Sitting of 5 November 1947

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MARRIAGE OF PRINCESS ELIZABETH
The PRIME MINISTER reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I thank you most sincerely for your loyal and dutiful address of congratulation on the approaching Marriage of My beloved Daughter Princess Elizabeth to Lieutenant Mountbatten. The Queen and I value more than words can express this further evidence of your warm and kindly interest in all that concerns the well-being of My Family and with you we pray that Princess Elizabeth and Lieutenant Mountbatten will be blessed with every happiness in their married life.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Petrol
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Air, what instructions have been issued in his Department about the use of petrol for cleaning clothes, washing floors and hangars, and other similar purposes unconnected with the movement of aircraft and vehicles.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Instructions issued by my Department prohibit the use of petrol for cleaning purposes, except for such items as sparking plugs, oil filters and electrical equipment.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Secretary of State aware that rumours still circulate in many
    1802
    parts of the country that petrol is being wasted on R.A.F. stations on washing floors and other purposes, and will he be sure that there is the utmost economy in the use of petrol and that the strictest of measures are taken against offenders in this respect?
    Mr. Henderson: The answer to the second part of the question is, "Yes, Sir"; as regards the first part, I would prefer facts to rumours.

    Aerodromes (Civilian Workers)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Air how many civilians are employed on aerodromes; if he is aware that wages for unskilled men so employed are higher than farm worker's wages; and why all the duties are not performed by R.A.F. ratings.
    Mr. A. Henderson: About 13,900 civilian industrial workers are employed by my Department on the maintenance of buildings, lands and services on R.A.F. stations in the United Kingdom. Of these 3,500 are classed as skilled workers, 9,800 as semi-skilled, and 600 as unskilled. The unskilled workers are at present paid a basic rate varying from 83s. to 92s. for a 44-hour week, as compared with a minimum of 90s. for a 48-hour week for the agricultural labourer. To replace these civilians by airmen would mean taking more men into the R.A.F. and there would, therefore, be no saving in manpower.
    Mr. Osborne: Does not the Minister think it would be better to employ these men, who were previously engaged on the land, in growing food instead of taking an early cup of tea to the sergeants' mess, as is happening in Lincolnshire today?
    Mr. Henderson: That is a matter of opinion. I can only accept responsibility for the work of my Department.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Could my right hon. and learned Friend make it his business to have an inquiry conducted into this in order to satisfy himself and this House whether thousands of these men mentioned are not engaged in most unprofitable, menial and unnecessary work?
    Mr. Henderson: As the hon. Gentleman may know, we have already established a Manpower Committee in my Depart-

    1803
    ment, with outside members, and the question of manpower is being investigated at this moment.

    Baku (Bombing)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will publish the Orders of the Day or other instructions relating to the proposed bombing of Baku on 15th March, 1940.
    Mr. A. Henderson: No, Sir. There were no such Orders of the Day or other instructions.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in the Swedish White Book there is a very definite statement that the bombing of Baku was a matter of agreement between the Allies?
    Mr. Henderson: I am afraid that I am not prepared to accept responsibility for anything that may appear in a publication for which another Government is responsible.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the fact that this is one of the reasons why there is so much suspicion of us in Russia, will he investigate it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Who is increasing it?

    Damaged Road Signs, Boston
    Mr. Butcherasked the Secretary of State for Air why the Boston Borough Corporation have not been re-imbursed in respect of damage to road signs caused by a Royal Air Force lorry on 18th May, 1946, although the town clerk has addressed 16 letters to the appropriate authority.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I regret to say that this claim has been mishandled. It should have been settled some months-ago. It has now been paid in full and an apology has been made to the Town Clerk of Boston. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this case to my notice.

    Far East (Tour of Duty)
    Mr. Championasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will, having regard to the climatic and other conditions obtaining in the Far East, consider making a considerable reduction in the tour of duty of members of the R.A.F. there.
    Mr. A. Henderson: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the tour of duty for
    1804
    members of the Royal Air Force in the Far East was reduced by six months in October, 1946. It now stands at two years in Japan, and two and a half years in the area covered by Far East Command, as compared with three years before the war. I am afraid that I cannot see any prospect of still further reducing these tours of duty.

    Lorry Routes, Bedfordshire
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in the interests of the inhabitants generally, and of the safety of children in particular, he will give instructions for the R.A.F. lorries travelling to and from the camps at Melchbourne, Bedfordshire, and at Yelden, to use the Air Ministry road which by-passes the village of Melchbourne itself.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I am looking into my hon. Friend's suggestion that we should re-open this road, which was closed at the instance of the local farmers. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I have done so.

    Pay and Allowances
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air the rates of pay and allowances of flight sergeants, flight lieutenants and wing commanders after tax has been deducted prior to 30th June, 1946, and also under the new rates.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to pay and allowances under the old rates, which came to an end on 30th June, 1946, and under the present rates. As a comparison between these rates involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: While I appreciate that the figures will be published, is it not a fact that these men are now worse off than they were before, and how do the Government expect to get recruiting under way when the men are getting less pay, and there is an increased cost of living? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look into that further with the other Ministers?
    Mr. Henderson: I prefer that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should study the table I am publishing, and then draw attention to any point of fact which would substantiate his point of view.
    Following is the statement:
    The first of the following tables shows annual pay and allowances and Income Tax deductions under the rates applicable up to 30th June, 1946, and under the present rates. It is assumed that the

    Table 1

    —

    30TH JUNE, 1946.

    AT PRESENT.

    Annual Gross Pay and Allowances.

    Income Tax Liability

    Net Emoluments.

    Annual Gross Pay and Allowances.

    Income Tax Liability.

    Net Emoluments.

    Pay.

    (1) Allnees.

    (1946/47 rates).

    Pay.

    (2) Allnces.

    (1947/48 rates).

    Wing Commander (General Duties Branch).

    £660

    £289

    £118

    £831

    £867

    £332

    £282

    £917

    Flight Lieut. (G.D. Branch).

    £397

    £243

    £21

    £619

    £420

    (3) £286+91

    (3) £99 + 34

    £607 + 57=£664

    Flight Sergeant (Group A—highest skilled 1 tradesman).

    £228

    £157

    Nil.

    £385

    £265

    (3) £168 + 18

    (3) £14+4

    £419+14=£433

    NOTES:

    (1) Not liable to tax.

    (2) Includes marriage allowance (taxable) and ration allowance (non-taxable).

    (3) Additional marriage allowance is issuable in 1947/48 to certain officers and airmen who were receiving family allowances at a prescribed rate under the old pay code. This additional allowance. which is taxable, will be reduced in the years 1948/49 and 1949/50, and will terminate on 1st April, 1950.

    Mustard Gas Destruction, Bedfordshire
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the destruction of mustard gas in the vicinity of the village of Melchbourne, Bedfordshire, is causing widespread resentment among its inhabitants; creates a nauseating smell by day and by night, and is having a bad psychological
    officer or airman is married with one child and is living in private accommodation with his family. The second table gives details of pay, allowances and tax for officers and airmen who are not married and are living in Service quarters.
    effect damaging to the health of local residents; and if he will take immediate steps to abate the nuisance.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I take a most serious view of this matter, and I have been examining whether there is anything that can be done to stop this nuisance, which I very greatly regret. The problem is that the drums in which the gas is stored

    1807
    are corroded, and that was what prevented the execution of an earlier plan for dumping them in the sea, because they would have burst if they were moved. The scientific advice we have received is that the safest solution is to burn the gas on the spot, which I understand will take about 10 weeks to finish. If I can find any other way of disposing of at least part of them, I shall take it, but I am advised that the state of the drums and their contents is such that any delay would be most inadvisable.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider transporting some of this stuff to a foreign Power, in the same way as we are considering transferring gas-making plants in Germany to a foreign Power?

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Ground Staffs
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the number of men on the ground to every aircraft available for flying in the three Government corporations, as at 1st June, 1947.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): This is a matter of management for the corporations, but the hon. and gallant Member will find earlier figures in Appendix V to the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will the Minister say why he refuses to give this information which is certainly in the public interest? Is it not a fact that hon. Members have a right to the information in view of the reports which are circulating?
    Mr. Lindgren: This House decided in its wisdom, when the Act was passed, that day-to-day administration would be the responsibility of the corporation and not of the House.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that we were told it required 14 men to keep' an aircraft in the air during the war, is the number now used anywhere in the region of that figure?
    Mr. Lindgren: It is in excess.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman deny that the figure is now about the ratio of 600 to one?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. I do deny it.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Did we hear the Minister aright, that actually more people are employed than when aircraft were being attacked by hostile aircraft?
    Mr. Lindgren: The question was whether it was 14 to one, the same ratio, and I said it was in excess.

    Bristol, Cardiff, Southampton, Services
    Mr. Awberyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will give the reasons for the withdrawal of the scheduled air services between Bristol, Cardiff and Southampton; and if he will reconsider this decision and take the necessary measures to encourage and expand internal air travel on this route at reasonable charges, instead of restricting it.
    Mr. Lindgren: A number of internal services, including these, which could only be operated at considerable financial loss, have recently been withdrawn or curtailed owing to the general economic situation, and the need for curtailing the financial losses involved.
    Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that this service is of great importance to Cardiff, Bristol and Southampton, and instead of closing it, would it not be better to develop it in the interests of these three cities?
    Mr. Lindgren: The seats occupied on the service between Bristol and Cardiff were 29 per cent. and between Bristol and Southampton 34 per cent. and in the circumstances it had to be dispensed with.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an opportunity to private air firms to run scheduled air services which the Government monopoly are either unable or unwilling to run?
    Mr. Lindgren: That would be at variance with the Act unless they were as charters to the corporation.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Will the Government amend the Act to enable the public to be served by private enterprise?

    Flyingboats (Base)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, what decisions have been taken as a result of the report made by the Pakenham Committee which investigated suitable flyingboat alighting areas in this country.
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the Government's intention regarding the future civil flyingboat base following the recommendations of the Pakenham Report.
    Mr. Lindgren: Since the rejection, on grounds of defence, of the Langstone Harbour site, which was the first choice of the Pakenham Committee, investigation of alternatives has been proceeding, but no decision has yet been taken.
    Mr. Cooper: Has the major policy decision yet been taken as to whether or not the flyingboat has an essential function to fulfil in civil airlines development for the future, and, if so, is Admiralty obstruction to be allowed to upset the Pakenham Committee recommendations for the development of the flyingboat base at Langstone Harbour?
    Mr. Lindgren: As far as the first part of the Question is concerned, matters are exactly the same now as they always have been. In regard to the latter part of the Question, the decision was taken as a matter of national defence by the Defence Committee.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is it not a fact that Langstone Harbour was always regarded as the most suitable base? Will the hon. Gentleman take this up with the Admiralty, and put a stop to the nonsense that is talked to the effect that it cannot be used—it can be seen from the North Downs?
    Mr. Lindgren: This is a matter of defence, and has been dealt with by the Defence Committee. Statements made in the House today will be brought to the notice of those concerned.
    Major Bruce: Will my hon. Friend specify what the defence grounds are?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, they are not available to me.
    Mr. George Ward: Is it not a fact that an order for the new Short flyingboat has been cancelled?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. That is not a fact.

    Minister's Journey (Chartered Aircraft)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why an aircraft was specially chartered to take the Minister of Civil Aviation to the South Pacific Air Transport Conference; and which members of the Minister's family travelled with him; and what was the total cost of the flight at public expense.
    Mr. Cooperasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what was the total mileage and cost involved and the quantity of petrol used for the special aircraft which the Minister chartered for his trip to Australia recently; how many accompanied him on this trip and for what purpose was each passenger included; what would have been the cost if the Minister and the essential minimum number of officials had booked their passages on scheduled airline planes.
    Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend and Lady Nathan were invited by the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, China and Siam, to visit those countries as their guests, and my noble Friend led the United Kingdom delegation at the South Pacific Air Transport Council, after which he had important civil aviation discussions in Hong Kong, Singapore, Ceylon and Karachi. He was accompanied by two officials from the Department, and by his son; in respect of the latter no charge to public funds arises. These visits could not have been undertaken except by special aircraft. The total mileage flown was 32,178, the amount of petrol used 31,600 gallons, and the cost to public funds £20,116.
    Mr. Sheppard: Is is not a fact that, in the interests of public economy and prestige, the Minister should travel by B.O.A.C? Why is it that Socialist Ministers are such gluttons for privilege?
    Mr. Lindgren: The last part of the question is unworthy of the hon. Member. In reply to the first part of the question, the Far Eastern section of the route, in particular, could not have been undertaken

    1811
    taken except by charter aircraft, for there are no scheduled air services there. One of the reasons for the tour was to undertake discussions with the Governments concerned, and to create an atmosphere in which further negotiations for the establishment of services could start on sympathetic grounds.
    Mr. Cooper: Does the Parliamentary Secretary's noble Friend realise that foreign airlines of some countries, which have taken only two years since the war to reorganise, have by now succeeded in becoming one of their own country's invisible exports, and are now on a paying basis? Does he not think that this example of extravagance exposed by the instance of the Minister's tour is not a good example to set to our nationalised airlines if they are quickly to attain the same happy position as foreign airlines?
    Mr. Lindgren: I should think that even my hon. Friend would have realised that the cementing of Commonwealth and international friendship could not be measured by £ s. d.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Do I understand that the trip was not for the purpose of undertaking negotiations, but to create an atmosphere for negotiations?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. If the right hon. Gentleman will read my answer, he will see that, as the South Pacific Conference was being held, opportunity was taken by the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, China and other countries to invite my noble Friend to visit them. When in those countries, he undertook civil aviation discussions, but the purpose of the journey was to undertake the conference, and to get personal relationships with the various Governments and persons concerned with civil aviation in those Governments.
    Mr. Stanley: Did the Minister undertake or conclude any negotiations whatever?
    Mr. Lindgren: Discussions were undertaken at each place the tour touched.
    Mr. Stokes: Am I right or am I not in understanding that on every possible occasion vacant seats were taken up by a useful pay load?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, it was a charter aircraft, and was used for the purpose of the flight.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Could not the Minister have flown out to Australia on the scheduled air line and there chartered a special aircraft for short special journeys? Surely, it would have been a great saving of public funds if that had been done?
    Mr. Lindgren: The journey to Australia could have been undertaken by the scheduled service but the route already has a serious backlog of waiting passengers and to have taken that course would have worsened that backlog. Charter journeys from Australia to the Far East would, according to the information I have, cost a considerable sum of money and the total saving would not have been appreciable.
    Mr. Jennings: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied now that a perfect case has been made out for a surcharge on this Minister?
    Mr. Shepherd: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Prestwick—London Service
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will state the average passenger load per plane during the operation of the Prestwick-London air service.
    Mr. Lindgren: The information is not readily available in respect of the whole period of operation. I understand, however, that during the peak period 10th August to 4th October this year, the average was 12 passengers per aircraft, which represented slightly more than half, the seating capacity.
    Mr. Willis: Was this figure showing any increase over the previous period, and if so why was the service stopped?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes. The period August-September was, in fact, the peak period—it was the highest that had ever been reached—but the service was discontinued because of the requirement to retrench and the fact that the availability of the other service from Renfrew gives the capacity from the area which is required.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend note the fact that while this service was in operation it was never publicly advertised as a service and, therefore, it operated under that handicap?
    Mr. Vane: Has the hon. Gentleman ever thought of making a stop at Carlisle or some other airport in the North of England to try to make up the payload?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes. That has been considered.

    Scottish Aviation, Ltd.
    Mr. William Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when the financial negotiations between his Ministry and Scottish Aviation, Ltd., are likely to be completed.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am not yet able to forecast a date.
    Mr. Ross: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any indication of what particular points are holding up these negotiations?
    Mr. Lindgren: There are many and varied financial questions under discussion. Scottish Aviation Ltd. is not a willing seller, and the negotiations are a little difficult.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that at Prestwick workers are employed making a luxury aircraft for the Crown Prince of Belgium, including a cocktail bar, and will he see that these men are otherwise engaged?
    Hon. Members: Export drive.
    Mr. Lindgren: That does not arise out of this Question.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has been outstanding for over 12 months? Surely, something ought to have been done? Have token payments been made in the meantime?
    Mr. Lindgren: Negotiations commenced in April, 1946. Of course, there are powers of compulsory purchase but one does not wish to use them. It is far better if we can proceed by negotiation. Interim payments have been made for services rendered as those services have been rendered. Payments have been made quarterly.

    Prestwick Airport
    Mr. Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when the survey to determine the future development and status of Prestwick Aerodrome is likely to be completed.
    Mr. Lindgren: Surveys of alternative ways of developing Prestwick have been completed but will require much study before a development plan can be determined. Meanwhile, the expenditure of labour and materials on such a major capital project would not be justified in the current economic circumstances. The present status of Prestwick as an international airport for transatlantic traffic is being maintained.
    Mr. Ross: Does my hon. Friend fully appreciate that this continued delay in coming to a decision regarding Prestwick is giving rise to considerable doubts in Scotland, as well as holding up housing and industrial development in the area?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that in the various development plans which have been under discussion there are questions of the diversion of roadways and a railway, and there is also a considerable area which has coal underneath it. Very full discussions have to take place between the various Government Departments and a decision made to the best advantage of all concerned.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: While I welcome the somewhat belated interest of the hon. Member in Prestwick, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that this is a subject which is of more interest, practically speaking, than any other industrial subject in Scotland today, and will the Government come to some early decision as to what part Prestwick is to play in the future of civil aviation in Scotland?
    Mr. Lindgren: That decision has already been made.
    Sir T. Moore: Why not announce it?
    Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend keep before him the fact that a Select Committee of this House has already urged that these negotiations should be brought to a conclusion as early as possible, and will he do everything possible to further that aim?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will consider reintroducing Prestwick as an intermediate link on the Renfrew-London air route.
    Mr. Lindgren: The reintroduction of Prestwick as an intermediate link on the Renfrew-London route is operationally uneconomic, by reason of the short distance between the two aerodromes.

  ROUMANIA (BRITISH COMPANIES' EMPLOYEES)
  Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the facts regarding the punishment of employees of British oil firms in Rou-mania, inter alia, for alleged antidemocratic activities.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Devin): Earlier this year oil companies in Roumania containing British interests were forced to dismiss some of their employees for political reasons. On this subject I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 27th October to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling).

  GERMANY

    Refugees (Entry to British Zone)
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many refugees from the Russian zone of Germany have entered the British zone in 1947.
    Mr. Bevin: In the first nine months of this year, 89,000 refugees entered with permission. The number of unauthorised entrants during the same period is estimated to be about 100,000.

    Control Commission (Resignations)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was Sir Norman Smith's position in the Control Commission, Germany; how long he held it; what were the reasons for his resignation; and if he will give the names of his two predecessors, and the length of time they each held office.
    Mr. Bevin: Sir Norman Smith held the post of Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (Policy). He was in Berlin for
    1816
    about a month. He resigned because he thought that the duties assigned to the post did not justify its retention, and it has in fact been abolished. His predecessors were Brigadier H. W. H. Armytage, who held the post for about eight months, and Brigadier J. L. Von der Heyde, who was appointed on a temporary basis only, and who held it for two and a half months.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these resignations, in rapid succession, show that there is something radically wrong in the Control Commission in Germany, and will he take strong measures to clean up the personnel of that Commission?
    Mr. Bevin: I have been concerned in the reorganisation of the Control Commission ever since I assumed responsibility last March, and I have a special Committee under Lord Pakenham and Treasury officials, etc., going into the question of the whole personnel, their functions and other duties in that area, but I must await their investigations.
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many officials have resigned from the Control Commission for Germany during the past six months.
    Mr. Bevin: The number of civilian resignations during the six months ending 30th September, 1947, was 1,598.
    Major Lloyd: Is it not rather a distressing state of affairs that some of our best men in Germany are leaving because they are so dissatisfied and exasperated by the policy or lack of policy Which is imposed upon them? Is it not a fact that it is a most distressing state of affairs and that many more are going for the same reason?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not think it is due to lack of policy. When there is a state of flux, as there is in Germany, how can we have a complete fixed policy? It is impossible. What I am concerned about is to get to a position in Germany when I hope we shall have some idea of what the period of occupation is likely to be, and then, when we are in that position, to offer terms with some degree of security. Up to now, I have not been in that position.

  EGYPT (CHOLERA VACCINE)
  Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many thousands of doses of cholera vaccine have been sent from this country to Egypt; what was the date of their manufacture; and how have they been distributed.
  Mr. Bevin: I would refer by hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) on 3rd November. Quantities sent represent about 1,400,000 doses. Of this total I am informed that 155,000 cubic centimetres were supplied from stock at the time of the outbreak and were manufactured on or after June, 1946. The balance was manufactured in September and October of this year. As regards distribution, 25,000 cubic centimetres have been supplied by the War Office to the Egyptian Air Force, 220,000 cubic centimetres to General Headquarters, Middle East and to the British Embassy in Cairo for inoculating members of the British Forces and British civilians. The balance of over 1,800,000 cubic centimetres was supplied by British firms to the order of the Egyptian Government.
  Dr. Segal: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the detailed reply, which I hope will do a great deal to remove some misconception in Egypt, may I ask if it would not be a humane action on the part of this country if a team of expert epidemiologists could be sent out to Egypt to assist that country in coping with this dreadful plague?
  Mr. Bevin: I will consider that. I must say that with all the difficulties going on in the world, I am extremely short of this type of person, but I will look into it.

