles, and Sections seventy-two to seventy-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, shall apply accordingly:
Provided that the licensing authority shall so far as may be give effect to any relevant charges scheme made under Part V of this Act and relating to such fares, and in respect of operators of passenger road transport services other than the Commission or such person as aforesaid shall have regard to such charges scheme in exercising its powers under paragraph (b) of sub-section (4) of Section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment is inconsistent with the general scheme and intention of the Bill.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move that we do not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 98, page 106, line 8, leave out from ("for") to end of line 9, and insert ("determination, and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitration shall apply to such reference and determination").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
Page 106, line 8, after ("Service") insert ("after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State").
Page 111, line 5, after Clause 103, insert the following new clause:—
Arbitration Acts do not apply to proceedings before referees or boards of referees.
("Nothing in the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, shall be construed as applying to any proceedings before a referee or board of referees appointed under this Part of this Act by the Minister of Labour and National Service after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State.")
10.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is in order to clear the way for the compromise Amendment upon which we agreed, and which I propose to move. With regard to this, I beg to move that the House do not insist on the Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, That this, House do agree to the first Amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House agree with the Amendments printed in italics. I should say, with regard to the second one, that unnecessary words have been introduced. It should end with the words, "Minister of Labour and National Service," because consultation with the Lord Chancellor, as provided elsewhere in the Arbitration Acts, does not apply to Scotland. Therefore the words are unnecessary. I beg to move that the House do agree with the first Amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the second Amendment with the proposed Amendment."
Moved, That this House do agree to the Amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof with the following Amendment:
In the new clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 103, leave out from ("Service") to the end of the clause.—(Viscount Addison.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 99, page 107, line 12, leave out from ("Service") to ("and") in line 13, and insert ("and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 107, line 12, after ("Service") insert ("after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are to
730
be held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State").
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg b move that this House do agree with the Commons in the Amendment proposed in lieu.
Moved, That this House do agree to the Amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.—(Viscount Addison.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 99, page 107, line 13, leave out ("that decision") and insert ("such determination").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment is inconsistent with the Amendments proposed by the Commons in. lieu of the Lords Amendment in page 106, line 8.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause not, page 109, line 21, at end insert:
("(3) Any dispute between the Commission and an officer or servant as to whether any or what compensation is payable under this section or any regulation made thereunder shall be referred o a referee or board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service for determination and such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, and the provisions of those Acts relating to statutory arbitrations shall apply to such reference and determination.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment is inconsistent with the Amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu of the Lords Amendment in page 106, line 8.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause page 109, line 24, leave out from ("compensation") to the end of subsection (3).
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment, in lieu thereof, to the words so restored to the Bill:
Page 109, line 34, after ("Service") insert ("after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State").
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move that this House do agree with the said Amendment proposed in lieu.
Moved, That this House do agree with the said Amendment proposed in lieu.—(Viscount Addison.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Eighth Schedule, page 142, line 52, leave out from ("cause") to end of line 3 on page 143, and insert ("in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act, a public local inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect thereto by a person who is not a servant or officer of the Minister").
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
Page 142, line 52, leave out ("inquiries to be made") and insert ("in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act, a public local inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect thereto").
Page 143, line 1, leave out ("result of the inquiries,") and insert ("report of the person by whom the inquiry was held").
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move that we do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments in lieu thereof. It concerns local inquiries and puts the Amendment in a better form.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Addison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Amendment as originally moved, sought to do three things. It sought in the first place to ensure an independent inquiry; secondly, to ensure that those who objected to the inquiry should know the case they had to meet; and thirdly that the report of the inquiry should be made public. There will be very big transactions, running into hundreds of millions of pounds in some cases. There will be inquiries dealing with the transfer of municipal undertakings and very large passenger transport undertakings of all kinds, and I submit that the nature of these inquiries is at the present time left open very unreasonably. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, replied to these questions from a learned book. I subsequently found that he had quoted from a paragraph entitled Limitations to Committee's Recommendations. What he said was diametrically opposite to most of the recommendations in the Committee's Reports, which were very much on the lines of the three points mentioned in the Amendment which we originally agreed to in your Lordships' House.
My second point is this. The reasons given in the reply from the other place are that these inquiries are administrative. I think we are carrying it rather far when we say that the transfer to the Transport Commission of any large municipal undertaking in any part of the country is no more than an administrative act of the Minister of Transport. That is carrying it much too far. This is in fact nothing more nor less than streamlined legislation. This is what one normally finds carried out by an Act of Parliament, but here it is carried out simply by a Minister's fiat and, in fact, with or without an inquiry. I want to emphasize this point: that this business could go through with the most limited form of local public inquiry.
I would like to refer your Lordships to what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said when the spoke on