  ITALIAN FLEET (BRITISH CLAIMS)
  Mr. Anthony Nuttingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on his conversations with the Italian Foreign Minister about British claims with regard to the disposal of the Italian Fleet.
  Mr. Bevin: As announced in the communiqué issued on the conclusion of my talks with Count Sforza, His Majesty's Government, desiring to assist Italian and general European recovery and having
  1818
  taken into account the steps which have and are being taken in that direction, have decided that the naval vessels allocated to them under the Peace Treaty and the Four Power Naval Protocol of 10th February, 1947, with the exception of a few minor vessels, shall be left in the possession of the Italian Government to be dealt with in accordance with Article 2 (b) of the Naval Protocol which provides for certain categories of vessels to be scrapped or sunk.
  Mr. Nutting: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of strengthening the hands of the Italian Government in general, and particularly of Count Sforza in the great work which he is doing; and further is he aware of the importance, in this connection, of this renunciation of British claims regarding the Italian Fleet?
  Mr. Bevin: That is the reason I took this decision. I stated in this House some time ago that I would not treat Italy as if Mussolini was still alive. Therefore, I would rather look forward than allow any feelings about what happened in the past to influence my mind.
  Sir Ronald Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a rough idea of how many ships are involved?
  Mr. Bevin: I am not permitted at the moment to give any details because the Four-Power Naval Committee has to do the allocation.

  POLAND (MR. CHARLES WHITEHEAD, ARREST)
  Major Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is yet able to make a statement concerning the recent arrest of Mr. Charles Whitehead by the Polish authorities.
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. Mr. Charles Whitehead, a Polish national, who has been employed for the last 18 months in the commercial section of His Majesty's Embassy, was arrested on 17th October. The arrest took place without any warning or explanation to His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires during some important commercial negotiations which a British Delegation was conducting with the Polish authorities. No formal charge has yet been made but General Grosz, the Director of the Press and Information

  1819
  Department of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has thought fit to accuse Mr. Whitehead of collaboration with the Germans during the war. In actual fact Mr. Whitehead, who was wounded while fighting in the Warsaw rising against the Germans, risked his life on many occasions in helping British prisoners of war escape from the Germans, an action for which both he and his father received certificates. Though the House may feel this step is rather unusual, I should like to give further details of Mr. Whitehead's activities in Poland during the war, and with permission, I propose to give those further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the statement:
  Although no charge has been preferred by the Polish authorities against Mr. Whitehead, General Grosz, the Director of the Press and Information Department of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has alleged in statements to the Press that Mr. Whitehead, as technical manager of the Wedel Chocolate Factory during the war—a factory which he stated worked only for the Germans—organised a network of informers to spy on members of the factory staff who worked in the Polish Underground. By ordinary canons of justice it would have seemed preferable to avoid making public accusations of this sort while the affair is presumably sub judice. But as an attempt has been made in this way to blacken the reputation of one of their employees at a time when he is unable to reply or to defend himself in public, His Majesty's Government feel it only right to state what is known beyond question in London of Mr. Whitehead's activities during the war.
  Though of British origin, the Whitehead family had been resident in Poland for many years. Mrs. Whitehead was a member of the Wedel family, well-known in Warsaw. Mr. Charles Whitehead assumed Polish nationality some time before the war. Upon the German invasion of Poland he was called up, joined his unit in the Polish Army, and took part in the six weeks campaign of 1939. Subsequently he resumed his work in the Wedel factory in a position where he was responsible for the engagement of staff and for appointments, etc., within the factory (a position in which it is easy to make personal enemies). Like many other factories in Poland it had to work for the Germans, but Wedel products found their way, thanks to Mr. Whitehead's efforts, not only to escaped British prisoners of war and other British subjects in Poland but also to Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. This fact, together with other facts in this statement, is vouched for by Mrs. Walker, of 37, Harraden Road, Black-heath, S.E.3, who was constantly assisted by Mr. Charles Whitehead in providing food, clothing and lodgings for escaping British prisoners of war, and who was herself successful in escaping from the Gestapo.
  Mr. Charles Whitehead's commercial connections with the factory were useful in that he obtained a job as head of a fire brigade which disposed of special passes granted by the Germans. He was thus in a number of cases able to secure passes for members of the Polish Underground. He himself at this time belonged to a Polish Underground Press Agency which collected and circulated the news put out by the British and other anti-German broadcasts.
  On the outbreak of the Warsaw rising Mr. Charles Whitehead fought with the Polish forces and was wounded. After the city's surrender he succeeded in escaping outside Warsaw. When the Germans withdrew from Poland he moved to Katowice and established a small confectionery business which he ran until his employment by His Majesty's Embassy in January, 1946.
  As already stated, both Mr. Charles Whitehead and his father received certificates, numbers 28012 and 28025, for help given to Allied prisoners of war. Among the prisoners helped were Major R. B. Littledale, D.S.O., K.R.R.C., who made good his escape from Poland, reached England and was subsequently killed after "D" Day; Lieutenant Davies Scourfield, K.R.R.C., now serving with his regiment in the Middle East and Mr. Silverwood Cope. The latter, who is now employed by His Majesty's Embassy in Rome, has stated that the Whitehead family were among those Poles who gave the most unstinted assistance and protection from the Gestapo to numerous escaped British prisoners. These details are corroborated by Mrs. Walker, who is referred to above. She adds that in the case of Mr. Silverwood Cope it was Mr. Charles Whitehead who came to her assistance in finding doctors and a nurse at a time during 1941 when Mr. Cope was in hiding but was taken seriously ill. A number of persons who worked closely with Mr. Charles Whitehead are known to have subsequently met their deaths for counter-Gestapo work. On the background of these facts, of which there is no doubt, it appears extremely unlikely that Mr. Charles Whitehead could have co-operated with the Germans as alleged.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Sisal Cultivation
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to extend the cultivation of sisal in view of the world shortage of this fibre and its dollar earning capacity.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): Sisal is grown in many parts of the Colonial Empire but on a commercial scale only in East Africa where it is considered that the best prospects of expanding production exist. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 23rd May regarding the steps being taken to expand East African output.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that the shortage of fibre is not due to a shortage in the extent of the plantations but to the trouble with labour? Does he not think that in view of the direction of labour in this country, the time is ripe for the direction of labour in Kenya?

    Development Corporation
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the proposed Development Corporation capital will be subscribed by private investors; what provision will be made for the representation of African interests on the Board; and what assistance will be given by the Corporation to African private or public enterprises.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the Overseas Resources Development Bill, which is now before the House. It is at present expected that the Corporation will be financed mainly by advances from the Exchequer, but they will also have power to borrow from other sources with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury, but it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that recourse should be had to private investors. The limits of this borrowing are not specified. With regard to the second part of the Question, Clause 2 of the Bill provides that appointments shall be made with particular regard to the need for securing that experience in Colonial territories is at the disposal of the Corporation, but my right hon. Friend does not contemplate the making of any appointments to represent individual interests. As regards the last part of the Question, it will be primarily for the Board to determine what projects it will undertake within the wide powers proposed under the Bill to assist private or public enterprise in any part of the Colonial Empire. I have no doubt that enterprises in Africa will be very much in their minds, but no particular direction to them on the point is contemplated.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister in a position to say when he estimates that the requisite capital will be available, when the Corporation will start operations and what task it will first undertake?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Bill has not yet been passed, of course. The Board
    1822
    will be set up under the powers provided by the Bill when it is passed and delegated to the responsible Ministers by Parliament. Schemes will be considered by them under its terms.

  PALESTINE (ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION)
  Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, how many ships have been apprehended during the last two years whilst endeavouring to take illegal immigrants to Palestine; in how many instances have proceedings been taken to secure the forfeiture of such ships and with what results; and what limits the further use of this method of recovering contributions towards the costs incurred by His Majesty's Government and the Palestine Government.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: In the last two years 37 ships carrying illegal immigrants have been apprehended. I understand that proceedings for forfeiture have been taken in all, or nearly all, of these cases, but I have asked the High Commissioner for a full statement and will communicate with my hon. Friend when this is received.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has any approach been made to the Governments under whose flags these ships sail, to prevent a misuse of their flags?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Sharp: Will the Minister arrange for this information to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: In all probability, but I will wait first to see what it is.

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    West Africa (Relief Collections)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the acceptance by this country of £20,000 contributed without hindrance by West African Governments to the relief of flood victims in Britain, why the collection of funds from native administrations in West Africa for the assistance of West

    1823
    Africans in this country is severely restricted by those Governments.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I am not aware of any restrictions on contributions from native administration funds towards the assistance of West Africans in this country.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is unaware of certain information in possession of his Department, and, if so, will he consider information which I give him; further, does he know if the £20,000 was subscribed to the flood victims of this country with the concurrence of the native authorities?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The subscription to the flood victims was agreed to by the legislative council. The point my hon. Friend is now making is with regard to the native administration. I am fully aware of all the information in the Department on this matter and I can assure him that there has been no prohibition of the native administration from making contributions to this purpose.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can I take it that any moneys collected by the native authorities can be forwarded without hindrance to the responsible authorities in this country who are looking after the interests of West African students?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Certainly.

    Sierra Leone (Freetown Municipal Ordinance)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of those qualified to vote under the Freetown Municipal Ordinance have so far registered; what steps have been taken by the Sierra Leone Government to secure the co-operation of the electorate in this respect; and whether the Ordinance will be amended in view of popular criticism.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Valid registrations are estimated to be roughly one-tenth of the qualified electorate the exact number of which is not known. Official statements, were issued to explain the objects of the Ordinance and to correct misrepresentations about them. The operation of the Ordinance for the present has been temporarily suspended and the Acting Governor is considering, in consultation
    1824
    with my right hon. Friend what steps can be taken to meet those objections to it which are of major substance.
    Mr. Sorensen: Meanwhile, can the hon. Gentleman say what was the reason for this failure to register on the part of such a marked proportion?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I assume that they did not like the Ordinance.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is it not a fact that in other places—I remember particularly Kumasi—there has been at the beginning considerable reluctance to register?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I believe the right hon. Gentleman knows the long history of this particular matter, part of which occurred in his time in office. There has been considerable difficulty in this place over this Ordinance. We are hoping, as a result of the consultations which are now taking place, that the difficulties will be removed.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Is my hon. Friend aware that this dispute has been going on now for a very long time, and have any recent steps been taken to secure the cooperation of the local people; further, is he aware that one of the objections to the Ordinance is that the right of veto on the appointment of ministerial officials is reserved to the Government and if they could give way on that it might secure agreement?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I am well aware of the difficulties which have arisen. One of them is the point mentioned by my hon. Friend. We are hoping that all these things will be threshed out and that we will come to an agreement upon them. On our side, we are prepared to be reasonable and we hope that the other people will be also.

    Nyasaland (Maize Production)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that only 40 per cent. of maize requirements will be available in Nyasaland this year from local sources; what steps are being taken to encourage tea-planters to grow sufficient maize for their own workers; how many applications for land for the production of maize have been received since his reply to the honourable Member for East Harrow, on 16th July;

    1825
    and whether he will consider the possibility of requiring holders of suitable undeveloped land to throw it open to natives for foodstuff production.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, Sir, the maize surplus this year in Nyasaland permitted only a 40 per cent. allocation to industrial concerns and other large users. Planters have been strongly urged to grow as much food as possible, and, to assist them, the local government are considering granting them rights of occupancy on areas of native trust land suitable for maize production. No formal application for land has yet been received. The acquisition of undeveloped land for native settlement and production falls within the recommendations of the 1946 Land Commission Report, which is now being considered by a local government committee.
    Mr. Skinnard: In view of the fact that one-half of the excellent crop raised by the tobacco-growing areas of the North have to be diverted to the Southern part of the Colony, will my hon. Friend do all in his power to encourage the tea-growing areas to become self sufficient?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Some of them have voluntarily appeared to be seeking land for this production, but if there are any details which the hon. Member would like to know arising out of my answer, perhaps he will either put a further Question down or write to me upon it.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that the proper way to get the most production is to take steps properly to cultivate the land now possessed, and is he further aware that, if more undeveloped land is handed over, East Africa will rapidly become a dust bowl.

    Game Preservation
    Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is satisfied about the slaughter of wild game in Africa; and if he will consider convening a conference with a view to arriving at a common policy in this matter.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The position in East Africa is not entirely satisfactory. A conference was held in Nairobi in May last, attended by representatives of several Governments. It made a number of re-
    1826
    commendations designed to improve the measures being taken by these Governments for the preservation of game, and these recommendations are now under consideration by the Governments concerned.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that no action is being taken and that the slaughter continues without any hope of any benefits resulting, instructions should be given that the slaughter shall cease forthwith?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not understand what the hon. Baronet means by slaughter." There is no mass slaughter in any of our territories as far as I am aware. It is true that the game population in East Africa has declined, apart from the elephant population, but that is mainly due to native slaughter, not on a mass scale at all. There has been some mass slaughter in Southern Rhodesia in order to get rid of the tsetse fly, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that Southern Rhodesia does not come under the Colonial Office.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can my hon. Friend say that the needs of the native population were the prime concern of the conference, because in some places the natives cannot destroy game without destroying their own property?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: All these matters were taken into consideration.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling that this policy should give the natives the same rights as are given to the white man?

  BARBADOS (YOUTH MOVEMENT)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance is being given to the Youth Movement in Barbados from funds allocated to welfare work.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: On the assumption that my hon. Friend is referring to the organisation called the "Barbados Youth Movement," the answer is that no financial assistance from Government funds is given to this body.

  BERMUDA (HURRlCANE DAMAGE)
  Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the damage caused by the recent hurricane in Bermuda.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: The Governor has reported that the damage was comparatively light. Some buildings suffered minor damage, and there was estimated loss of crops of £20,000. I regret to say there was one casualty. A linesman of the Electric Light Company died from head injuries sustained from a fall while repairing broken wires.

  SOLOMON ISLANDS (COPRA)
  Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give details of the amounts of copra produced and the amount exported from the British Solomon Islands Protectorate since the war, compared with the amounts produced and exported in the five years before the war.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Up to 25th October, 963 tons of copra had been produced in the Protectorate, and, up to 22nd September, 554 tons had been exported. The average yearly exports of copra between 1936 and 1941 was 21,000 tons. Production is increasing, and the current rate of 30 tons per week is expected to rise considerably.
  Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what efforts are being made to increase copra production in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate through native and plantation enterprise; and what steps are being taken by the local Government to encourage the development of co-operative production and marketing.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: The local Government are doing everything possible to restore production and to organise shipping facilities. Sanction has been given to the issue of interest-free loans to assist the rehabilitation of the plantations, and, in some cases where owners have not yet returned to the Islands, arrangements are being made with Government encouragement for the Islanders to work the plantations on their own account, and, where possible, on a co-operative basis.

  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS
  Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take on the renewed attention drawn by the most recent report from the Select Committee on S.R. & O. (Special Report PXI, Para. 5), to the apparent absence of any principle determining the choice between the procedure by affirmative resolution and the procedure for annulment of orders by adverse prayer.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. It is the practice of the Government to consider carefully in each case in the light of the precedents whether the affirmative or the negative procedure is more appropriate, but the matter is one for determination by Parliament on each occasion, having regard to the particular legislation laid before it, and it would be unwise to attempt to formulate any precise rules which would fetter the discretion of Parliament and of the Government.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that, when we came back after the Recess, we found that 204 orders had been issued during the Recess, and that it is almost impossible for Private Members to master all these orders? Should there not be an onus on the Government to develop some formula under which orders raising novel or important questions would require to have a case made out for them by the Government, when the affirmative resolution procedure should be applied?
  Mr. Morrison: I think that would be difficult to define, and it would lead to endless disputes on whether an order should properly be put into a category or left out. I do not think it would be wise.
  Mr. Marlowe: May I ask this question? The right hon. Gentleman said that sometimes the Government have decided on the affirmative resolution and sometimes on the negative resolution. Will he tell the House on what principle this is decided?
  Mr. Morrison: In the end, it is Parliament which decides, and not the Government, because the Bill comes before Parliament and Parliament can argue the point and decide it. If I put

  1829
  these things into precise words, I am perfectly sure we shall get into difficulties about them sooner or later and I do not propose to do so. I only said that it is carefully considered and that we try to take a logical course in the classification between the two, but circumstances change. For example, Sunday opening licences for cinemas were put down as affirmative orders, and rightly, so, but, today, it is another matter, because they are hardly ever challenged.

  ARMED FORCES

    Medical Organisation
    Dr. Segalasked the Minister of Defence when he will undertake to institute a unified medical organisation for the three Defence Services, in order to economise in manpower and medical supplies.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As I explained in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on 9th July last, it has not yet been established that the institution of a unified medical service is to be preferred to the maximum degree of co-ordination between the existing Services.
    Dr. Segal: Has the mind of the Minister really not been able to travel any further distance on this matter since 9th July?
    Mr. Alexander: I said that the matter was under examination, but if one is talking about either co-ordination or integration, one must first be satisfied that it is going to improve efficiency or reduce costs.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that medical officers of both the R.A.F. and the Army are writing to the medical journals week by week to say that they have virtually nothing to do, and, in those circumstances, would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to economise in manpower with regard to such men?
    Mr. Alexander: I must say that I have seen one or two comments of that kind, but they do not agree with the advice given by their senior professional advisers.
    Dr. Segal: Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to get some co-ordination
    1830
    of the specialist services of the three Defence Forces?
    Mr. Alexander: Certainly, that is already being done.

    Transport Pool
    Dr. Segalasked the Minister of Defence when he will undertake to institute a common transport pool for the three Defence Services in order to economise in manpower, vehicles and fuel.
    Mr. Alexander: Long distance haulage is already centralised to a large extent by the Services' use of the Civilian Road Haulage organisation. I am doubtful, however, whether the administrative disadvantages involved in setting up a general transport pool for the Services would be sufficiently offset by possible economies.
    Dr. Segal: Could not the right hon. Gentleman attempt to do something to avoid in peacetime some of the anomalies which occurred during the war, such as, for example, that a three-ton lorry was used to convey a latchkey, or that a 64-ft. trailer was used to convey a bottle of typhoid vaccine?
    Mr. Alexander: Certainly. Efforts in that direction are being made all the time.
    Mr. Swingler: Can my right hon. Friend say whether those questions are being examined by the Manpower Economy Committee set up in the Service Departments, and whether the report they make on the general question will be placed before this House?
    Mr. Alexander: I would like to have notice of that question.

    Petroleum Products (Consumption)
    Mr. Bingasked the Minister of Defence the amount of petroleum products consumed by the Armed Forces of the Crown during the year ending 30th June, 1947; and whether he will specify the amount of motor spirit, aviation spirit, lubricating oil, gas oil, fuel oil and diesel oil, and kerosene included in the total.
    Mr. Alexander: The total is about four million tons, made up of 1,065,000 tons of motor spirit, 304,000 tons of aviation spirit, 72,000 tons of lubricating oil, 2,507,000 tons of gas, fuel and diesel oil, and 62,000 tons of kerosene.
    Mr. Bing: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the dollar expenditure involved in this?
    Mr. Alexander: I was not asked that question, but I will send the desired information to my hon. Friend.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: Could the Minister give instructions that, in order to conserve petrol and oil, all vehicles should strictly observe the speed limit restrictions throughout the country?
    Mr. Alexander: That sounds reasonable to me.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Can my right hon. Friend say what saving on the four million tons' consumption it is estimated will be made for the ensuing 12 months from 30th June, 1947?
    Mr. Alexander: That will be dealt with in connection with the Estimates.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Could the Minister say what part of this considerable sum is used at all.
    Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir, upon notice.

    Land Occupation
    Mr. Bingasked the Minister of Defence the total acreage of land in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland at present occupied by the Armed Forces of the Crown and the corresponding figure at a convenient date in 1938.
    Mr. Alexander: The area now occupied is rather less than 1,050,000 acres, as compared with about 310,000 acres in 1938.
    Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Minister of Defence' if he will arrange for the Armed Forces to occupy all the land in this country, and then hand it over to the people?
    Sir Ronald Ross: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, which he does not seem to know.

    Building Programme (Married Quarters)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Defence to what extent the capital expenditure reductions announced by the Government will affect the building of married quarters for each of the three Services.
    Mr. Alexander: Service married quarters form part of the national housing programme: the precise extent to which they will be affected by the recently announced reductions in the capital investment programme is at present under discussion.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those married families who are having to live in accommodation for which they have to pay very high prices, will have the costs of such accommodation paid in future by the Forces who take over the accommodation concerned?
    Mr. Alexander: That does not really arise out of the Question as it is put, but, if the hon. and gallant Member will communicate his point to me, I will have it examined.
    Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give particular attention to this matter in view of the fact that, in the opinion of his own experts, one of the deterrents to recruiting is the state of married quarters today, which have had nothing done to them during the war and which are very inadequate; will he give an assurance that he will give his personal attention to this matter?
    Mr. Alexander: The Government are very anxious to do the best they can in this matter. The priorities that will come first are in the coalmining and the agricultural areas, but the Service Ministers are keeping in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health about the next priority after those two.

    Training
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Defence how much training time each year will be devoted to bringing those members of the Regular Forces, who will be engaged in training the National Service intakes under the 1947 Act, to a sufficiently high standard of training themselves to enable the Regular Forces to be at an adequate state of readiness.
    Mr. Alexander: The arrangements vary according to the methods of training in the different Services. In the Royal Navy, the normal system of drafting instructors to sea at regular intervals will be observed. In the Army, National Service men and Regulars will train together in the same units; the latter will

    1833
    attend specialist courses as necessary. In the Royal Air Force, the duties required of the training staff are often in themselves sufficient to keep the men up-to-date, though flying instructors generally take a course at an operational conversion unit when leaving instructional work for operational duties.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, so far as the Regular Forces are concerned, instructional courses are not the same thing as operational exercises, and that it is absolutely essential that the Regular Forces should be given proper exercises?
    Mr. Alexander: I fully recognise that, but I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that we cannot debate matters of that kind at Question time, and I hope that he will raise the points in which he is interested on the Estimates.
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Defence how many days of formation training will be devoted each year to the exercise of the Regular Forces when the National Service Act, 1947, comes into force; on what basis this formation training will be for each of the three Services; and if these exercises will also involve the National Service intakes.
    Mr. Alexander: In the Royal Navy the fleet training policy will remain unchanged. National Service men will take part in Fleet exercises and other training to the same extent as Regulars. In the Army, formation training will, in general, follow the prewar arrangements, except that no specific period of the year will be allotted; collective training exercises will be held periodically throughout the year. In the Army at home and in Europe, units will consist of both Regulars and National Service men, all of whom will take part in the exercises. In the Royal Air Force, all operational units do the maximum amount of operational training possible, depending on the strength of their ground staff and the state of training of the flying personnel. National Service men will often take part as ground staff, but not as flying personnel, as they will not be able to reach the stage of training necessary.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that no greater mistake can be made than to make
    1834
    young recruits try to run before they can walk, and that, if extensive operational exercises are to take place with those who have been called up for less than a year, all that will happen is that the training of the old regular soldier and other members of the Forces will suffer?
    Mr. Alexander: I think there is a great deal in that, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, in drawing up the programme, senior officers are bearing it in mind.
    Mr. Swingler: Will my right hon. Friend say what ratio he presupposes between the numbers of Regulars and the numbers of National Service men in order to carry out this programme?
    Mr. Alexander: I think, perhaps, that I ought to have notice of that question; it is a matter which will fall to be debated on the White Paper and on the Estimates.

    Deserters' Sentences (Revision)
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Defence whether on the occasion of the forthcoming marriage of Princess Elizabeth, he will grant a measure of relief to men classified as deserters, and will recommend a remission of the sentences of men already imprisoned, and some easement and relaxation of the regulations governing the surrender of those still at large.
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. I would remind my hon. Friend that last January the Government made an offer to deserters who would surrender by 31st March last. The response was, in some respects, disappointing, but it was made quite clear at the time that the Government were not prepared to go further. To do so would be unfair to those who have already surrendered and been punished, and also to those who have served loyally throughout their period in the Forces. The fact that a deserter has surrendered voluntarily is always taken into account at his trial; sentences imposed on deserters are, of course, reviewed from time to time under the normal procedure.
    Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most disappointing answer? If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to make a gesture on the

    1835
    lines which I have indicated, and if these men are to be written off as criminals, what solution does he envisage for this very vexed problem?
    Mr. Alexander: They are certainly not by any means written off as criminals.
    Mr. Austin: Of course, they are.
    Mr. Alexander: I have examined this matter in great detail many times. First of all, the number of men involved is large. As for a great number of them, we do not know whether they are dead, or exactly where they are. We know that some of them are in Eire and are, therefore, not likely to be available for production here. Generally speaking, in view of the great number of men who are continuously coming back, I do not think the problem is anything like as big as has been indicated by hon. Members, and to give a further concession would make a very serious inroad on the discipline and morale of the troops.
    Mr. Keenan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the harsh sentences which have already been imposed upon those who have surrendered are deterring others from surrendering?
    Mr. Alexander: I would like to make that point perfectly clear. The Secretary of State for War at the time, indicated that there would be continuous revision of those sentences, and I can say here and now that the sentences were not over harsh. But where, in special cases, they were longer than in others, they have been reviewed; in some cases they have been suspended and in others they have been reduced. Only in a small proportion of cases have men who have surrendered voluntarily served more than six months' detention.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: In order that the House may understand the Government's policy, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate how many men have, in fact, given themselves up since the statement which he made?
    Mr. Alexander: I gave the House the figure last week.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  BURMA INDEPENDENCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.33 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have it in Command from the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty places his Prerogative and interests, so far as concern the matters dealt with by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.
  I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the will of the peoples of Burma as expressed by their elected representatives that their country should become an independent State, should cease to be part of the British Commonwealth of Nations and should no longer form part of the King's Dominions. Henceforward the relationship of this country and Burma will be based on a Treaty and on the friendship between the two nations which, I am glad to say, is stronger than ever today. The departure from the British family of nations of one of its members must be an occasion for deep regret. It was the hope and desire of the Government that the people of Burma would recognise the great advantages which accrue from membership of the Commonwealth—a membership which, as one of the Dominion Prime Ministers said, is not a derogation from independence but an addition to it. But they have decided otherwise. In our view, nations have the right to decide on the nature of their own government. The British Commonwealth of Nations is a free association of peoples, not a collection of subject nations. When, therefore, after due consideration the elected representatives of the people of Burma chose independence, it was, I believe, the duty of His Majesty's Government to take the necessary steps to implement this decision.
  We had the further duty of seeing to it that minorities for whom we had a special responsibility were given due position under the new Constitution and were safeguarded in their rights. This, as I shall show, has been done in the new Constitution. We had also to make provision for the winding up of the old régime, for compensation of officers who served Burma very well in the past, and

  1837
  for regularising the future relationship of our two countries in relation to defence and trade. These things have been effected in the Treaty which I signed with the Burmese Prime Minister a few days ago. Although, as I have said, it is a matter of keen regret that Burma should be leaving the Commonwealth, it is a source of great satisfaction to us all that the negotiations have been conducted in a spirit of the utmost good will and cooperation.
  Before I turn to the provisions of the Bill, I should like to give a very short survey of the course of events which have led up to it. Our earliest connections with Burma derive from the activities of the East India Company. Burma at that time was a kingdom, and a very disturbed and troubled country; and, except for a short period, our relations with the rulers of Burma were difficult. Eventually, as the House knows, the whole country was annexed in 1886. Effective British rule over the whole of Burma has lasted just over 60 years. We came to a country that had suffered from gross misrule, and under British rule much progress was made—moral, material and in every respect. The geographical propinquity was responsible for Burma being made a unit of the Indian Empire. Yet the Burmese differ from the Indians in race, language, religion and temperament, and actually until the late war there were no communications between India and Burma by land. Yet Burma was treated as part of India, and administered under - the Government of India Act.
  I recall very well visiting Burma as a member of the Simon Commission in 1929, and we were all struck by the great difference between India and Burma. In our Report we emphasised this fact, and we recommended its separation from India. This was accepted by the Government of the day in 1931, and was effected by the Burma Act, 1935. It is important to recall what was said in 1931 by the Secretary of State in Parliament. He said:
  "…The prospects of constitutional advance held out to Burma as part of British India will not be prejudiced by this decision, and the constitutional objective after separation will remain the progressive realisation of responsible Government in Burma as an integral part of the Empire."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, 20th January, 1931; Vol. 247, c. 29.]
  1838
  That statement has always been relied upon by Burmese political leaders as a pledge to the people of Burma that whatever advance should be conceded to India should equally apply to Burma. In the Act of 1935, owing to Burma's having an unitary and not a federal constitution, she obtained a greater measure of self-government in 1935 than did India. This state was, in effect, reaffirmed by the Governor of Burma with the authority of His Majesty's Government both in 1939 and in 1940. Therefore, I must emphasise that the offer made to India, generally known as the Cripps offer, whereby India was to be free to choose her own future within or without the British Commonwealth is held by the Burmese to give the same right to the people of Burma.
  We all know, and it is not necessary for me to repeat, the tragic story of the over-running of most of Burma by the Japanese, of the heroic retreat conducted by Lord Alexander, and of the ever memorable exploits of the forces under Admiral Lord Mountbatten which led to the freeing of the country. These events had, naturally, a profound effect on the people of Burma. They gave increased impetus to the already strong urge of the peoples of Asia for self determination that had been growing ever since, in fact, the Russo-Japanese War. I remember we noticed it in the Simon Report. Therefore, many young Burmans, when the Japanese invasion took place, took at their face value the professions of the Japanese that they came to liberate Burma from the British and the show of independent Government that was set up. But experience soon convinced most of them of the hollowness of those attempts.
  As the House knows, under the leadership of the late U Aung San, a movement was set on foot by which the independent forces of Burma jointed up and took their share with the Allies in expelling the Japanese. It is as well to remember that some Burmans and a great many men from the hill tribes did good service throughout that campaign. The end of the war found the country disturbed and full of arms; and—there is great danger in a country like Burma of dacoity—there has been a good deal of armed dacoity. The whole of the economy of the country was gravely impaired, partly through what was done by the Japanese forces, partly by the actual fighting, partly by the effect

  1839
  of the destruction which we ourselves had to do in order to hamper the enemy.
  In May, 1945, a statement of policy was issued by His Majesty's Government. It envisaged the drawing up of a constitution by representatives of the Burmese people with a view to full self-government. In October the civil administration was restored, and Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith took over the government with an executive council on which there were a number of representatives of the older school of Burmese politicians. Meanwhile, the more vital forces of the Burmese people were organised in the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League under the leadership of U Aung San. They were impatient of delay, and they were very impatient of the older politicians. The House will recall that Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith retired through ill-health. The new Governor Sir Hubert Rance was faced with a very difficult situation. There was danger of widespread disorders, many strikes, dacoity, and the rest. I should like here to bear testimony to the very great services rendered by Sir Hubert both in administration and in securing the co-operation of the Burmese people. His wisdom and his sympathy with the aspirations of the Burmese people have guided the country through a most difficult period.
  There followed, as the House knows, the formation of a Government under U Aung San, elections to a Constituent Assembly in which the party of U Aung San obtained a very large majority, and a series of meetings between this country and the Burmese leaders. One of the most difficult problems in framing any constitution for Burma was the position of the tribes of the hill country, the Chins, the Kachins, the Shans of the Shan States, and the minority community of the Karens. The House knows that these hill tribes occupy the highlands and central Burma, and that they have been administered under separate administration. Under the Act of 1935 they were not brought into ministerial Burma.
  These problems of the relationship between these tribes and Burma proper have been resolved, thanks, I think, in the first place, to the broadmindedness and desire to give full rights to minorities exhibited by U Aung San, Thakin Nu, and the other Burmese leaders. It is a difficult position. A series of meetings was arranged. The House will recall that
  1840
  the frontier areas and Shan States were separately administered by their own rulers, the Sawbwas. The Karens were partly included in ministerial Burma, partly in the excluded areas. My hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade attended the Panglong Conference at which representatives of ministerial Burma and of the hill tribes met together, and rendered very valuable service in bringing them together. So also did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies who was then a Private Member.
  My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Burma paid very recently a visit to Burma and was able to help in smoothing out the differences between the Burmese and the Karens. As a result the new constitution has been approved by the representatives of these various communities, and it provides for a generous degree of autonomy. There are still some groups of the Karens who are not wholly satisfied, but, so far as we are able to ascertain, the great majority of the communities have accepted the provisions of the constitution, and the three Karenni States, which occupy a position analogous to that of the Indian States, are adhering to the new Union of Burma. Let it be noted that the provisional President of Burma is himself a member of a minority community. He is the Saohpalong Yawnghwe.
  During this transitional period when, as the House will remember, the Government of Burma has been treated in practice as if it were a Dominion Government A Shan Sawbwa was appointed Counsellor for the Frontier Areas with a Kachin and a Chin deputy-Counsellor. I should add here, as I know some hon. Members are interested in the point, that the Anglo Burman community took their part in the framing of the constitution, and it has not been the policy of the community to seek for special privileges. They have thrown their lot in with the rest of the people of Burma, and I believe that they have a contribution to make to the future of Burma. The Government of Burma has welcomed their presence there, and stated that it was their policy to provide fair opportunities for employment for them.
  The House will recall the tragic events of 19th July when Aung San and six of his colleagues in the Cabinet were brutally

  1841
  murdered. I have already in this House paid a tribute to those leaders. I should like today to bear witness to the courage with which Thakin Nu and his colleagues stood up to a testing situation, and the wisdom and co-operative spirit which they have shown in all the negotiations which we have had with them. In August last, a Defence Mission, led by the then Under-Secretary of State for War, now the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, visited Burma; as a result of his labours a satisfactory Defence Agreement has been arrived at, and that is annexed to the Treaty. In September and October a Finance Mission from Burma, led by U Tin Tut, came to this country, and the outstanding financial questions were settled. On 17th October, the Treaty between the United Kingdom and Burma was signed by myself on behalf of His Majesty's Government and by Thakin Nu on behalf of Burma, and it will come into force on the date of ratification, the appointed day under this Bill. Its provisions will be known to the House, for it was published on 27th October.
  I turn to the broad provisions of the Treaty. Burma is recognised as an independent State, and Burma takes over the responsibilities hitherto binding upon this country. Provision is made to enable persons to divest themselves of dual nationality, the details, of which I will deal with later when I come to the Clauses of the Bill. We agree to provide and contribute to the cost of a Military Mission, and Burma undertakes not to receive a Military Mission from any other country. We are also helping Burma over military equipment and training, and we secure the right of landing on Burmese airfields. This agreement was come to between ourselves as two equal States. Under Article 5, Burma undertakes the obligation to meet the Service payments, which are mainly civil. Article 6 embodies an all-over financial settlement. Provision is made for the repayment over a period of years of £27 million due to us, and of the amounts received by Burma for the sale of surplus stores. Article 7 provides for the taking over by the new Government of the contractual obligations of the old, while Article 8 provides for a standstill arrangement in respect of trade, pending the conclusion of a regular commercial trade treaty. I do not think any other article calls for special notice.
  1842
  Before coming to the provisions of the Bill I should like to say a few words on the Burma Constitution. The production of this constitution and its adoption without dissent by the Constituent Assembly within a period of less than four months is, I think everybody will agree, a very remarkable achievement. Very few Constituent Assemblies have worked so quickly. The constitution has been described to me by experienced constitutional lawyers as being a remarkably able document. Its general principles embody the practice of Western democracies, and in particular those which obtain in the British Commonwealth. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet must all be members of one or other of the two legislative chambers, one of which consists of directly elected members on a population basis, while the other is called the Chamber of Nationalities and provides for considerable weightage in favour of minorities. In fact, it is remarkable that in the constitution of the Upper House the minorities collectively have more seats than the majority race of the Burmese.
  The structure of the new State called the Union of Burma has certain federal features. There are three States within the Union, Shan, Karenni and Kachin. Each of those will have exclusive legislative and executive authority over a substantial field, and they will enjoy certain sources of revenue. In addition to that there are two special regions, one for the Chins and another for the Karens of the Salween district, where a certain measure of local autonomy has been set up. We are all aware that the success of constitutions depends less on their actual provisions than on the way they are worked out and worked by the members. But if the spirit of co-operation that has been shown between the various communities in all these negotiations is exhibited in the future, I think that future should be bright.
  Mr. Gammans: There are many hon. Members who have not had an opportunity of being able to see this constitution, because copies could not be obtained in the Vote Office.
  The Prime Minister: If it is not in the Vote Office I will have it put there. I thought it had been published pretty widely.
  I now turn to the actual provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 embodies the principle

  1843
  of the Bill, and lays down the date of its coming into operation, which date has been chosen in consultation with the Burmese. The House knows that some days are better than others for embarking on important undertakings in the East, and it has now been proved, on our latest advice, that 4th January instead of 6th January would be more convenient from the point of view of the Government of Burma. Therefore, in Committee, we propose to move an Amendment with regard to the date. Subsection (3) makes provision for the termination of suzerainty over the Kerenni States.
  Clause 2 must be read in conjunction with the First Schedule, and is, I am afraid, very complicated; but then it deals with a very complicated and difficult subject—nationality. There will be a full opportunity of exploring its detailed provisions during Committee, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be prepared to deal with particular points. However, as I retired from practice at the Bar more than 30 years ago I will content myself with trying to give the broad provisions of the Clause from the point of view of the layman. The broad principle of the Clause is that the persons specified in the First Schedule—that is to say, persons whose British nationality is derived solely from their connection with Burma—shall cease to be British subjects. Subsection (2) provides that persons who come under the provisions of Subsection (1), but are domiciled or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or any of its Dependencies, may, within two years, exercise an option to remain British citizens.
  It will be observed that Subsection (1) does not apply to those resident in the Dominions. The reason is that it is for the Dominions themselves to make their own nationality laws. However, Subsection (4) provides for the recognition by the United Kingdom as a British subject of any persons who are given, by law of one of the self-governing Dominions, a similar right of electing to remain British subjects. Subsection (3) is put in for extra precaution, and gives a right of election to persons who may find themselves stateless. We do not think there will be many of those, but there may be some. I should add that by Article 3 of
  1844
  the Treaty, persons who find themselves dual nationals and are resident in Burma will have the opportunity of divesting themselves of their Burmese nationality. Therefore, it is hoped that the joint effect of the Bill and the Treaty will reduce the number of persons with dual nationality to a very small number. Subsection (6) prevents the exercise of the right of election from voiding retrospectively something done before the exercise of that right. Someone might have had a deportation order made against him, but he cannot get out of it by subsequently opting for a different nationality.
  I now wish to say a little on the Schedule. The general effect of the Schedule is that any person who can claim that his British nationality, or the nationality of his father or his paternal grandfather, rests on something otherwise than his connection with Burma remains a British subject. Hon. Members particularly interested in the position of the Anglo-Burmese will realise that many of them will, under this, remain British subjects. They can, if they desire, under the provisions of the Treaty, divest themselves of their Burmese nationality and remain British subjects. It should be noted, for the purposes of this Schedule, that the Burma referred to is the Burma of today, and not the Burma as it existed, either at the date of birth of a particular individual or of his father, or of his grandfather, where he wants to carry back his right to British nationality further. The House will remember that Burma was split up, in part under the Kingdom of Burma, and in part under British rule. This is to give the most extended rights to all to remain British subjects.
  Clause 3 is, I think, self-explanatory. It is the transitional provisions pending the conclusion of a trade treaty. Clause 4 deals with legal proceedings. Appeals to the Privy Council from Burma have always been very few, and as far as we can ascertain, there are no legal proceedings pending against the Secretary of State. Section 133 of the Act deals with contracts. The general effect of Clause 4, and of the new constitution of Burma, will be that if proceedings under that Section were in contemplation, they can be brought against the new Government of Burma. Subsection (3) is a saving subsection, protecting jurisdic-

  1845
  tion in British courts in respect of divorces already pronounced in Burma. Clause 5 provides for the repeal of Acts of Parliament relating to Burma, and references to Burma in other Acts. The same thing is also effected with reference to Orders in Council. These repeals are set out in the Second Schedule of the Bill.
  I think that is all I need say at this stage on the Clauses of the Bill. I have little more to do than to commend the Bill to the House. When passed, it will close one chapter of the relations between the people of the United Kingdom and the people of Burma, and will open another. Although, if it is carried, Burma will leave the British Commonwealth, there will remain memories and ties of friendship between the two countries which will endure. I say, as I said at the start, that we all regret Burma should be leaving the British Commonwealth, but this is done by the will of the Burmese people, and I think we must accept their verdict.
  4.4 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: I was rather surprised to see the benches opposite, particularly those below the Gangway, so thinly occupied upon an occasion which must, to hon. Members opposite, particularly in that quarter, be a joy-day—one of those moments in our history when they reach the satisfaction and fulfilment of long years of labour and endeavour. I remember reading the other day a speech by the Foreign Secretary in the country where he spoke of the announcements about India—the impressive scene, with the quiet little man and his quiet little voice sweeping away our position in India. I wondered, after this glowing description by a Member of the right hon. Gentleman's Government, that his followers have not hastened to be in their places in order to see the same performance repeated, if on an even smaller scale.
  The position which was occupied by the National Government, of which I was the head, is set out in the White Paper of May, 1945, and the substance is contained in the first paragraph:
  "It is and has consistently been our aim to assist her political development till she can sustain the responsibilities of complete self-government within the British Commonwealth and consequently attain a status equal to that of the Dominions and of this country."
  1846
  That was conditional upon a three years' breathing space for rehabilitation, and also to give time for the wishes of the people to manifest themselves calmly and deliberately, and under conditions of peace and order. A return to the constitution of 1935 was the objective in the interval. The framing of a new constitution for full "self-government within the British Commonwealth" subject to special protection for the frontier tribes—and particularly mentioned in the White Paper are the Shan States—from all of whom we received much loyalty and aid in freeing the country from Japanese invasion.
  There would have been no difficulty in carrying out this programme in an orderly and careful manner. Half, perhaps one-third, or one-quarter, of the British troops squandered in Palestine on a policy now abandoned, the fatuity of which is now recognised, would have sufficed to enable the transfer of power to a Burmese Government, on the basis of Dominion status, to be carried out by regular and measured steps, and with due consideration for all interests, opinions and feelings involved in that population of many various strains. Instead, the whole business has been conducted by the British Government from weakness and not from strength. The breathing space has been curtailed and we are now confronted, not with Dominion status, which, as in the case of India, we considered an indispensable stage in any policy to which we on this side of the House were committed but Burma has been plunged at once into full independence.
  This Bill is to cut Burma out of the Empire altogether, and to make her a foreign Power. At the earliest moment when these intentions to hustle the whole process through were known—although at that time the right hon. Gentleman did not mention independence, and seemed to indicate that a decision in that sense was not probable—I protested. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement, and on 20th December, 1946, I made an immediate protest. I said:
  "It was said, in the days of the great Administration of Lord Chatham, that one had to get up very early in the morning in order not to miss some of the gains and accessions of territory which were then characteristic of our fortunes. The no less memorable Administration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is distinguished for the opposite set