733
June 26, when I moved this Amendment. He said:
"Assuming the objector had a locus standi, he would obviously be entitled to appear either in person or by Counsel. It goes without saying that any witness who does give evidence in chief is subject to cross-examination—of course he is."
Then the Lord Chancellor said:
"Clause 120 of this Bill lays down that the inquiries held under this Bill are to be subject to Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919."
If we look at Clause 120 we find that it is permissive, that there is nothing to ensure that any form of normal judicial procedure would in fact be carried out. If we go to the Act of 1919, we find not one but two permissive conditions. That means to say that, before in fact the conditions which the Lord Chancellor recognizes as necessary can be carried out, there are three permissive stages. Can the noble Viscount the Leader of the House say that in carrying out these very big transactions there really will be a proper inquiry with the proper assurances that are required? I would like to receive the assurances I have mentioned: that there will be an independent inquiry, a case to be met, and publication. If the noble Viscount cannot grant that, will he ensure that any objector is allowed (1) to state his case, and (2), to cross-examine anyone who gives evidence? Those are two points on which I am now asking for positive assurance. If that assurance can be given—it is a late hour at which to discuss this question of assurance, I know—I think it would be some consolation. I submit that this is an important matter in which enormous sums of money are concerned, and the municipal corporations are greatly interested in the manner and way in which this scheme will be carried out.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I cannot give the noble Earl assurances with regard to the legal procedures, on which I am not an authority, but I confess that I am profoundly disappointed at the noble Earl's speech, because I thought I had been doing something that he liked. I am profoundly shocked that apparently I have not. On the debate on the Report stage we arranged—largely through the insistence of the noble Earl—that the inquiry should be a public inquiry, and the Minister's report and order are to be made public. That question was debated at great length in this House but not as regards
734
the private confidential report of the person to the Minister—certainly not. We are opposed to that, and I should have to disagree with any such Amendment.
We took, I am sure, exhaustive precautions to see that the local inquiry should be public, that the evidence should be heard in public and that the local papers should come before the Minister. There would be a Minister's order on it and report to Parliament and everything would be considered and debated by Parliament. I cannot imagine any other series of procedures better calculated to ensure publicity in everything twat matters. As to how individual witnesses are to be treated, I am afraid I cannot give any assurance, as I really do not know. I suppose it will be in accordance with the practice at these inquiries. It might vary, but I am quite sure that every witness would be treated fairly—and if they were not there would be trouble, I have no doubt. What the precise procedure would be, I cannot say. It would vary, no doubt, according to the character of the inquiry. I am quite sure we have gone a long way, and I thought we had satisfied the noble Earl. We have tried to make the Amendment more explicit and readable. I can only say how disappointed I am that the noble Earl is still not satisfied.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Eighth Schedule, page 143, line 3, at end, insert:
("(3) The person appointed to hold the inquiry shall make a report thereon in writing to the Minister, containing—

(a) his findings and conclusions as well as the reasons therefor, upon all the material issues of fact, liability or discretion involved in the exercise of the functions in respect of which the inquiry has beer caused to be held; and

(b) his recommendations in regard to the exercise of the said functions;

and copies of such report shall be made available on payment of a reasonable charge therefor, to the persons entitled to attend the inquiry. The Minister may, after considering such report, make the order either in the terms of the draft, or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications as the Minister thinks fit.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment might prejudice the proper performance by persons appointed to hold inquiries and by the Minister of their respective duties under the Bill.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I move that, for the reasons I have already given, we do not insist.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Eighth Schedule, page 143, line 3, at end, insert:
("(3) The Commission shall appear at any such public local inquiry in favour of the scheme and any objector may appear and tender evidence. Any person appearing in favour of the scheme or any objector appearing at the inquiry shall be subject to cross examination.
(4) For the purpose of this Schedule the person appointed to hold such public local inquiry shall have the same powers as are granted to the Minister by section twenty of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the said Amendment imposes an undue rigidity on the procedure to be followed at administrative inquiries.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I move the same Motion here and for the same reason.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Addison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor if he can repeat the assurance that he has given, that proper opportunity for cross-examining will in fact be given? This was stated in Hansard and the noble Leader of the House is unable to give that assurance. I think it is reasonable. This principle has been thrown overboard, and I think it is proper that we should take a note of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl has asked for an assurance and quoted what was said on June 26. I wish he had given a little notice of
736
his question. I have no doubt that on June 26 I was properly instructed, but I have had this matter brought to my attention only one moment ago, and I have not the least idea what I said on June 26. I can only hope that what I said was accurate and in accordance with the law, but it is quite impossible for me, here and now, to give an assurance as to some proposition with which we were then concerned, and on which on that occasion I was no doubt properly briefed. However, I may say this: that in a very long experience, I have never yet come across a case or a tribunal where a man gave evidence in chief and cross-examination was not allowed. I have never heard of such a thing, and, if it ever has taken place, it has not taken place to my knowledge.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I remind the noble Lord—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I must ask the noble Earl to obey the rules and orders of the House.
Bill returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, before we adjourn, may I remind your Lordships that, owing to certain introductions, the House will meet to-morrow at two o'clock.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes after ten o'clock.