  1847
  of experiences. The British Empire seems to be running off almost as fast as the American Loan. The steady and remorseless process of divesting ourselves of what has been gained by so many generations of toil, administration and sacrifice continues. In the case of Burma, it is hardly a year since, by the superb exertions of the Fourteenth Army and enormous sacrifices in life and treasure—sacrifices in British blood and in Indian blood—the Japanese were forced to surrender, destroyed, or driven out, and the country was liberated. And yet, although barely a year has passed away, there is this extraordinary haste that we should take the necessary measures to get out of Burma finally and for ever. The same formula the right hon. Gentleman says will be used as was used in the case of India, with the same extensions he put on to that formula when the Indian Mission was sent out, eliminating the—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 2343.]
  At this moment, as there had been no Question before the House, you, 'Mr. Speaker, did me the honour to interrupt me, so that I was not able to conclude my sentence, which would have finished—"
  eliminating the stage of Dominion status."
  There is great importance in the stage of Dominion status, in that it does give a definite period in which, with all the advantages of Dominion Government and the full authority attaching thereto, all matters can be considered without heat or prejudice; in which those who feel that they would wish to adhere to and enjoy the great advantages and protection afforded by the British Commonwealth of Nations to all its members, would have an opportunity of making their weight felt, without any question intervening of direct interference by British administrators in their local affairs.
  The Prime Minister said that it was necessary for him to go back into the recent past history and to give us his version. I will follow him briefly over that course, but I think I must place a little different emphasis upon some of its episodes. Following on his announcement, and the comments which I have just read to the House, which I made then, a delegation of the most distinguished and leading representatives in Burma, or persons selected by the Government, was invited to London in January, and the British Government arranged with them for the acceleration of the whole process of getting rid of Burma. All the leading Burmese with which the Prime Minister negotiated, lunched and dined on that occasion have either been
  1848
  murdered, or are being tried for their lives for the mass murder of the Burmese Cabinet in July. The two outstanding figures of that delegation were U Aung San and U Saw. It is interesting to look at the respective parts which they played in the war.
  U Aung San went over to the Japanese, and raised what we might call a Quisling army to come in at the tail of the Japanese and help conquer the country for Japan. Great cruelties were perpetrated by his army. They were not very effective in fighting, but in the infliction of vengeance upon the loyal Burmese—the Burmese who were patriotically fighting with British and Indian troops to defend the soil of Burma from Japanese conquerers—great cruelties were perpetrated on those men, because they had helped us to resist the Japanese.
  After two or three years of desperately hard fighting, under climatic conditions and conditions of disease indescribably painful to British troops—two or three years of a struggle swinging to and fro, sometimes with most anxious crises, at length the balance turned in our favour. When it turned, U Aung San, as soon as he saw that Japan would be defeated—and it became quite evident that it was a matter of time only as to who was to win the great struggle—made overtures to Admiral Mountbatten, the Supreme Commander, that he was willing to come over to the winning side and bring his army with him, for what it was worth. I was, at that time, responsible, and upon the advice of the Chiefs of Staff, and with the approval of the Cabinet, we accepted those overtures.
  I was in favour of that because of the general aim and importance of shortening the war, saving the unnecessary shedding of British blood, and bringing the whole of the Burma position forward into line with the American advance in the Pacific. Of course it is not a very agreeable transaction, when a traitor rebel leader, who has come in with foreign invaders, brings his army over to your side, when so many cruelties and outrages have been perpetrated—still, in war time, the great thing is to get to the end of the war as soon as possible in a victorious manner. I certainly did not expect to see U Aung San, whose hands were dyed with British blood and loyal Burmese blood, marching

  1849
  up the steps of Buckingham Palace as the plenipotentiary of the Burmese Government.
  The case of U Saw is equally odd or even odder. In the autumn of 1941, this gentleman visited this country for consultations. He was the Prime Minister of the Burmese Government, which had been set up on the 1935 Constitution model. At the request of the India Office, I received him, and I also received from him strong assurances of loyalty and fidelity. He left to return to Burma by the Western route. He traversed the Atlantic, the broad expanses of the North American continent and embarked upon the Pacific, arriving at Hawaii on the night of 7th December, 1941, when the Japanese Pearl Harbour outrage had just been committed. The whole place was in confusion, a large portion of the United States fleet was sunk or burning and great numbers-of casualties had been inflicted. The scene was not at all well adapted to make a favourable impression upon the Oriental mind. It was evident that U Saw could not continue his journey by the westward route. He returned to Europe, and at the first moment when he could find a Japanese Consul, which was in Lisbon, he offered his allegiance to Japan. We are, of course, a very careless, happy-go-lucky people, but in wartime some pains are taken. We became aware of his message, overtook him in the air as he was flying across Palestine, and forced him to land. He was interned until the end of the war.
  Such were the two figures whom the Government welcomed as the outstanding authorities with whom they were to confer and to whom they were to confide the future of Burma, where 15 million people had dwelt for more than 60 years in peace, justice and contentment under British rule. U Saw is now on trial for the murder of U Aung San and most of his Cabinet. I will make no further comment because the case is sub judice. But however the matter may be viewed, the Government can hardly be congratulated on the choice they made of the hands into which Burma, its fate and its future are to be delivered. I trust they will be found more fortunate in the new men with whom they have now to deal.
  Today we are confronted with the result of complete independence and the cutting of Burma out of the British Empire and out of the protection of the
  1850
  British Empire. There is to be no interval stage of Dominion status where with calm and with deliberation all parties, all interests, all sections of the community and all creeds would see where their final fortunes would best lie. There are grave doubts that the assent of the frontier tribes has been honestly and genuinely given. I do not consider that we have any guarantee that there has been a fulfilment of our duties towards those who fought valiantly at our side. Indeed, I am told that through these mountainous regions, this half circle of mountains and hills about which the Prime Minister spoke, there is a condition of armed preparation and incipient revolt prevailing. About 12,000 murders and dacoities or armed robberies are reported to have taken place in the first seven months of this year and this is only a prelude—
  The Prime Minister: Which is below the average.
  Mr. Churchill: The average must have been upset by the extraordinary events of the last five or six years but even if it were only an average at 12,000 murders and dacoities amongst a population of 15 million, it would hardly be convincing proof of their fitness for full self-government.
  This is only a prelude, in my view, to the bloody welter which I fear will presently begin, as it has in India, with which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Economic Affairs has been so intimately concerned. No effective provision has been made for the protection of, or fair compensation to, important British commercial interests, built up over many years to the mutual benefit of the Burmese and British peoples. The Constitution provides that private property may be expropriated—that is British private property—under a law which leaves it to the Burmese Government to prescribe if and what compensation should be payable.
  There is to be national treatment of public utilities and national treatment of all natural resources and other measures which are fashionable in Socialist States. The Burmese Government is like our own, a Socialist Government aiming at the nationalisation of all important industries, but 60 per cent. of the British businesses and installations, according to the statement by a Burmese Minister last month, will be in the hands of the

  1851
  Burmese nation. Independent Burma is, we are told, to be a Socialist State. No effective provision has been made for compensation such as has been practised here even by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite. It rests with the Burmese Government, whose country is far from rehabilitation, and whose finances are in a disorder rivalling our own, to decide in the case of any dispute what, if any, compensation has to be given to their great industries which have been growing up for generations and from which this country has received an external source of wealth, and in which the people of Burma have themselves found great employment and increases of local wealth, which are the foundations of the revenue of the Government.
  This is what we are invited to assent to and to become responsible for in the Bill which is now before Parliament. We on this side of the House have no power to prevent what the Government intend to do, but we have to consider what our own attitude must be on an occasion of this kind. I say that we can accept no responsibility for this Bill, and I do not think it should be settled merely on questions of oil companies or vested interests. It raises whole issues affecting the British Commonwealth of Nations and our actions must be based on Imperial and moral grounds. We accept no responsibility for this Bill. We wish to dissociate ourselves from the policy and the methods pursued by the Government. They must bear the burden and it falls with peculiar weight upon the Prime Minister himself. I interrupted him the other night and said that I did not mean to charge him with personal blood guilt. There is a difference; I certainly did not. He individually is a humane man, but he is in the position of the signalman who has made a fatal mistake rather than that of the murderer who has placed an obstruction on the line. The responsibility rests upon him in a broad political manner, and I am bound to say I would be very sorry to go down to history bearing upon me the name and the burden which will rest on him. The Government must bear the burden.
  Burma is an appendage of India and is likely to reproduce, though, of course, on a far smaller scale, the horrors and disasters which have overspread her great neighbour and which should ever haunt
  1852
  the consciences of the principal actors in this tragedy. All loyalties have been discarded and rebuffed; all faithful service has been forgotten and brushed aside. There is no assurance that the power of the new Government will be sufficient to maintain internal order, or, I might add, national independence against far larger and far more powerful neighbours. We stand on the threshold of another scene of misery and ruin, marking and illustrating the fearful retrogression of civilisation which the abandonment by Great Britain of her responsibilities in the East have brought and are bringing upon Asia and the world. I say this to the Government: You shall bear that burden. By your fruits you will be judged. We shall have no part or lot in it. We have not obstructed your policies or Measures and they must now take their own course. We, at least, will not be compromised or disgraced by taking part in them, or denied the opportunity of pointing the moral to the British nation as and when occasion may occur. On those grounds we shall, at the close of the Debate, move the rejection of the Bill.
  4.31 p.m.
  Mr. Wyatt: This afternoon we have had an excellent exposition from the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) of what a genuine Tory faith in Empire really means. The Tory belief in Empire means, "Be dominated by us. If you don't like it, get out." That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying this afternoon. In the last six or seven months the right hon. Gentleman has been doing his best to insult and to denigrate the two Dominions of India and Pakistan, despite the fact that both of those countries fulfilled his first qualification for freedom from British rule. They both voluntarily said, "Please may we become Dominions of the British Commonwealth?" The right hon. Gentleman says, "Thank you very much. I will now proceed to tell you that you are unfit to govern yourselves."
  The right hon. Gentleman has gone further than that. He has described the people of India as so many cannibals butchering each other. Does he really think that is the way to bind together the British Commonwealth of Nations? Does he really think that, when two countries are newly set up and inaugurated, it is a

  1853
  help to them in their great difficulties, and makes them feel sympathy for the British nation, to be insulted by the Leader of the Opposition? It is very remarkable that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has not been present during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. For that, of course, there is a very obvious reason; he does not agree with a single word of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. Nor do many other Members of the right hon. Gentleman's party. There was a marked lack of enthusiasm, except when the right hon. Gentleman was making a mockery of murders in Burma, among his own supporters for the statement he has just made.
  What does the right hon. Gentleman want? Does he want us to continue to rule Burma by force? If he wants that, then he must say so quite clearly. We cannot give a country Dominion status if it is not willing to accept it. If a country says, "We want to be free; we don't want Dominion status as an intermediate stage," the only way we can persuade it to have Dominion status is by force. If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks we have been wasting our troops in Palestine, what sort of policy does he propose for Burma? Force, or get out? If the right hon. Gentleman thinks Burma would be likely to accept Dominion status after a speech of the kind to which we have listened this afternoon, he really should think again.
  The position with regard to Burma is something quite different—as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, because his own father was the Minister responsible for the annexation of the Kingdom of Burma—from the position in India. Burma is a nation which has never lost its nationhood. It is quite true that there was a dispute between King Thibaw in the early 1880's, and a British trading company, and that in that dispute the British trading company was in the right; but the very first British Governor who was sent by the right hon. Gentleman's father to take over control of Burma said that annexation and direct rule of that country was unnecessary, and that, a protectorate would have sufficed just as well, or a treaty arrangement of the kind which we had with Nepal. Burma has never forgotten that, and knows that she is a nation. She has
  1854
  never been disunited and split up by internecine strife in the same way as many of the States of India were. The result is that at the very first opportunity she has looked for her freedom, her old nationhood and independence.
  If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am speaking very wildly this afternoon, perhaps he will look again at the leading article of "The Times" of 28th October. In that leading article the Government are criticised, it is true, but for what were they criticised? The Government were criticised for going too slowly with the independence of Burma after the end of the war. In referring to the announcement of the presentation of the Burma Independence Bill, "The Times" leading article said:
  "Before that announcement, the Government had shown themselves somewhat slow to appreciate the vigour of Burmese nationalism after the war, and the strength of its resentment at the restrictions on national progress embodied in the White Paper of May, 1945."
  What does the right hon. Gentleman's programme amount to? He has protested against restrictions in this country, but he wants restrictions for all the other countries he can possibly lay his hands on. He does not want to try to make a friendly arrangement with a nation which was wrongly taken over by his own father and to be in association with them, after they have achieved their independence. He wants to stamp on them and keep them down by force. He explained this afternoon that we would not have needed as many troops in Burma to keep the people down by force as we needed in Palestine. That is the long and the short of his programme. Every time he has stated a fact he has misstated it wherever possible. For example, U Saw was not the most prominent, or one of the most prominent, members of the delegation, as anybody who has studied the affairs of Burma would be able to inform the right hon. Gentleman—and as his right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden will be able to inform him afterwards.
  Nor is it true to try to denigrate U Aung San as a traitor to his own country or even to our country. The right hon. Gentleman well knows the difficulties facing any leader of a nationalist movement in South-East Asia during the war, when they were overrun by the Japanese. Why should not U Aung San seek to

  1855
  make the best arrangement for his people that he could? Why should he be regarded as having special affinities or ties with this country demanding his allegiance, not having been particularly helped by the right hon. Gentleman? Why should he not be regarded as a hero by his own people? The right hon. Gentleman may disagree with him about the things he did, but it is not the way to win the hearts or the affections of a people to insult their favourite leader—
  Mr. Bramall: Particularly after he is dead.
  Mr. Wyatt:—particularly, as I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall), after he is dead.
  I congratulate the Government on what they have done. They deserve the highest praise for the treaty they have made with Burma and for the arrangements they have made leading up to that treaty. Naturally, we are sorry that Burma is not going to be a member of the British Commonwealth. If it had not been for the policy followed by the party opposite before the war, it might well have been that Burma would now voluntarily become a member of the British Commonwealth. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in office today he knows perfectly well that if he had resisted the Burmese demands he would have enraged the whole people and would have created the maximum bitterness and discontent. It is very surprising that there has not been more bitterness on the Burmese side. His Majesty's Government are greatly to be congratulated that they have reached a conclusion so amicably.
  Although the treaty takes Burma out of the Commonwealth, in fact it leaves her practically in the Commonwealth. It leaves her so closely allied with the Commonwealth that it is true to say that we are in a very special relationship with Burma, one that we are not in with any other foreign power. The agreement to accept military missions only from this country and not from any other country than this virtually does imply a military alliance. So also do the provisions that provide that Burma will afford all facilities necessary in Burma for the British, whenever we wish to bring help to any part of the British Commonwealth. The solidity of that Defence Agreement, a great deal
  1856
  of the credit for which is due to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Supply, has ensured that there is, in fact, no gap whatever in Commonwealth Defence. What is the right hon. Gentleman complaining about? If there is no gap in Commonwealth Defence caused by the departure of Burma from the British Commonwealth, what is he complaining about? Is he complaining at the desire of the people to rule themselves in the way they wish?
  Even in connection with the commercial arrangements the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He has told the House that British interests in Burma will be expropriated without compensation. There is no intention to do anything of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. He said that Burma was taking over British interests without compensation, and that is quite untrue. It is expressly provided in the treaty between Burma and His Majesty's Government that British interests will be respected, and in the exchange of Notes between Thakin Nu and the Prime Minister it is expressly laid down that no action prejudicial to British interests will be taken, particularly before the commercial treaty is concluded. In fact, far from expropriating British oil interests, the present Burmese Government have given the oil undertakings every encouragement to get the oil wells functioning again. There has been no move whatever against British interests.
  Further, the Burmese Government have been most generous and have raised no difficulties whatever in the arrangements for the, compensation of British officials employed in Burma. They might have made difficulties about it, but they have not done so. I well remember that there were difficulties in fixing the compensation for British officials employed in India, but there has been none here. There were many things the right hon. Gentleman might have said in favour of the Burmese and this new country, but not one of them has he chosen to say. Every single thing he could find to sneer, ridicule and laugh at in them he has taken up, no doubt with an eye more to his electoral future in this country than to the welfare of his own country.
  The Government are also further to be congratulated because the arrangements they have made with Burma, as well as

  1857
  being highly satisfactory to us, will prove highly satisfactory to Burma. The best type of arrangement is that which is satisfactory to both sides. Burma will be needing a great deal of help in capital equipment and technicians in the years to come. We shall be in a position to supply such things, and I hope the Government will make every effort to do so in order to consolidate the friendship we already have with Burma. It is quite true that there are many difficulties and problems ahead for the Burmese Government. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out so pleasurably, that they have great problems of internal law and order and dacoity, but the dacoity figures are now going down.
  It may interest the right hon. Gentleman to know that an early British Governor in Burma was startled to find that whereas dacoity had not existed before the British occupied Burma, it had grown very strong since the British occupied Burma. I must say, however, that it is a problem which arises very largely out of the war. I would not say that the Burmese Government have behaved in the wisest possible manner over it. They made a great mistake in issuing arms indiscriminately to individuals and organisations, however well-meaning, who claimed they needed them for their protection and would be able to put down the troubles. Now they have reversed that policy and have adopted a vigorous policy of calling in the arms, laying down heavy penalties against those who do not surrender them.
  The problem with regard to the Karens has been satisfactorily settled, no doubt to the right hon. Gentleman's disappointment. The Karen hill tribes have come to an agreement with the leaders of the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League, and have taken their place in the Constituent Assembly. Only a very small minority of Karens in the Delta do not agree with the arrangements which have been made. The Anglo-Burmans have also been given satisfaction, according to a speech made by their leader in the Constituent Assembly on 22nd October, which is another disappointment for the right hon. Gentleman.
  There is one thing over which I hope the Burmese people will act cautiously. They have a brand new Civil Service without the support and help of British
  1858
  officials. That Civil Service will naturally take some time to get into its stride. It will be some months before it is really competent to deal with the administration of the country, and it would be unwise at the moment to press on too hastily with schemes of nationalisation and socialisation. For that reason—and only because of the inexperience of the Civil Service—it will be a problem which must be considered by the Burmese people before they press too hard for extensive nationalisation. I hope that the more extreme Socialists and the Communists in Burma will not seek to overthrow their present leadership because they do not hasten on as fast as they would wish with Socialistic schemes. [Interruption.] I expected that I had said something which would please the Opposition, but I do not mind doing that, if I feel that it will be of any help to Burma.
  I hope, finally, that, despite what we have just heard, in one of the right hon. Gentleman's most outrageous speeches, a message of good will will go out from this House today to the people of Burma and that Burma will know that, although she will not be a sister nation of the Commonwealth, we shall regard her with a very special affection and feel that the ties between us have been enhanced and not diminished by the passing of this Bill.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: This is an historic occasion and, as has been said, we are closing one chapter and beginning a new one in being asked to confirm the treaty that has already been made which establishes the independence of Burma. I do not intend to occupy the House for more than a few minutes. I would have been even shorter but for the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). We all know that he has played a great part, a very noble part, and certainly an historic part, not only in the affairs of this country, but in the affairs of the Empire, and he has done a great deal to promote the interests of the Colonies and other parts of that Empire. We- also know that he holds his views sincerely, and we pay him the deepest respect, but I sincerely wish that he had not expressed those views this afternoon. What good can they pos-

  1859
  sibly do to anybody—to the Burmese, the people of this country, or anyone anywhere?
  What has happened? Nothing that we can say now can alter the act which has already been signed by the Prime Minister and the head of the Provisional Government of Burma. Burma is starting on her new career, and surely the right thing at this present moment is to wish her well and hope for her future prosperity? It, is no good indulging in recriminations. The word "traitor" is easily thrown about, but a person who may be described by one set of people as a traitor may be regarded by another set of people as a patriot. Many a man who has been fighting for what he regarded as the essential freedom of his own people, and fighting against what might be regarded as domination over his own people, has afterwards been welcomed by us as a friend, to the benefit of himself and certainly to the benefit of ourselves.
  Mr. Brendan Bracken: Not with the Japanese as Allies.
  Mr. C. Davies: May I recall to the House that we had to fight a bitter and bloody war in South Africa, but at last we extended the hand of friendship to two of the greatest builders of this Empire, General Botha and General Smuts, and it would ill become us to refer to the bloodshed in South Africa in connection with them after they had been received at Buckingham Palace. May I come nearer home? We all remember the tragedy of Ireland, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues shook hands with the man who was regarded up to that moment as a traitor and who died as a result of extending the hand of friendship, Michael Collins. So it does no good to indulge in these recriminations.
  Undoubtedly Burma has benefited considerably, not only materially but also politically and even spiritually, by her association with this country. We have built roads, harbours, houses; we have taught them many things, we have brought schools there, helped them in their education, and taught them to learn to govern themselves. Surely this is the culmination of the policy that this country has always desired to pursue, namely, that we would welcome the day when we could say to those people, "Now we have played our part. We have done all we
  1860
  could during our period of trusteeship. We are glad that the day has now come when you can take over responsibilities yourselves." We have indeed made great sacrifices in Burma. What our men went through there is almost indescribable, and they have left an imperishable memory behind them, fighting for the very freedom we are now conferring upon Burma. I hope it will be memories of such events that will be treasured by us in the future, and I wish well to this new Government and this people.
  One other word. We are all of us apt rather to think of ourselves and what is happening to us in these troublesome times, when events are moving so rapidly, but to me probably the greatest event of all in this rapidly moving age is the awakening of Asia and the tremendous changes that are taking place there. What may eventuate from them, no one can tell. There is a mighty population there—China, India, and now a separate Burma. All we can hope is that they will discharge their responsibilities towards their people and build up a better world, not only for themselves but for all of us.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. Sorensen: I am sure the major portion of the House welcomed the spirit and tone of the speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), and I must also add my profound regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) should have thought it fit at this time to encourage the worst elements, rather than the best elements, in Burma and this country. I say that deliberately because there are two ways by which we can encourage people to be our friends. One way is to try to insist that they shall be our friends at the point of the bayonet —or, in these latter days, with the menace of the bomb. The other is, whilst recognising unfortunate characteristics and facets, to look to the best, to think of the best, and to expect the best from those whom we desire to be our friends. I assume we desire Burma to be a friend of this country and, if so, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was calculated to destroy that possibility.
  Indeed, when he referred to the recently assassinated leader of the Burmese people as a traitor, I could not but remember that at one time the originators

  1861
  of the American nation were also designated traitors. If that be so, then the very man who today has been calling a leader of the Burmese people a traitor, himself has traitor's blood in his veins. I hope I say that without any personal offence to him, but obviously he would not dare at this time to slander the American people, or to point out that they began in bygone days by rebellion against this country and, therefore, were technically traitors. Rather would he do what most of us do, appreciate that the American people, although they have a variety of races within their confines, are people who are equal with ourselves and therefore need to be in friendship with us on every possible plane. That is why, again, I much regret, and I am sure many of his own party regret, that he should have thought fit to speak in the way he did this afternoon.
  Mr. Bracken: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was referring to the fact that certain persons connected in the past and present with the Burmese Government were strong allies of Japan in this war, and that there were thousands of British soldiers killed through the actions of these traitors.
  Mr. Sorensen: It is interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) echoing his master's voice. All I can say again is that it depends on what one means by "traitors." After all, from the Burmese standpoint they adopted a policy which they thought was in the interests of their country, and although the right hon. Member for Bournemouth may accuse them of being traitors, I would suggest that the best way to test whether they are traitors or not is to ask the Burmese people. An overwhelming number, 99 per cent. or more, of the Burmese people would say, whether we like it or not, that U Aung San and others were not traitors, but examples of the finest Burmese patriots. It is quite true that it was inconvenient and embarrassing for us, and that it led to a great deal of suffering, but again I beseech hon. Members, and especially the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, to realise that when we think of others as being traitors, we judge them only from our standpoint, whereas we have to realise that it is from the Burmese standpoint that U Aung San and others must be judged. Otherwise
  1862
  we soon get ourselves into difficulties. There are many in this country who could accuse certain leaders of this country of being traitors. We have all heard from time to time the most scathing language used by hon. Members opposite regarding the Members of our own Front Bench, but it is not for them to determine whether we who are Labour Members have confidence in them; it is for ourselves. And so it is with the Burmese people. Rightly or wrongly, they believe that U Aung San and others followed a policy which they hoped would lead them to ultimate liberty.
  Further, may I point out that there was a time in Italy when large numbers of Italian people began to defy Mussolini. I suppose from one standpoint they could be called, technically, traitors to their country; but we welcomed that traitorous act, we encouraged it, and in the long run those very people, called traitors technically by some of the Italians, were recognised by us as being the finest Italian patriots. [An HON. MEMBER: "And by the right hon. Member for Woodford."] As my hon. Friend says, by the right hon. Member for Woodford as well. So it is with the Burmese people, and it is a shocking thing in my estimation deliberately to give offence to the Burmese people by designating one of their honoured men as a traitor. I am certain that, on second thoughts, if not the right hon. Member, many others of the party to which he belongs will regret profoundly that he saw fit beforehand to work out the phraseology of his speech in the way he did in order, not impulsively but deliberately and by choice, to leave on record for all time that the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House has designated the honoured and beloved leader of Burmese liberation a traitor. I hope history will nevertheless realise that there are other voices in this country besides his, whose desire it is to encourage all that is best in the Burmese people, so that they can go forward with us in friendship and fraternity.
  The right hon. Gentleman also regretted the fact that hon. Members below the Gangway look upon this with joy. Though I do not sit in that position normally, I would have asked him, had I been able to do so, why we should not look on this with joy? Are we not glad that the Burmese people have not only

  1863
  secured their freedom, but are on terms of firmer friendship with us now than ever before? Are we not glad that peoples who were conquered by us are at last liberated, not in a spirit of rancour but of good will? Surely, that is something about which to rejoice, and I do rejoice in the fact that the Burmese people are now a free people who have been made free, not by acts of violence between themselves and ourselves, but by the culmination of a process of reason and good will.
  The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested at one time that we could have had approximately 25 per cent. of the Forces who are now in Palestine in Burma to implement a policy of Dominion status, rather than of independence. I shall read his words in HANSARD more carefully tomorrow, but I think I have not give an unfair paraphrase of what he suggested. What does that mean? If it means anything at all, it is that, despite the overwhelming determination and desire of the Burmese people to be independent, and not merely to enjoy Dominion status, he would have been prepared to have had an army of, say, 25,000 British troops in Burma to see that they had something which they did not want to receive. More of our British soldiers would have been killed, which sounds ill when one remembers the undoubtedly sincere comments which he and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth made in regard to the tragic losses we suffered in Burma only two or three years ago. From our own standpoint it was a wise step to take to recognise that neither in India nor Burma do we wish to lose more precious British lives. I challenge his Parliamentary colleagues opposite to state whether, in fact, they are prepared to support the right hon Member for Woodford and to go into the Lobby against this Bill. Are they going to put it on record that so deeply and conscientiously do they disagree with this that they are going to prove their sincerity by-voting in the Noes Lobby against this Bill? Otherwise, one must recognise that they are in fact not endorsing that policy to which the right hon. Gentleman has given utterance.
  As stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) there are many difficulties facing Burma, difficulties which will require the guidance of others
  1864
  to help the Burmese. It is for them to decide, but I am quite certain that in this new atmosphere of freindship and goodwill they will turn to this country for advice and assistance and, indeed, for cooperation. Their policy of nationalising large industries naturally meets with the sympathy of hon. Members on this side of the House. I hope they will be able to go forward with that. Certainly the economic distress of their country is very great at the present time, and it was caused by the war, a war into which they went not of their own choice, but by the decision of the British Government. It may have been a wise choice on our part, but that is not the point—the point is that they themselves did not choose to go, but were ordered to go into it, and they suffered grievous damage; and it will be a long while before they can recover.
  Mr. Bracken: They were invaded by the Japanese; that little point must be taken into consideration.
  Mr. Sorensen: That may be, but if they had been a free country they could have decided themselves whether they would take up arms against the Japanese, or not. In any case the Japanese invaded Burma because that was part of the Japanese policy of attack against this country and her allies. In other words, the invasion of Burma took place because Burma was merely part of the game, the game which on the one part Japan and her Axis allies were playing, and on the other we ourselves were playing. I do not think it is fair to say that because Burma was invaded by the Japanese we went out to defend Burma from the Japanese. Nothing of the kind. We went to Burma to defend ourselves, our own interests, and Imperial prestige and to defeat the Japanese, not primarily for the sake of Burmese interests. I repeat, they may have been defended, but the main fact was that it suited our purpose to defend Burma against the Japanese when they invaded that part of the world.
  I notice a very minor factor which will certainly hearten all the women Members of the House. It is laid down in the new Constitution that in future all women in Burma who do the same job as men must receive equal pay—[Laughter.] In spite of the laughter of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans)—
  Mr. Gammans: I was merely suggesting that the hon. Member might mention that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ask him to redeem his Election promise.
  Mr. Sorensen: If that is implemented we shall be in the interesting position of Finding an example set for us by one of the newest nations in the world. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the House generally, will take note of that, and will follow Burma's example. That may be symbolical of the future, and I hope that hon. Members opposite, and on the Liberal Benches, will join with us. It is quite true that Burma is not part of the British Empire, but she is our friend, and many of us would rather have her not in the Commonwealth but a warm friend, than in the Commonwealth but resentfully and bitterly trying to work her way out. Burma goes forward as an independent country, but in friendship, and may that friendship deepen and ripen in course of time not only into more friendship for both lands, but into an example to the world.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Raikes: The hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) cast out a challenge to hon. Members on this side of the House. As far as I am concerned, I say without hesitation that I propose to give unqualified support to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in voting against this Bill when the time comes. Many attacks have been made in the course of the last 20 minutes on my right hon. Friend, and the main gist of the attacks has been that he has taken the opportunity to make a provocative speech at a time when Burman independence is drawing near to a conclusion.
  The speech of the Prime Minister was completely devoid of all reality. Anyone listening to that speech would have imagined that a rather friendly, genial, democracy-loving people were just about to adopt the British form of constitutional government, and pass gracefully out into the new order of democratic states. But everyone in this House knows that that is not a true picture of Burma. My right hon. Friend took the opportunity of lifting the lid a little, and showing something of the real difficulties we have to face. He took the opportunity of stating the real issue. It is so easy in this House—and we all do it at times—to make easy phrases
  1866
  and express satisfaction that all is to be for the best in the best of all possible worlds at the moment when we disclaim responsibility in some area of the globe. My right hon. Friend does not take that view. He is prepared to seek out what he believes to be the truth even when the truth annoys the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), and shocks the Liberal Party which is being shocked at the moment somewhere else.
  Nevertheless, the truth deserves to be spoken. I will say only one word about the late Burmese Prime Minister. There has been perhaps too much discussion in the course of the last 20 minutes in regard to his own guilt as a traitor. It is an insult to General Smuts and to General Botha, both of whom were men who fought for their own country, as they believed, against us, to compare them with one who first of all united with the cruellest race in the East—the Japanese—amongst other things to oppress Burmans and who, having done that, double-crossed the Japanese as soon as he thought he was on the losing side. If that makes patriotism, it is the sort of patriotism which I would sooner see on the other side of the House than on my own. So much for that.
  On the general picture, quite frankly I look at this Bill with great apprehension and anxiety. Certain hon. Members opposite will remember that a number of years ago I took, as I was entitled to take, a different view from them, and indeed a different view from certain of my own party on the Government of India Bill. I was afraid at that time that in that country we were speeding the pace towards complete independence too fast without that background which alone can make democracy work. That was my view then. Since then I have seen India quitted by the British and I have seen prophecies that were described as fantastic 12 years ago come true. We have' all seen, first of all, bloody massacre, then an enormous forced displacement of population, leading on the one hand to typhus, and leading beyond typhus to starvation and famine. I have seen these things happen within a few months of a beautiful picture having been painted in this House—
  Mrs. Leah Manning: Is it not a fact that we saw millions of Indians starve previously, when we were in India?
  Mr. Raikes: I am glad that the hon. Lady made that interruption. I think I can deal with it, and probably in a way which may satisfy her. It is true that throughout the history of India there have been great famines. It is also true that during the period when the British were in India famines were reduced so far that the population of India increased in a way never known in the history of any Eastern race during a similar period. When famines did take place, and they took place to some extent during the war, they did so owing to the failure of crops. The famine which is now taking place in India is taking place quite apart from crops, owing to the forced migration of populations. Owing to these changes of population, as a result of civil war in parts of India, we find completely different sorts of famine, which would never have occurred but for those displacements.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Member tell me what crops failed in India in 1943?
  Mr. Raikes: My own recollection was that in 1943 there was a very bad failure in the rice crop in India, and there was the Japanese war.
  Mr. Ross: Precisely, but the Japanese war was not a failure of crops.
  Mr. Raikes: I confess that if quote come along I" am as fond of a free-for-all as anyone in this House, but if I may, I will return to the subject which is worrying my hon. Friend beside me, which is Burma.
  I said a moment ago that events in India cause considerable fear when we see another such step being taken in another Eastern country on rather similar lines, because one thing is certain beyond all else. Whatever there will be when we leave Burma, it will not be a nice pleasant constitutional democracy of the British type. One has only to look at the new constitution of Burma to realise that inevitably there will be not a democratic State but a form of totalitarian State. That State is coming into existence in an atmosphere of great bitterness and unpleasantness in Burma, an atmosphere of Cabinet Ministers being murdered on the one hand, and leaders of the Opposition being tried for their murder on the other, and a great deal of unrest in the nation. There will be not a democratic,
  1868
  but a totalitarian regime. I remember the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) once making a statement which stuck in my mind. On that occasion he said that the heady wine of democracy was, in his view, too much for Eastern Europe at the present time. He was, of course, talking of Poland.
  I would dispute that, but it is beyond dispute that the heady wine of democracy, if carried too quickly to untrained heads in Asia, must have results which are very different from the results which Members of the Government Front Bench would like to see come into operation. There is no evidence whatever that if a national totalitarian Government is formed in Burma, as it inevitably will be, it will be a stage towards the development of democratic institutions. In fact, I say with confidence that where such a Government is set up the only effect can be to destroy those seeds of democratic ideas which have been sown in that country during the years when it was in close contact with the West and with this nation.
  I would summarise the result of our departure from Burma in this way: First, that Burma will be left in complete turmoil and risk, as India was left; secondly, that the Karens who were our loyal friends through thick and thin throughout the war, will have to make whatever struggle they make for their national independence without any support from this country. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that there are special ties and special needs to stand by those who stood by us. I know it has been said that the Karens, apart from the dwellers on the Delta, have entered this new Constituent Assembly. What else could they do? Our Government have made it clear that we were clearing out, but no one in Burma imagines that the position between the Karens and the Burmans will be either happy or pleasant for that very gallant minority. It is all very well to say, as another hon. Member has said, that a member of the Anglo-Burma community had stated that he was satisfied that all would be well in the Assembly. The Anglo-Burman community have, like others, to hope for the best, but in view of the bitter anti-, British propaganda which has been conducted ever since the war, when we have been moving towards Burmese independence—conducted among others by the very Prime Minister who was slaughtered

  1869
  the other day—the Anglo-Burman community, like the Karens, with no safeguards whatever, will face a grave and difficult time.
  As every one knows, the Burmese police have been riddled with politics, especially since the last Prime Minister, who was murdered, led and encouraged a police strike only a few years ago. So there are political police, a totalitarian regime, and the British are quitting. I am not prepared to stand down and merely use a few easy words of patronage about that situation. I do not think that it would be right or just to do it. In view of these slaughters, in view of the condition of the nation, we could have advanced by stages. We could have insisted that the police be purged of politics and that the people had some practice in free elections. The first "free" elections in Burma were not very much like free elections in this country. We could have ensured that they passed by stages towards the final stage of independence.
  The Government are governed by a pledge. I know that a pledge has been made. I know that my words tonight are in vain, but I would remind them that if a pledge is sufficiently reckless, sufficiently foolish, it may be qualified. There is precedent for it. There is one pledge which this Government, or the majority of hon. Members opposite, threw over in this Parliament—the pledge to the friendly societies—and they did that with far less justification. That was not a pledge which had in it the inherent gravities of this one. If having promised a man to give him a razor, one then discovers that he is likely to cut his own throat, one is entitled to qualify that promise until the condition of his health is a great deal better. I believe that this Government are taking a terrible responsibility. I am glad, for my part, that we on this side of the House do not share it. The quitting of our responsibilities at this moment may easily lay a load of blood guilt upon this Government of which they and the people who come after will have cause to be ashamed.
  5.22 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) made what seemed to me an extraordinary remark when he talked about lack of reality in the speech of
  1870
  the Prime Minister, because throughout the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that was what impressed me most—his complete lack of realisation of what the situation in Burma really was and still is. I was the more surprised because, if there is one subject upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) is an expert, it is that of warfare in all its forms. It seemed to me incredible that he should say that Burma could have been repressed or kept in order with far fewer troops than we use in Palestine. There is simply no comparison between the two countries.
  When one considers the vast expanse of Burma, the jungle covered, hilly country which is absolutely ideal for guerillas, when one looks back at history and thinks of the trouble we have had in the past and the rebellion which we took a very long time in quelling in peacetime with all our administrative and military resources in full operation, it is perfectly obvious that if the whole country is against us the reconquest of it or the keeping of it in repression, would be a military operation of the highest magnitude. That is especially so when one considers how the communications were completely disrupted by war and the fact that there were arms everywhere in the hands of dacoits, and people of every description, in the jungle and the villages throughout the country.
  It was absolutely essential if there was to be any peace in Burma that we should have the people on our side. What was the state of the people after we reconquered Burma? They were seething with nationalism. The spirit of nationalism which has been growing up in South-East Asia had come to a head in Burma, and nothing would content the people but almost immediate independence. That was conveyed to me, and I think to many other hon. Members, by people who were on the spat. Some 16 months ago I criticised the Government because I thought that they did not realise that fact. I thought they were acting much too slowly. In fact, I thought that they were following up the White Paper which the Leader of the Opposition quoted with some satisfaction, which visualises a slow, stately, gradual progress towards independence. It would have been utterly useless to attempt anything of

  1871
  that kind in Burma in view of the temper of the people. There was only one thing to be done, and that was to take vigorous and immediate steps towards giving the Burmese independence. It was the only way of saving a volcano from blowing up there. I congratulate the Government most heartily on having realised that fact and on the vigour and promptness with which they have dealt with the situation.
  I would also like to echo the compliment paid by the Prime Minister to Sir Hubert Rance for the tact and wisdom with which he guided Burma through the period of transition. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had some very bitter things to say about the Burmese leader, Aung San. I think it was most deplorable that he should do that. Though no doubt he was sincere, he showed complete lack of responsibility. That is a thing that we are accustomed to expect from him now, though as a war leader we all had a great admiration for what he did. Now that his responsibilities are given up, sometimes he behaves more like a naughty and mischievous school boy. I only hope that the Burmese people will take it for what it is worth and will realise that he does not represent, I should imagine, even the majority opinion on the benches opposite in this matter. Even hon. Members opposite share the change which has come over public opinion within my lifetime. When I was a young man we used to look at so much of the map coloured red and rather gloat over it saying, "This is our Empire. It belongs to us." There was a sense of possession about it. Most of us have advanced beyond that stage.
  We realise that the only right attitude for an Imperial Power over territories which may still be subordinate to it is the relationship of guardian to ward. We are responsible for these territories just so long as it is necessary for us to supervise them. All the time we should be aiming at preparing them for independence. That is now the accepted enlightened view. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Woodford has his mind still as it was about 50 years ago. He has not been able to assimilate the new ideas. Otherwise, he would not speak of these as being days of gloom. The guardian does not regard it as a day of gloom when his ward achieves his 21st
  1872
  birthday. He merely says, "Now we have a new relationship which we hope will be just as friendly with just as much mutual confidence and respect as before, but there is no longer any subordination." He regards it as a joyful occasion. We on this side of the House take that view when we see Burma getting her independence.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) emphasised the fact that although Burma has decided to leave the Commonwealth, she has a very particular relation to the Commonwealth, which is different from that of any other foreign country. On this side of the House, we can also welcome the fact that Burma is to be a Socialist state. I can agree with the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes), that it will not be what he called "a nice, pleasant democracy," like we have here. Of course, it will not. How could it be, when we consider what Burma is and her past? Anyway, I am not surprised that they are aiming at a Socialist State, because it is in accordance with the history of the country. Burma is a land of villages, which has always had a strong community spirit and a strong spirit of working together in local democracy. It is a country which never has had an ideal that men should set out to make great fortunes for themselves; capitalism was a foreign importation, brought in by Europeans, Indians and Chinese. Although it may be perfectly true that it has brought material benefits, it has also had very harmful effects, in some ways, on the Burmese social system, which the Burmese themselves were inclined to resent. Now, they are out to make the best of modern industrial methods, while, at the same time, retaining or going back to their own communal system, and I think we shall look with sympathy on the experiments which they make in that direction.
  In conclusion, I would like to recall what I thought were the remarkable words of Thakin Nu, the Burmese Prime Minister, in reply to our own Prime Minister, when he said this:
  "The two Governments have striven, for something greater and nobler than a mere agreement on such points as might arise for settlement in connection with the impending transfer of power. What both sides have sought and I believe have achieved is nothing less than arrangements which will form a firm and solid basis for Anglo-Burmese friendship."

  1873
  That is very true, and I would like them to think that, at any rate, the majority of us in this House tonight, and on the other side as well as here, reciprocate that view.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken that, whatever way hon. Members on this side of the House may cast their votes tonight, they are not lacking a full measure of good will to Burma and the peoples who live there.
  Mr. Gallacher: Tell that to your pal at your side—all that twaddle.
  Mr. Nicholson: I do not know if the hon. Member thinks that is the way in which to conduct Debate or whether it conduces to the dignity of this House, but I do not think it does. I wish it to go down on record and also to go out to Burma, and I know that it will be reciprocated by all my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side, that we feel a full measure of good will towards Burma. But, having said that, I find myself completely differing from almost everything else the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. I believe, particularly, that it is a bad thing in this House if, just because we disagree with the actions or speeches of an hon. Member or a party, we should charge them with irresponsibility. I do not share the views held by some of my hon. and right hon. Friends. In fact I may find myself in the Government Lobby this evening, but I resent as keenly as anyone this charge of irresponsibility that is levelled against them. I feel impelled to say to my hon. Friends that when we vote for this Measure, we shall do it with a very heavy sense of responsibility in our hearts, so that I resent, both on their behalf and on my own, this charge of irresponsibility. It docs no good to the future of our relations with Burma that these charges are made, and I think they should be withdrawn.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes). If we are to embark on a new stage of our relations with Burma in an aura of honeyed words and easy phrases, then we are, indeed, most culpable. If we close our eyes to the fact that this may very likely be a change for the worse in the life of the ordinary common man and
  1874
  woman in Burma, then we are indeed deluding ourselves. I would like hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite, and, indeed, would like Burma to recognise, that there is a tradition in the Conservative Party of a very heavy feeling of responsibility towards those nations of the world for whom we have been and are acting as trustees. Some hon. Members of my own party feel a deep and bitter sense of personal guilt When they read of the disasters in India. I comprehend their attitude of mind, and I can understand that, tonight, they are feeling the same sense of responsibility and the same sense of apprehension in regard to What is being done in connection with Burma.
  I take a different view myself. I say to them, and most earnestly, that, if they cannot bring themselves to share the responsibility of the Government in passing this Bill into law, then, I believe, it is their duty and is in the highest interests of this country and of Burma to say to the Government: "The power is yours, the responsibility is yours. Nothing that we can do can alter the acts that you have undertaken to carry out. We shall leave you to carry the full responsibility for those disasters which, most regrettably, we foresee." I do most earnestly beg my hon. and right hon. Friends to abstain from voting tonight. I believe that an adverse vote tonight on the part of the Conservative Party would be widely misinterpreted in Burma, and would make the relations between Burma and this country more difficult when the day comes when hon. Gentlemen on the other side are dismissed from office and the Conservative Party takes the reins of power, for, whether they think it is coming soon or late, it is bound to come some time. I therefore ask them to cast their minds forward to that date.
  Of course, the removal of British influence is not going to bring good results to Burma in the future. We may easily find either complete chaos or a police State set up in Burma. I share the apprehensions on this point just as much as my hon. Friends, but I believe we have got to approach this problem in a realistic frame of mind. We are committed to a policy of self-determination for Burma. I do not regret that, and I am willing to take my share of the responsibility for it. In every speech which I have made

  1875
  during Burma Debates in this House I have expressed that view. We have been committed, for a very long time, to give Burma self-determination, but that self-determination has been exercised in a way which I, for one, deplore. I regret very deeply that Burma has made up her mind to leave the British Commonwealth of Nations. I take it unkindly of them, and, to put it at its mildest, it was an act of discourtesy to a country which has shown the warmest friendship for Burma.
  The hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) took it upon himself to denigrate our motives for fighting in the last war in Burma, but I assure him that much British blood was spent to save Burmese lives. I wish to say to Burma that I am wounded by the determination to leave the British Empire, combined with the desire to take the fullest advantage of any association with this country. But when we said that we would give Burma the chance of self-determination as to her future, we had to be prepared for a decision to be taken on these Unes. We must stand by our word, and that is my first argument in favour of voting for this Bill.
  The second—is an elementary question, but a very difficult one to answer—it is, what is the alternative? It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree to say that we should grant self-determination to Burma, and should assent to Burma's evolution to complete independence, but it must be done by stages. One can do lots of things by stages, but one cannot control a flood by stages. If a great wave of water is rushing down a valley, it is no use saying to that flood, "If you will give me time to evacuate my house, floor by floor, I will ultimately row away in a boat and you can have my house." But we cannot say that. When we get these great surges of national feeling, unreasonable and irrational though they may be, and though they may ultimately tend to disaster for the people who experience them, we cannot reason with them. We cannot say, "Very well, we will proceed by stages." I put it to my hon. Friends that there can be no stages, and that there can really be no halfway house. Either we say that for the good of Burma we will stay in Burma, with all the military commitments that entails, or say, "We stand by our
  1876
  pledged word. We will give Burma the full choice of self-determination with a full realisation of what that may entail, even though the choice may be made in a way which we think is disastrous to Burma, and which we may not like."
  As I have said before, I can quite understand, and, indeed, share, my hon. Friends' deep sense of responsibility. I share many, if not most, of their apprehensions and gloomy forebodings, but I say to them that if they are going to cast a vote against this Bill tonight they should bear in mind the effect that a vote against this Bill will have in the East, or that they should at least produce some rational alternative. This is almost my final point and one which I think they should also bear in mind. I have always been rather frightened by the fact that I as a Member of this House of Commons have a responsibility that is shared by every other hon. Member for far distant parts of the world. It is a responsibility that it is impossible for each individual among us to carry out of our own personal knowledge. We can only carry it out properly if we have regard to the views of the people on the spot who know the country and whose lives and livelihoods are likely to be in the country permanently. I say this with a full sense of responsibility. It is the unanimous, or almost the unanimous, expressed opinion of the British community in Burma—and of every section of it—that this Bill should go through. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends—as they know, I do not charge them with a lack of responsibility—that they should weigh their action most carefully, and that they should think again before they vote against this Bill tonight.
  As I have said, I shall quite understand if they cannot vote for the Bill, and if they say to the Government, "It is your show and your responsibility; you have the power. We dissociate ourselves; we wash our hands of it. We will abstain." I should understand and respect that attitude. If they cannot vote for the Bill, I beg them to do that. I end as I began with the reiterated assurance to Burma that, however the Conservative Party may vote tonight, whether together in one Lobby or another, or by abstention, their good will must not, and shall not, stand in doubt. We shall loyally and wholeheartedly carry out our obligations of friendship and good will towards that country.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Reid: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in saying that this is an historic occasion. A great country, bigger than France, and with enormous wealth, is passing "out of the British Empire at the request of the people of that country. But I venture to suggest, big as this event is, that it is only part of a world movement going on all over the East today. The countries in the East, especially since the war, are getting more and more restless, and more and more nationalistic in their outlook. Let us put it bluntly; they resent alien and white domination.
  The Imperial Powers are faced with this problem in the East today; it will be in Africa, the West Indies and everywhere else tomorrow. The question is whether the British Government are tackling the problem in the right way. In a case like this, I think that the British people under any Government—I do not care to what side it belongs—is moved rather by instinct than by reason. What are we doing? What are the Governments of this country committed to for years? We are committed to the policy of independence for those countries who seek to have independence. That is common to both parties. I venture to suggest that that is the proper policy. I do not want to criticise any Imperial Powers by name, but I think that our policy is superior to theirs. They are trying, in some way or another, by federation, or by some sort of union, to amalgamate these restless peoples with the home country. I think that policy is absolutely bad and vicious, and that ours is right.
  After all, these peoples are not asking to be federated with us, to be affiliated to us, or to become a constituency of Great Britain. They are asking for independence, and it is a wise thing, in a movement like this, to give people that for which they ask. Secondly, if we try in the case of Burma, Ceylon and India to amalgamate them in some sort of Federal Union with us, I suggest that it would confuse the politics of their countries and of ours. I believe implicitly in the party system. To kill the party system is to kill democracy. Those countries which have the one party State have no democracy, and cannot have it. If we try to amalgamate these countries with
  1878
  us, countries with a totally different culture, race and language, we should only upset the politics of our own country and of theirs, and our democratic party system.
  Therefore, my first proposition is that the Government of today are acting wisely in the case of Burma in granting the request of its people for independence. If it were not satisfied, that demand would grow. Cynics sometimes say in the East that political emotions and movements go up like a rocket and come down like a stick. There is a considerable amount of truth in that, but there is no truth in it when we come to this racial problem. The demand for racial equality and independence grows every year. It has been growing for years, and will get stronger and stronger. It cannot be resisted. As the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) said, in the case of Burma it was a flood tide.
  I, like others, made inquiries before I made up my mind on this subject. I knew Burma in days gone by when it was a happy land, with charming people liked by the Europeans, and when the greatest friendship possible existed between the European administrators and the Burmese. Since the war, I have been informed on most reliable authority by people specially sent out to investigate, that the change of political feeling in Burma has been difficult to believe. The whole people—not a few—are intent on getting self-government. Therefore, we cannot possibly resist that. I agreed with some of my hon. Friends who have said that the Burmese have made a mistake in not being satisfied with Dominion status. I think it was a mistake. They had so committed themselves in their propaganda to the idea of complete independence and the complete removal of the British from Burma, that they could not go back on it. I think the Burmese will live to regret the day when they expressed their dissatisfaction with Dominion status, which is a very honourable and beneficial status.
  The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) attacked the Government because they had said we should not delay this settlement. The right hon. Gentleman said that delay was easy. Delay was not easy, and I congratulate the Government on the way they handled this matter; especially do I congratulate

  1879
  the Prime Minister. Instead of trying to settle the matter by sending telegrams and the like, he induced the Burmese leaders to come over here and effect a settlement. If that action had not taken place at that time, Burma might have gone up in flames. That is the real fact. Delay was not easy; it was impossible. Delay would have caused bloodshed and would have prevented the settlement which has now been made. At the same time while the right hon. Member for Woodford said that delay would be easy and that Dominion status could have been agreed upon, he also said that we could easily have used in Burma the troops whom we are wasting in Palestine. He was contemplating not an easy delay, but the use of force. I have never listened to a more irresponsible or deplorable speech.
  To revert to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Palestine, it is quite true he said about two years ago that we should come out of Palestine. But there is a need for timing in everything. We should not have come out of Palestine then, and we should come out of Palestine now, because a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the right hon. Member for Woodford made that suggestion two years ago. Great strategic changes have taken place in the Near East, and what was wrong then is right now, in my opinion. However, that is a digression. Then the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that although the Prime Minister was not an actual murderer in the case of Burma, he was like a signalman on the railway line who was signalling Burma towards murder. If the policy of the right hon. Member for Woodford had been followed, I predict with absolute certainty that he himself might well be accused of being the, murderer, because blood would have flowed in Burma, and British blood at that, and people in this country do not want British blood to flow in suppressing the politics of people who are demanding their independence.
  The right hon. Member for Woodford also said that the Burmese were not fit for self-government. For that matter, very few people in the world are fit for self-government. Most countries in the world, even in Europe, have made a mess of democracy and cannot work it. A lot of them have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire and now live under a
  1880
  system of totalitarian tyranny, and they regret it. Whether the Burmese are fit for self-government or not, the point is: Should we continue to govern Burma against the will of the politicians in Burma, against the whole national feeling of Burma which has demanded self-government?
  The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) asked his colleagues on the opposite benches what their alternative was. I, too, ask them what is their alternative. In a case like this there is no use in abusing the Government for their policy and putting forward no alternative policy. The only suggestion we could get from the right hon. Member for Woodford was that he wanted to delay things so that the Burmese would agree to Dominion status and thereby prevent the bloodshed and misgovernment which might ensue. As I have said, that is an impossible policy. But supposing that were achieved, would Dominion status prevent bloodshed? Dominion status is complete independence, and under Dominion status the Burmese could carry on misgovernment and bloodshed just as easily as they could under the system which is to be set up. Dominion status would not prevent bloodshed. I ask hon. Members opposite, What is your policy?
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: There would be the restraining influence of the Governor-General, in close contact with the Government here.
  Mr. Reid: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the existence of a Governor-General, who might not necessarily be an Englishman but who might be a Burmese or an Indian, would prevent possible bloodshed and misgovernment in Burma, I am afraid I cannot agree with him. The right hon. Member for Woodford also indulged in a deplorable postmortem about U Aung San. I knew him. I have my own opinion about him, which I will not express, but what is the use in dragging that up now? What is the relevancy in the right hon. Gentleman's speech? We are deciding whether we should vote for the independence of Burma or not. What is the use in dragging up the deeds and misdeeds of U Aung San? The right hon. Gentleman's speech was deplorable. It does no good to this country; it does infinite harm to Burma and to this country as well.

  1881
  Reverting to the question of the troops in Palestine, suppose that we had set those troops in motion and that we had reduced Burma to law and order—because, as we all know, since the war there has not been law and order in Burma. There are dacoits, and all sorts of trouble exists there still. Suppose that we had taken the job in hand and had reconquered the country at the expense of British money and blood. What then would hon. Gentlemen opposite do? Would they then hand over the country to the Burmese? The same question has arisen in India. Suppose that we had tried to keep law and order and re-establish our authority in India. What then? We should do what we did in South Africa after the Boer War. After two or three years of war, we did what we might have done before the war, hand over to the South African people their liberty. We should have to do that in Burma after employing the Palestine troops. The speech of the right hon. Member for Woodford was the most irresponsible speech which I have ever heard him make.
  So far as I can gather, this Burma problem is regarded by the Burmese leaders as a purely Burmese problem. I have spoken to them over here in various delegations, and I have discussed these matters with them. Like all these amateur politicians, as I call them, they look at things exclusively from their own national point of view. They have not had the experience of world politics. But the Burmese problem is a world problem. In an interdependent world, Burma is a very important country indeed. Those who know Burma, know what inexhaustible wealth lies there—petrol, teak, gems, enormous rice fields and all the rest. It is a well-watered country, unlike the one-monsoon zones in India. It can help to feed and enrich the world while feeding and enriching the Burmese themselves. Hon. Members opposite and others think that this new change of constitution will lead to economic deterioration. It may happen, but if so it will be a loss not merely to Burma but to the whole world. We cannot help it. All we can do is to carry out what we and all parties have pledged ourselves to do—to meet the wish of the Burmese, and put the responsibility on them. The hon. Member for Farnham said that he personally does not feel responsible for what
  1882
  has happened in India. I think I have quoted him correctly.
  Mr. Nicholson: I said that I accepted full responsibility. I share responsibility for the British policy towards India. I thought I had made that perfectly clear.
  Mr. Reid: I think the hon. Gentleman said that he did not feel responsible for the outrages, murders and pillage which have taken place since. I, like the hon. Member for Farnham, supported the Government's policy in India. But I do not feel that I have any responsibility for the consequences. The Indian leaders have insisted on it, and we had no option but to give them self-government. So far dreadful things have occurred. I told my hon. Friends that they would occur. But I do not feel responsible. We tried to persuade them to adopt the suggestion of the Cripps Mission—a most excellent constitutional suggestion of the Cabinet Mission. We and the Government have done our best to get the Indian people together in a federal constitution. They rejected it, and the responsibility is on them. Similarly, in the case of these charming people, the Burmese, I hope they will all pull together and make a success of the settlement, but if they do not the responsibility is on their heads. It was they who demanded it. They insisted on it, and I hope they will make a success of it.
  I do not know how hon. Members opposite are going to vote tonight, but of one thing I am certain, and that is that the people of this country almost unanimously approve the policy of His Majesty's Government in giving self government to India and self government to Burma. They approve also the policy enunciated recently by the Government, of withdrawing from Palestine in certain conditions. The people of this country do not want these adventures of dabbling in the political affairs of other peoples, who want independence. It is the tradition of our race to be independent ourselves and to insist on political liberty, and to give it to others, and if hon. Members opposite think that the people of this country will approve of our taking troops from Palestine and sending them into Burma to try to keep down the Burmese and to prevent them from gaining their independence, I think they are sadly mistaken. Finally, I hope that the Burmese

  1883
  will realise that that is the feeling of this country, that we want the Burmese to be free, independent and prosperous, and to be friendly with us and I hope that these things will be realised.
  6.1 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: Speaking in this Debate I want to remember that it is November, 1947, and not to think too much about what happened in 1935 or even before then. The question before the House is, What are we going to do now? I myself did not oppose the Government when they granted Dominion status to India and to Pakistan. At that time I said that there might be a million or even five million dead. But I am a responsible person, and I voted in the way that seemed right to me at the time. It may be even now that there may be 50 million Indians dead by famine and by civil war within the next 10 years. Even so, I have to face the fact that they have wanted their independence, and that the Burmese want theirs now. Can the Indians govern? That is the question in India. I am very disappointed in these first few months of their self-government, but even so, I must still vote in accordance with the truth as I see it.
  Burma is a very small country compared with India and, of course, the trouble there will be smaller also. I have heard hon. Members on the opposite side speak as if the British had responsibility for all the famines in India. I can remember that even when I was a boy my nickname at school was "Indian Famine Fund" because I was so thin. I do not suppose I should be called that today. In Rudyard Kipling's book "The Day's Work" one can see descriptions of Indian famines, the best detailed narrative it is possible to read. How can we expect anything else but famine in India when the country cannot feed itself, and the excess of births over deaths is more than 5,000,000 a year? Famines are a certainty in India. At any rate, in Burma, after the Japanese invasion, and the taking of Singapore by the Japanese, and the fighting to and fro over Burma, things are completely different there from what they were in 1938. There are many Burmese themselves, even judges, who actually worked and administered law and order for the Japanese. It is easy
  1884
  enough to condemn them. None of us knows what he might do himself if our own country were occupied by an enemy.
  I expect in Burma murder, battle and sudden death; but I have to face the fact that they want their independence. What are we going to do? Are we really to continue to put British troops into Burma to enforce law and order by shooting? I say it would be completely wrong. I do not believe that this country would stand for it. I can hardly believe that the people of Northern Ireland want to see the Royal Ulster Rifles sent to enforce that sort of compulsion in Burma. I know that we are abandoning some of our friends. In passing, I might mention to the Prime Minister one small matter, that of compensation. I have friends in Burma. There is a certain captain I know who ran a steamer on the Irrawaddy carrying troops, petrol and other supplies. He had to leave his home at a few hours' notice at the end of 1941. His wife had to walk out of Burma into Assam, and he escaped later to Imphal. I hope that the Government will think that they are responsible for that man, who fought right through the war for us, and left his house, his car, his silver, his furniture and everything else at a few hours' notice.
  I see the Prime Minister on the Government Front Bench. I do not believe the Prime Minister in his own mind is entirely happy about this. He would like to see Burma a Dominion. But I believe he has done the best he can do in this month of November, 1947, and so I shall support him, and in doing so I hope that Burma will be strong, peaceful and prosperous, and I hope that our relations with that independent country will always be based on friendship.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mr. Logan: I was not surprised when the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), who sits behind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), spoke against the right hon. Gentleman. When I recall the classical language the right hon. Gentleman used during the war period, that most inspiring language, and contrast it with his utterance today, his tragical utterance today, I really do not know how to express my regret and astonishment. I remember another time and another historic incident concerning another

  1885
  nation's independence, when the right hon. Gentleman was denouncing what he called "traitors of today." He had to deal with a nation which was considered to be traitorous, and he so called the Irish who desired their independence. That question of Ireland ought never to be forgotten in this House. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman told Michael Collins how his reputation was at stake on that issue, and Michael Collins told him, "Yes, but my life will be the consequence of fighting for the liberty of my nation."
  I am pleased today to be able to see this British Government of ours realise that the material conception of life is not really the thing for which we have to fight. I should have thought that the lesson of the last two world wars ought to be quite convincing, that conquest and invasions ought to be things of the past, and that the cementing in brotherly love of the nations of the world ought to be the object and ideology and system of government of the British Government. We were fighting for our liberty and life in the last war and for the preservation of civilisation. Even if we are not able to read the writing on the wall, it is time we were able to take stock of the world position today. Empires come and Empires go, and this Empire is disintegrating. It is disintegrating not because of conquest but because of its civilising influence. I think it has reached its pinnacle, and today we are seeing merely the natural evolution of things. We are now beginning to realise the conception of a common standard of life for all men, and we see a beginning to our becoming one human family. I do not want to speak with any animosity towards hon. Members opposite. I have been in this House for 18 years now; I have seen many things transpire, and I think we are becoming more sane; there is a better and more human touch in the affairs of fife.
  No one can say that our homes have not suffered in some way or another all over the world. Every street in my neighbourhood tells that sad story, not only from the 1914–18 war, but from the war that has just ended. In my family five or six, from different homes, have made the supreme sacrifice, as have many thousands in the town in which I live. Because of that, I realise that much of this idea of conquest has been a farce; there has been no reality in it. The only reality
  1886
  has been the sacrifice. The material conception of trying to own the world is false today; it cannot last and stand the test of man. Because of that I believe that the Government, in the measures they have taken, have made a real contribution towards achieving the best that is possible in the East.
  The East is a very treacherous place, and if we have no friends there we shall regret it. A miracle happened there in our own day when the Government achieved the settlement in India. Before that, when I looked at the Indian situation, I never thought that in my time, without bloodshed, the Indians would come to terms with the British Government as they have done. I know that the internal differences will have to be worked out, and differences of religion and nationality play their part. But we must recognise national aspirations, as we had to do in the case of the Irish. There is no difference whatever between the national aspirations of the Indians and those of the Irish. Each nation must solve its own riddles, and the West certainly cannot settle the affairs of the East. Once before we did not understand the mentality of a sister land across the water, which was really at our very doorstep and could have helped us materially. Because of our handling of that situation, not in this but in the past generation, we made enemies in every part of the world wherever there were Irishmen. Do let us learn from the history of the past.
  I want to forget the method of the strong arm and invasion; I want those to be things of the past. We must change the mentality of the past; we must deal with the facts and realise that we are not the power we were. We have no right to sacrifice the lives and blood of the manhood of our nation on further conquests. We must learn that we have to settle down to a different system of life. We want peace in our time; that is the aim and object of civilisation. This great stroke that has been announced today by the Prime Minister is one of the greatest triumphs of this House of Commons. Just as I realised in regard to the settlement of India, so do I realise in regard to this problem that we now have a solution which I thought would never come in my day, and I am grateful to our Government for having produced it.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: I think this is a moment when we have to speak with discretion and not let our emotions and party feelings become mixed up with this issue. I feel, however, that hon. Members opposite are beginning to merit the charge that their policy on every subject now ends with personal attacks upon the Leader of the Opposition. It is becoming a little monotonous to find how often hon. Members opposite point out the irresponsibilities of the speeches of my right hon. Friend. One almost feels they have the gramophone record on already, and they know what they are going to play. We should realise that we have in the Leader of the Opposition an Elizabethan in more ways than one, since he not only speaks the language of Shakespeare, but breathes the very spirit of Shakespeare, of whom it was said that he loved England's friends because they were her friends, and he hated England's enemies because they were her enemies. If we have an Elizabethan living in our midst today, then, when I regard some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite and listen to their speeches, I feel we can afford to have one great figure, even if from the past, to breathe the spirit of those times.
  What did my right hon. Friend say? He spoke about the Burmese leader who, when our fortunes were lowest joined the Japanese and fought against us, and then when the Japanese fortunes began to fade joined us and fought against the Japanese? Must we really make of such a man a great patriot? Must we really? I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister for Economic Affairs who now smiles has a greater personal knowledge of these men, and it may be that that Burmese leader was actuated by a great sense of responsibility towards his own people. But surely, we, too, have a right to give the hand of friendship and cooperation to those who are loyal to us, even if according to Burmese standards they were wrong?
  Are only the Burmese to have standards of loyalty? Are we to have none? Are we to show no gratitude to those who put their trust in us in our moment of danger, or must we always wait and chill towards those who fought by our side? Truly, the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) is right when he
  1888
  says that the whole conception of the Empire is changing. It is changing when we honour men who fought against us and grow cold towards those who fought by our side. Then, indeed, the conception of Empire is changing very rapidly. The truth is that the party opposite, sometimes secretly, but mostly openly, has always been ashamed of the British Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Always.
  Mr. Follick: Poppycock.
  Mr. Baxter: It is not poppycock. Not until Socialist Governments appeared in New Zealand and Australia did the attitude of the Party opposite change. I think it is perhaps inseparable from the Socialist philosophy. They look back upon the conquest, and they look back upon the exploitation. All those things were true, but as it-developed the British Empire became, and has remained, the greatest influence for good in the world. Today, hon. Members speaking early in the Debate asked why we did not enthuse and cheer when our Leader uttered his grim forebodings? Should we cheer if these things proved true? Again, hon. Gentlemen opposite asked why we did not rejoice because here was a people being liberated? Since when should we rejoice because the strength and unity of the Empire is less than it was before? I say that, in its heart, the party opposite is ashamed of the story of the British Empire, and actually rejoices, in some curious sanctimonious sense of happiness and relief, when the grand alliance is weakened by the defection or withdrawal of one of its units.
  Mr. Follick: In my speech on the Gracious Address, I made it quite clear that we on this side were not ashamed of the Empire. Those were the very words I used. I ask why we should be ashamed of it, when other States are increasing their empires? We have nothing to be ashamed of, because the working-class people of this country for the most part built up the Empire. They were the people who, because they could not find a living over here, went to the great Dominions and, in settling there, developed this great Empire.
  Mr. Baxter: The hon. Member has managed to make a speech, which no

  1889
  doubt will be recorded in HANSARD. I have already said that there is a certain change of heart in the party opposite, and I am glad that the hon. Member is one of the sinners who has come to the penitents' bench. The speeches of hon. Members opposite have all been on the basis that every leader of the Burmese is a patriot and an idealist, and that every member of the Constituent Assembly is thinking only of the people he represents. It has been altogether too unrealistic. Burma is no more fortunate than any other country in its human greed, ambition and opportunism, all of which have been playing their part.
  I wonder, when looking back on these events which have come to pass, whether we are handing Burma over to a really nationalist movement of freedom, or to a clique. That is a question which must be asked. Did we endeavour in every possible way to acquaint the people of Burma with the benefits that would accrue by remaining in the Empire, or did we surrender without a fight? When Members opposite appear so complacent about this, and when the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool gives his verdict almost before the ink is dry on this Bill, saying that it is an enormous achievement and this is a great moment, I wonder how he knows. Does he know how Burma is to protect itself? Is he completely convinced in his heart that Burma in its present condition, with its inexperience in leadership and everything else, will be able to maintain its independence as a nation in view of the expanding influences and ambitions of other great and powerful nations? Are we really confident, and is the hon. Member confident, that Burma will be able to maintain the freedom about which the Party opposite have been rejoicing so much today?
  Mr. Logan: From someone who has arrived home after being on the spot for five years, I am able to obtain information which makes me believe that things are all right there. Secondly, history repeats itself in regard to the troubles we have- had all over the world, and I think that the policy of the Government is absolutely right. The Opposition policy is based on nothing but material conception and conquest. I say that a new era has to come into being, and Members opposite appear to be too dense to realise it.
  Mr. Baxter: I want to bring to an end what I wish to say. It is impossible to discuss these matters without this emotional sincerity which has clouded the judgment of the party opposite, bringing things pretty low in this country. This is a sad day in the history of the British Empire. This is weakening the United Empire front at a time when we should be strong. The Prime Minister has to take a great responsibility on his shoulders, and I sincerely hope that his confidence in the future of Burma will be proved right. None of us wants to see bloodshed there, but when an hon. Member opposite, who has now left the Chamber, said that he felt no shame about what followed in India because we came out too swiftly, and hundreds of thousands of people have died horribly as a result, I cannot understand how any of us can feel no sense of shame about it. It is beyond understanding. I cannot understand what is in the minds of hon. Members opposite when they say that we came out on a certain day and the murder of these women and children means nothing to them.
  Mr. Logan: Who on this side has said that?
  Mr. Baxter: The hon. Member to whom I am referring said that a moment ago. I am sorry if I misrepresented him, but he did say, "I feel no shame and no responsibility for it." If I am doing him wrong, I am ready to withdraw it, but HANSARD will, I think, show that I am right. We are seeing today the end of the second Empire. The first Empire ended with the loss of the American Colonies. The second Empire began with the inclusion of India, and it is now ending with the changing status of India and the loss of Burma. We are now beginning a third phase, which may take many forms. I cannot look forward with any great hope or confidence to the third Empire if it is to be governed by a party which cries "Glory Hallelujah," every time the Empire is weakened. The Minister for Economic Affairs smiles. We are glad to see him smiling, because he has a lot to do with our happiness and un-happiness in other ways. I hope that it comes from the internal warmth and not from false optimism. The false optimism of hon. Members opposite is terrible to see in action—the optimism that there would be no cold weather last winter, the

  1891
  optimism of the Government that there would be no bread rationing.
  I wish to make my position clear. Because I believe that the warnings of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition may be right, and because I do not feel we are doing everything possible to keep Burma in the Empire, I cannot vote for this Measure tonight. But because it is an accomplished fact, because we want to send out to the Burmese people the good wishes of this House, and because we hope that the Government will be right, I will not vote against it. I hope that my hon. Friends will realise that that is a sincere conviction on my part. By every instinct, I would like to follow my Leader into the Lobby, but I shall not do so tonight; neither shall I follow the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) has accused us on this side of being unrealistic and over optimistic, and he suggested that we are deliberately, with our eyes shut, I suppose, taking a step which would mean the weakening of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I wonder if he can explain to me how this step is weakening the British Empire when the alternative, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, is the retention of British power in Burma by employing force. Is it strengthening the British Empire when one link in the chain is weakened by internal struggle and force, which is the very denial of the free association of the peoples?
  Mr. Baxter: I think that I made my point perfectly clear. All I am objecting to is rejoicing at the weakening of the British Empire. Maybe this is inevitable, but what I objected to, and made my protest against, was the party opposite rejoicing at the weakening. '
  Mr. Ross: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman made that very fine distinction in his speech, but we will see in HANSARD tomorrow. He accused us also of being unrealistic; and that is where the rejoicing comes in. We are not, to my mind, unrealistic at all. We have to keep Burma by force and lose a friendship, or take the practical and courageous step of carrying out our pledges.
  I am as much a lover of the Empire as any Conservative, and always have
  1892
  been. My determination here to vote with the Government and to encourage the Government to take this step is because of that. My connection with Burma was probably a little unpleasant; it was a connection of the years of war. I can remember a hill in Assam rather shattered and bare compared with the rest of Kohima. There is a memorial there built by the men of the Second Division. On it are the words:
  "For your today, they gave their tomorrow."
  That applies to Burma tomorrow. Did these men die that we should resurrect British power for the sheer glory of domination and prestige and deny the friendship of these people? That, to my mind, would be a stain on the sacrifices those men made. We did not recapture Burma to reconquer it for the greater glory of the Burmah Shell or anyone else. We fought, I hope, for freedom, and we are giving freedom to the people there.
  We have heard a lot of talk today regarding U Aung San, whether or not he is to be considered a patriot or traitor. I am sure there are many Englishmen who will consider him a traitor, but do not forget that it is Burma we are discussing today, and the Burmese people considered him a patriot. I come through. Westminster Hall practically every day. There was a Scotsman tried there, and he was branded as a traitor by the English, but we know that Scotland considers him a patriot. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) has been heard to refer to him as that.
  I feel myself that the speech which we have had today from the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), was one of the most outrageous and venomously malicious that I have heard since I came into this House a short time ago. The transfer of power, he stated, should have been delayed, even by the use of force, and by taking men from Palestine to do it. That, to my mind, would have meant civil war in Burma. I think that the sort of heart searching that usually goes on before the right hon. Gentleman comes to decisions had not been very deep on this occasion. We are prepared to accept the moral responsibility for our decisions, and we consider our decisions are in keeping with the highest principles of British politics, and that the freedom which we

  1893
  are giving to Burma will be properly used by the Burmese. They themselves have come to an agreement with the minorities, and they are all agreed as to their future constitution. What they require now is friendship from Britain and the rest of the Dominions, whether or not they elect to remain within the Dominions.
  I feel that the complete failure of many hon. Gentlemen opposite is due to this nostalgia for the past and hankering for Imperialistic glory. It is no use preferring Imperial prestige to peace and domination to friendship. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the decision which he has taken, and I am perfectly sure that the people of Burma will prove themselves worthy of our friendship and will prove themselves not forgetful of the part that the ordinary British soldier played in giving them a chance to enjoy this freedom.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. A. R. W. Low: I hope that the words which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) used at the end of his speech come true. I am one of those who very much hope that the future of Burma may be as he said, and that that future may justify the hand of friendship which His Majesty's Government, I think rightly, has held out to them at this most difficult time. Anyone who has listened to this Debate must be conscious of the many weighty arguments both for and against the course which His Majesty's Government has taken. All our moral responsibility, all the considerations of right and wrong in every aspect, all the considerations affecting loyalty and treason which had been discussed, sometimes warmly and sometimes in the cold light of reason—all these have occurred to my mind, and it has certainly been no easy task to come to the conclusion to which I have come, that it is right to support today this Bill of which we are now Debating the Second Reading.
  I think—before I put my arguments shortly to the House—a little too much emphasis has been laid by some hon. Members on the other side of the House and perhaps by one hon. Member on this side on the importance of the argument that there is really no alternative. I agree that there is no alternative but
  1894
  surely it would be an indictment of His Majesty's Government, who have been in office for two years, to say that that was the only reason for the course they have taken today. If we are really going to say that this country takes a great decision like the decision we are now taking merely because we drift along and there is no alternative, it would indeed be a grave indictment. I have always been conscious, since first I went to Burma for a short time last winter and began to study the whole history of Burma and the policy which we were pursuing there, that the flood of nationalist feeling was growing so great that we would find it impossible before world opinion to delay the granting of self-government in the form in which that country wished it, however much we might think it to her advantage that she should take some other course. As I look back I am convinced, weighing everything up both for and against, that the policy which is now being pursued is not just the only possible policy but it is a right policy.
  Having said that, I should like to make it quite clear that I do not consider this a day of rejoicing. I think many hon. and right hon. Friends on the other side of the House in 1945 and since have always hoped that Burma would take her place as a self-governing nation within the British Commonwealth. It is a matter of great regret and great sorrow that these people should have decided to leave the Commonwealth in January next year. The majority of the House have always hoped that at the time when self-government came to Burma there would be a constitution completely different from the one which she has now adopted and certainly an administrative system vastly superior to that administrative system which is likely to reign in Burma for the next two years or more. I am certain we all hoped that when self-government came to Burma the conditions of law and order, of internal prosperity and of financial stability would have been vastly different to those appertaining today.
  So I cannot join with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) who said that this was one of the grandest triumphs in our history. I do not think it is such. The policy which is being pursued is right and it is the only possible policy. I do not rejoice; in fact, I consider this is a day

  1895
  of sorrow, and I have to recognise that the way we have been handling the situation in the last two years and of the high hopes we held before Burma came into the war have proved misplaced, and that there have been mistakes which historians will be in a better position to judge than we are today.
  Mr. Logan: I only want to respond to the hon. Gentleman's remarks in regard to myself by saying that I hope he will live to be as old as I am, and then he will be able to remember today's occasion when I have passed on.
  Mr. Low: I should like now to deal with one consideration which has urged some of my hon. Friends and right hon Friends to oppose this Bill. First of all is the fact that the self-government is to be outside the British Commonwealth. I believe that the strength of the British Commonwealth in the past and in the future lies in the fact that its self-governing nations wish to remain inside and have the power if they like to get out when they want. We have no unwilling members. Of course, I realise that it may be said that there have been no fair elections in Burma and that emotions have taken charge of reason. In so far as one can judge, the elections were as fair as could be expected in the conditions, and consideration was given as fully as could possibly be given in the years that have elapsed since the war to the advantages and disadvantages of remaining inside the Commonwealth. I watched for a short time the way in which the Governor, under instructions from His Majesty's Government and on his own initiative, was trying to persuade the leaders of the Burmese nation to understand what were the advantages to them of remaining within the Commonwealth. As many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree, I think U Aung San was convinced. In fact, I was in Rangoon when he made a speech in public advising the people of Burma to remain inside the Commonwealth. However, he was only a leader of the people to whose views he had to pay full attention and he was not able to persuade them that he was right.
  If I may point out—and I do this with all humility and I hope without giving cause for shouts from the opposite benches—the one thing, which has had
  1896
  a bad effect and an opposite effect to what His Majesty's Government would wish in matters like this, is that for so long so many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying and writing things which brought the handling of the British Commonwealth and of Imperial problems by this country into disrepute in the East. When I was in Rangoon I found there, as I found in India, that writings and speeches of that kind had left a mark which will be difficult to eradicate.
  It has been said on many occasions that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have had many pangs of regret for statements made in the past. On this occasion if they think sincerely they will realise that they make their task of persuading others that the British Commonwealth itself has independence plus rights and privileges not independence minus rights and privileges more difficult, much more difficult, by what they have said before. A glance at the terms of the treaty will show that we have been able to secure arrangements for defence between Burma and this country, and arrangements in trade—we hope soon to secure arrangements affecting our commercial interests in Burma—which will indeed be a fair substitute for the arrangement which would logically have been made had Burma remained inside the Commonwealth.
  I have also asked myself whether this action is right, judged by these two tests. The first is the responsibility of this country to the people of Burma. Much has been said on that subject. Much has been said on this side of the House with which I entirely agree, and on that side of the House with which I disagree. I am bound to say that when one has led a people to believe that self-government was near, the main responsibility to that people is to implement the pledge which one has given, and to allow them to fix the form of constitution and of relationship between themselves and this country. I say that with a feeling of some regret, because I know that many standards in which I believe will go by the board.
  It is wrong to hide from the House the fact that Asiatic standards are far different and far below the standards in which we believe, and the standards which we

  1897
  hoped those countries which are marked red on the map—as one hon. Member has put it—would, in the long run, share with us. But I am convinced that the proper way to show our responsibility to the Burmans when we have made up our minds as we did in 1945, that they were nearly fit for self-government is to give them that chance.
  Some reference has been made to the fact that in 1945 an Act was passed fixing a minimum period of three years which must elapse between the arrival of the Governor and the reinstitution of Parliamentary government. I would remind the House that Mr. Amery, at that time the Secretary of State, said that that period was not a minimum or a definite period, but that it was a permissive and precautionary period. I think I am using his own words. He made that statement, I think, in answer to a Question put to him by the present Minister for Economic Affairs. I am sure that it was never intended by him at that time that we should necessarily have to observe the three years' period before the Burmans were to be allowed to reach the decision which they have now reached.
  The second test is this—our responsibility for British interests. I have already referred to those parts of the treaty affecting what I may call Commonwealth relations. Those have been covered, I think. It is true that no treaty is likely to be of any value to British interests unless we are convinced that those who signed the treaty with us not only intend to carry it out but are capable of doing so. When I vote with the Government tonight I shall be registering my opinion that that is true of the present provisional government of Burma, men who are likely to be the Government of Burma in the future. But His Majesty's Government have not given sufficient attention to the interests of the civil servants—not the Secretary of State's servants—who have served this country and Burma in Burma for so long. The Secretary of State's servants are covered by the Compensation White Paper, but we have had no definite statement so far from His Majesty's Government that any fund is to be set aside for their provision. The House will remember that in the case of the Indian civil servants a special fund was to be created to guarantee to those civil servants their pensions in the future, after
  1898
  the compensation had been paid. No special arrangement such as that has been made for the Secretary of State's servants in Burma. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply will tell us something on that subject.
  I want to press the case particularly of the non-Secretary of State civil servants. These men were engaged by the Governor of Burma. They were not engaged through the Secretary of State but as servants of the. Governor of Burma, at a time when the Governor of Burma was responsible, through the Secretary of State, to this House. It has now been made known to this House by the Government of Burma that they do not intend to employ Europeans any longer in their civil services, as a rule. I believe that to be a great mistake on their part and a mistaken decision, but they have taken it and they are entitled to take it. What is the position of those men who were engaged to serve the Governor of Burma, at that time under the responsibility of this House? Surely, this House and this country owes something to them? Surely, too, the Government of Burma owes something to them and should compensate them if, by the Government's own decision, it is now making their further employment impossible.
  I think these men have a stronger case than the men who are in a similar position in the Indian Service. In that case I know the House was interested. I would add a further point and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay particular attention to it. I notice in the treaty that we have, with generosity, agreed to cancel about £15 millions of the money which we lent to the Government of Burma in the past two years for current Budget purposes. Before we did that, surely we should have considered the possibility of putting some money aside to pay some form of compensation to these civil servants? Surely, that was a prior charge. If we are to be generous, can we not be generous to those who have served us so well in the past? I urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that point, and to answer it either tonight or at some future time.
  I am afraid I have been at some length into the reasons why I am taking this course. It is not easy, as all hon. Members know, to depart from the course re-

  1899
  commended to one by one's right hon. Friends who have vast experience in these matters. I have tried to explain why it was that I feel as I do. Before I sit down, I would like to emphasise once again the dangers that I see ahead. After all, those dangers need little emphasis. India has been referred to, but the case of India is very different from the case of Burma. I think that has been little said, but the dangers are there. The dangers to which my hon. Friend the Member for Waver-tree (Mr. Raikes) referred to by implication, and which we have seen in Eastern Europe, must be fresh in our minds. I have taken all those matters into consideration, and I believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have done the same. We should send a message to Burma that we realise those dangers. We regret that they are no longer to be in the Commonwealth and we hope that they will be able to meet those dangers and to retain their freedom. We hope-that they will be able to increase their standard of life and that they and we will remain in a relationship of amity for many years to come.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: I welcome this Bill and I congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have terminated these negotiations. I have listened with very great care to all the speeches made from the opposite benches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) and the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) on the attitude they have taken, which cannot have been easy. One knows that their attitude has been taken not only after very full consideration of the facts of the situation but because both those hon. Gentlemen have been to Burma and know more about the situation than many of their colleagues who are opposing the Bill.
  I think I understand the motives of the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) and some other hon. Members who have spoken from the Opposition Benches. I do not agree with them, but I would like them to understand that on this side we feel not shame—that is not the word to use—but just as much sorrow and anxiety about what is happening in India as they could possibly do. We should feel just as much sorrow and anxiety if those
  1900
  things happened in Burma. But what would be the alternative? Surely, hon. Gentlemen must know that if we had not taken this step the position might have been infinitely worse than it is in India. The real difference between us is that the minds of the Opposition are fixed almost immovably in the moulds and the patterns of the 19th century. They still feel they carry the white man's burden. They do not seem able to allow their children to stand on their own feet. Burma is a test case, just as India was an even greater test case. There comes a moment when we must not continue thinking we have to guard these children of ours, but must allow them to stand on their own feet and let them take their own risks. That is what we were pledged to do in India, unhappy though the results may be for the moment; it is what we are doing in Burma, unhappy as the results may be there for the time being.
  Democracy is always of very slow growth. It has been a thing of slow growth in this country. Nobody seems willing to look back to the times when we had bloodshed, violence, regicide and civil war when we were fighting our own way upwards to democracy. Those things should not be forgotten. As the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) once said, we must remember that things are very different in the backward parts of the world from what they are here. Other parts of the world are not at the same stage of growth, and because of that we must accept the fact that in their fight towards democracy there may well be some of that violence we suffered, when we were fighting our way up.
  The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) raised a point which interested me very much. I want to develop it in a rather different way. He said that we had reached the third stage of the Empire; that the loss of our American colonies marked the end of the first Empire; that at the present moment by giving independence to India and Burma we have reached the second Empire, and that the third Empire is something towards which we are working. I think he was right, but it is not so much a question of there being three different Empires as it is of the way in which we have gradually changed our attitude towards, and our values in respect of, the people for whom we are at

  1901
  the time responsible—the different attitudes we have taken when they say they need their freedom. America and South Africa are obvious cases. They reached a point where they made it absolutely clear to us that they wanted their freedom. What did we do? We made them fight for their freedom. That is what the Leader of the Opposition seems to want us do with Burma. Are we to send there troops freed from Palestine to start the sort of thing that is going on in Indonesia? Would that be the right course for a Socialist Government or any civilised country to take today?
  At one time even when we had become aware of the absolute necessity for parts of our Empire to have their independence we made them fight for it. We made America fight for it. There was a bloody civil war. We made Africa fight for it. We could have given them their independence and made them free Dominions, as we were forced to do afterwards, without all that fighting and bloodshed. Now we have come to the second method of transferring power. It is that, as in the cases of India and Burma, when we know the people are demanding their freedom, we enter into negotiation with them and help them to make their constitution. We give them their freedom without forcing them to fight for it. The third way—and we shall have something to say about this on the great Bill which is to be discussed tomorrow—is to realise that in our Empire there are countries which have been exploited in the past. We are responsible for raising these countries to a point where they will be able by improved education, health and general amenities in their country to assume their independence. We hope they will elect to stay within the Commonwealth, but if they wish to go outside it, we must not interfere with their free choice.
  I regret as much as anyone that Burma has taken that choice, but since they have done so we must accept it with as good a grace as we can and hope that now they have their freedom, they will use the resources of their great country, for the benefit of the people within that country, and that our friendly relationships with them will be maintained. I am sure that in time the vast wealth and natural riches of Burma will be used for good in all parts of the world. There is no reason why that should not be so. It
  1902
  is more likely that that will be done now than when the country was being exploited for private interests.
  I welcome the Bill for all these reasons. The suggestion that soon our Empire will have disintegrated and that we shall be saying, "Thank goodness we have got rid of the Empire" is a figment of the imagination of the Opposition and is very different from the real feelings which animate Members sitting on these Benches. What we look forward to is a great Commonwealth of free and equal Dominions, and we hope that the time will come when every part of our Empire will have reached exactly that status. I am sure that not only hon. Members on these benches but that the more enlightened hon. Members opposite, whose minds are not fixed in the moulds of the 19th century, see this growing purpose in exactly that light.
  My friend the Leader of the All Burma Women's Conference is in this country and I shall be seeing her shortly. I congratulate the women of Burma on having been able to secure in their Constitution the great civic right of equal pay for equal work. That shows that, in spite of all that has been said on the opposite side of the House about the people of Burma not being able to govern, they are more enlightened in at least one respect than the Government of this country. Those of us who know the women of Burma know that it can sometimes be said that one woman there is equal to two men. Certainly the women have done magnificent work. I doubt whether it would have been possible to make a Constitution which did not give them equal pay for equal work. I congratulate the women of Burma on their achievement. I congratulate the whole of Burma on having, attained independence. I wish them the best of fortune in overcoming their difficult economic situation, in restoring law and order, in ridding the country of dacoity and in building stability and happiness for their people. I, and I am sure every hon. Member, whether he votes with the Government tonight or not, wish Burma the very greatest happiness in the future.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Gammans: I am sure that we on this side of the House are very grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) for showing that

  1903
  she is one of the few speakers on the opposite benches who give us credit for good intentions. At any rate, she thinks we are honest, if slightly misguided. I can assure her, however, that my mind is not in the 19th century; my mind, at this moment, is on what is going on on the plains of India, and on what I fear may happen in the Delta of the Irawaddy. What is interesting, listening to the speeches of Members opposite, is that not one of them seemed to think that this constitution will work. Not one pretended that we are handing over Burma to a democratic constitution. Not one tried to prove that. Instead, Members opposite spent most of their time abusing my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Not one of them pretended that the people of Burma will be anything except worse of economically as a result of this change.
  I would assure the Prime Minister, if he were here, that it is with the greatest reluctance, and the greatest regret, that I cannot support the Government over this Bill. I supported them through many stages of the Indian Independence Bill, and I can assure them that, in spite of my misgivings as to what is happening in India, I would support them tonight if I thought there was an even chance of this Bill working, that there was an even chance that it would not bring misery and distress to the people of Burma. But I would like to support the Government for another reason. We in the House, in the past few years, have passed many Measures for increasing self-government for different parts of the Empire. After all, every party is committed to it. It would have been very pleasing, and in accordance with the best traditions of this House, if we could have passed this Bill with the unanimous support of all sections. Holding those views, it is only because I have the gravest misgiving as to what will happen that I cannot support the Government. I think this is one of the occasions where, if a Member holds strong views, he must register them in the only way he can in this House—either by voting for or against the Measure.
  I realise that the action we are about to take will lead to possible misunderstanding and perhaps misrepresentation, either wilful or otherwise, not only in this country but also in Burma. Therefore, let me make it quite clear, that we on this side of the House are equally
  1904
  committed with Members opposite to the ideal of self-government for Burma. We made that clear in the White Paper of 1945. But we laid down three conditions. First, that there should be a period of Dominion status, a reasonable period during which the people of Burma, not in the hasty aftermath of war, should make up their minds whether they wanted to stay in the Empire or not; secondly, that there should be general agreement between all the peoples of Burma. I need not, I hope, remind the House that there is no such thing as the people of Burma; there are races and different peoples of Burma.
  The third condition we laid down was that there should be an efficient and responsible Government to whom we could hand over our power, that that Government should be capable of preserving the freedoms of speech and association, and all the other freedoms which the people of Burma have enjoyed under our rule. It is because not one of these conditions has been fulfilled that we cannot support the Government. I would remind the House that we in this House have, responsibility for the people of Burma, as the subjects of the King. If we pass this Bill we are divesting ourselves of that responsibility; we are saying that what happens to them from now on is no concern of ours.
  I believe that this Debate, up to now, has shown very clearly that one of the great differences between us is as to what is our conception of our responsibility to the people of Burma. It raises, I know, one of the most difficult and fundamental questions which can ever come before the Imperial Parliament. The question is this: should a part of the Empire, hurriedly, and in the excited aftermath of war, be able to claim an unchallengeable right to walk out of the Empire and sever all communications with us, even though we believe that that action will lead to internal strife, economic misery, inability to defend itself, and the setting up of a form of Government which will be the absolute negation of all we regard as democracy? What ought we to do when faced with a question like that, and what ought we to do when we have seen, as we have, what is happening in India? The Prime Minister has given the answer. He is like Pontius Pilate. He calls for a bowl of water, washes his hands, and then dries them on a paper constitution,

  1905
  and his followers are prepared to back him up. I cannot bring myself to believe that that is the right thing to do.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Epping, and the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), who knows more about that part of the world than most of his hon. Friends, say, "We do not mind what happens. We do not mind if Burma goes down into chaos. We wash our hands of the whole thing." I hold entirely different views. I say that we are not justified in shedding our responsibility for the people of Burma, or for any other part of the Empire, unless certain conditions exist which make it reasonably sure that we are handing over a country to orderly and democratic progress, and not to anarchy. What are these conditions? They are no different for Burma than for other parts of the world. They are, first, that there shall be law and order in the country; second, that there shall be a stable Government; third, that the essential qualities of democracy shall exist to a high degree, that there shall be literacy and a sense of unity within the country, that there shall be all the other conditions which are necessary if democracy is to work anywhere; fourth, that there shall be economic stability; and, lastly, that the country can stand on its own feet without the British protection she is now receiving in a world of three very large, very powerful, and potentially very jealous neighbours. To talk about the independence of Burma when it is possible that within 10 years Burma will cease to exist as a country is, to my mind, synicism and hypocrisy of the very worst sort.
  Do any of these conditions exist? First, law and order. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford said, there are large areas of Burma where dacoity exists, where there is murder and wholesale gang robbery going on. As I said in the House the last time we had a Debate on Burma, if we wanted proof that that country is not in a state of peace and tranquillity it can be shown by the fact that last year, 60,000 tons of teak—and not tea, as some newspapers reported—was stolen between Mandalay and Rangoon. In September of this year, 172 people were murdered. Apparently we are expecting the Burmese Government, without an army, and without the assistance of British troops, to put down that sort of dacoity all over the
  1906
  country. When the hon. Lady the Member for Epping and Members opposite talk about the use of the British Army in Burma, it was to put down dacoity, to see that there was law and order, not to hold down the Burmese people.
  Is there stability of government? The best answer to that is that the Prime Minister and most of his colleagues were murdered in cold blood a few weeks ago possibly by one of the men who came over to this country to negotiate the treaty back in the spring.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Will the hon. Member tell us who the man was?
  Mr. Gammans: He is on trial now and, therefore, perhaps nothing more had better be said about that. As to democracy, is there any idea of democracy in Burma today? We are giving self-government to Burma, but we are not giving democratic self-government to Burma. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister recognises that. He does not talk about freedom in Burma, he talks about transfer of power, and it is transfer of power to an almost certain autocracy. If that happens, then we shall see what occurred in Egypt and in other parts of the world where we have transferred power. The first thing is that the rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer. The second thing that always happens is that those essential freedoms of speech, security, property and life, and the incorruptibility of justice which we have given to Burma will disappear.
  As to economic stability, Burma has been ravaged by two of the most bloody campaigns in history, and quite apart from the damage done by bombing and by the invasion of Burma, millions of money will be required to put Burma on its feet. Under the new constitution those millions of money will certainly not be forthcoming. Therefore, we can contemplate—and apparently hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to accept this lightly—a lowered standard of living for the people of Burma. I am glad that the hon. Member for Swindon raised another point, the place which Burma has in the economy not only of the Far East but also of Europe. One of the reasons for the wheat shortage in Europe today is that there is not much export of rice from Burma, and the result is that the people of the Far East, Malaya and other countries,

  1907
  which import rice, are today importing flour. Unless there are stable political conditions in Burma, we shall see a falling off in the standard of living of the Burmese and of their fellow Asiatics in that part of the world.
  What about the security of Burma? To begin with, there is Russia working through the Communist Party which, as in other countries, owes its first allegiance to Russia. India has great economic interests in Lower Burma; China has always cast covetous eyes on Upper Burma. So long as Burma remained in the British Empire she could call on the other countries of the Commonwealth to defend her, but would anyone like to predict that within 10 years even a vestige of independence will remain for Burma? It is much more likely that Burma will be divided between one or other of her two most powerful neighbours, unless Russia jumps the claim of both of them. In other words, at the very best we are handing over Burma to a virtual dictatorship and, at the very worst, we are handing her over to complete anarchy and a loss of all national independence. Other hon. Members of this House may view that possibility with complete equanimity. I cannot.
  I want to say a special word about the non-Burmese people, for whom we have a special responsibility, who stood by us during the war when other sections of Burma were prepared to help the Japanese. We are not dealing with any small minority of people here, we are dealing with two and a half million. They are not Burmese in origin; on the contrary, they have always been the traditional enemies of the Burmese. They fear and they distrust the Burmese. It was only because they could look to the impartial rule of Great Britain that they have ever been regarded as part of political Burma at all. As it was, they had special safeguards and special forms of constitution. I know what the Government will say—in fact the Prime Minister has already said it. He said, "I know all about that, but that is old stuff. Under the Panglong Agreement they are now content to throw in their lot with the Burmese, and the age-old enmities which have existed between the Burmese, and the frontier tribes have miraculously disappeared overnight." My answer to that
  1908
  is that I do not accept the Panglong Agreement at its face value. I do not believe things happen just like that. That agreement was negotiated by the frontier people in the knowledge that we were going to sell out on them anyway, that we were prepared to abandon them, and that they had better make peace with their adversary quickly. There is also a widespread feeling in Burma that many of the people who negotiated that agreement on behalf of the frontier tribes were nothing more nor less than nominees of Aung San and his party.
  I want to deal with what I think is the only valid point that I have heard from the other side. When they turn to us and say, "We fear all this may happen"—in fact every hon. Member has either said or implied that—they go on to say, "What can we do now?" Or they turn round to us and say, "What is your constructive alternative?" This is the bleat which we have heard from the other side of the House ever since this Government has been in power.
  Mr. Blackburn: It is a fair point.
  Mr. Gammans: They lead the country in home affairs as well as foreign affairs to the brink of disaster, and then they turn round and say, "What is your constructive alternative?" The answer is that any competent and responsible Government would not have followed that course of action which has brought about these results. That is the excuse of a man driving a motor lorry into a brick wall, and smashing it up, then turning round and saying, "What can I do now except sell this thing for scrap?" The answer is, "If you had had a decent driver, you would not have gone into the wall."
  Mr. Blackburn: Will the hon. Member forgive me for interrupting? Much as I agree with him, I still think he must say what in his opinion we ought to do now.
  Mr. Gammans: I propose to do that, if the hon. Gentleman will pay me the honour of remaining.
  Mr. Blackburn: Certainly.
  Mr. Gammans: I get so tired of, "What is your constructive alternative?" It reminds me of the amended version of the story of the Gadarene swine. We all know the original version about the pigs who

  1909
  rushed down the steep place and went into the sea. I am not sure that really happened. What probably happened was that before they went into the sea, half a dozen stopped and looked over the edge and said to the remainder, "We do not think much of this; we are not going over the edge with you," and the others said, "You must. What is your constructive alternative?" The other pigs then said, "We did not want to come this road anyway. Our constructive alternative is to fight our way back to safety and to sanity."
  There is one other point we have to consider before we pass this Bill. Only a few months ago the same Government, the same Prime Minister, invited us to pass a similar Bill with regard to India. I know it is rather unkind to remind the House of what he told us then, but as he has just told us a similar thing about Burma, I must recall it. He said:
  "It is not our intention to hand over India to chaos."
  And Lord Pethick Lawrence said:
  "there was a danger that the removal of British overlordship would usher in a period of communal strife in India which would leave indelible stains of blood. I am glad that all these dangers have been averted."
  Then there was a highly lyrical pamphlet issued by the Labour Party, "Fifty Things Labour has Done." It finished by saying:
  "We have given India her freedom. Civil war in India has been averted."
  I only dwell on these things because it is the same Government saying the same thing today in regard to Burma. What has happened in India? Anything up to half a million people have been butchered, tens of thousands of women have been carted off and raped, and tens of millions may yet die of starvation. I think the most pathetic thing I have read in regard to India was in an American newspaper which has never been particularly favourable to us, and certainly not to our policy in India. The correspondent told the story there of the rather ugly statues of Queen Victoria set up by the Government of India at the time of the Diamond Jubilee. They are seen all over India in the dusty squares of the cities. The story was that at one of the worst times in this butchery in the Punjab there was a group of refugees holding on to one of these statues for refuge in the pathetic belief that the
  1910
  power of the Queen Empress would stretch out and save them. Is that going to happen in Burma? Can anyone with a sense of responsibility, and with the example of India before them, take this step in that light-hearted way shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite and turn round and say "We fear this may happen, but we wash our hands, it has nothing whatever to do with us."
  It is true that Burma is not as large a country as India, but it is no more a united country than India, and the people to whom we are handing power are certainly far less experienced than those to whom we handed power in India. There is in no sense of the word a Burmese Army. The Army of Burma is recruited in the ratio of about three to one from the hill tribes, which is just as if we recruited the British Army from the Highlands of Scotland. In the long run it is the people who do the fighting who demand to do the ruling.
  I do not wish to say much about the constitution, although, as I reminded the Prime Minister, not every hon. Member has had a chance to read it. To my mind it is not a Socialist, but a Communist reception of life, whatever may be the alleged safeguards to protect those whose interests are to be protected. Under Section 30, for example,
  "the State shall have the right to regulate, alter or abolish land tenures or resume possession of any land and distribute the same for collective or co-operative farming or to agricultural tenants "
  In Section 219 it states that all mines, minerals, and so on
  "shall be exploited and developed by the Union "
  and that no exploitation shall take place other than by the Government, except in certain circumstances of individual citizens in the Union, or companies and associations with at least 60 per cent. of capital owned by their citizens. This is subject to the condition, which I would ask the House carefully to note, that it may be repealed,
  "when public interest so requires."
  That term "public interest" in Europe has covered everything from the murder of Jews to putting 10 million Soviet citizens in concentration camps. So keen are the Government to get this treaty through, that they are waiting until after this Bill has been passed before negotiating a commercial treaty. I do not

  1911
  know whether any hon. Members of this House have any commercial interests in Burma, but if so, in my opinion they might as well write them right off, because they will never see their money back again.
  The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) asked me what I thought ought to be done now. My objection to the Government's policy is that for two years they have followed the wrong policy, but I will tell him what policy I think they ought to have followed. First, we should have put Burma on its feet economically before we talked about self-government. Secondly, we should have restored law and order. That was our duty to the people of Burma. We should have allowed a reasonable time under Dominion status to elapse before coming to this irrevocable decision, but above all we should have restored law and order and put the country on its feet. But here we have slipshod haste, and almost frantic determination to shed responsibility at whatever cost.
  That is a new way for Great Britain to do business. In the past we have been strong and respected because to us principles were more important than expediency, and because we could not be deflected from our duty either by intimidation or cheap applause. It is with considerable reluctance and—certainly I hope the Prime Minister will accept this from me—in no party spirit at all that I say I cannot support him. It is because I am convinced that we are giving to Burma not freedom but anarchy, a lowered standard of living, and the probable extinction of independence that I shall feel compelled to go into the Lobby against him tonight.
  7.37 p.m.
  Sir Stanley Reed: I do not think anyone who knows Burma or has served in that land or studied the present situation can feel happy tonight. Burma, as has been very truly said earlier in the Debate, used to be a very happy land. To move into Burma from caste-ridden India was like moving into a new atmosphere of joy and pleasure. Rangoon was a great, handsome city; and of all the beautiful sights in the world, perhaps the most beautiful was to see the sun setting over the Shwe Dagon Pagoda on
  1912
  the other side of the lakes. Mandalay is in ruins, and the great system of river transport has been wrecked. The rice industry and the oil industry have been shattered; all these are very grievous thoughts to all who approach this situation in a sense of sobriety tonight.
  I do not see why this realistic view of the situation should entirely destroy our sense of values. Any depression I feel this evening is made the deeper by this great question being discussed in a manner which brought laughter and jeers. There is no occasion for laughter, and no case for jeers. I have been thinking very hard, and listening very carefully, and with all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), for some clear light and leading on this question other than that which the Government give us, but I have completely failed to find it. Nationalism in Burma is no new thing, but has been a steadily developing force, beginning with the Russo-Japanese War, and gathering strength in the years that followed; even on the eve of the late war it was the most vivid force in the country. For that we have the authority not only of myself and others who spent some years there, but of the former Governor of Burma Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith. If anybody thinks of going back to the Burma of before the war, let them not forget the troops landed in Singapore, thrown into that cauldron, and from that cauldron into years of desperate captivity, what time they might have been sent to Burma; and, in the view of the brilliant soldier who then commanded in Burma, he could have saved that country from the miseries and havoc of invasion. That is the position which we have to face today.
  If we face the position soberly it will be seen that there are only two alternatives before this country at the present time. One is virtually the reconquest of Burma. I doubt if any soldier will contemplate that that can be done with anything under two Divisions operating for an indefinite period. Is anyone here prepared to face a situation in which two British Divisions, based on Britain, without any of the ancillary help which carried us through the first, Burmese war of 1838, and the second of 1886, and that in a country which has dacoity as an endemic feature of the situation, dacoity which kept it in a state of turbulence for

  1913
  10 or 15 years after the conquest of 1886–we called it dacoity instead of armed rebellion? Burma is now saturated with arms from one end to the other, and her people violently disturbed by the conflicts of the last few years.
  Mr. Blackburn: I have been most impressed by what the hon. Member has said, but will he remember that he gave the same advice about India, and that his advice about India, which was accepted by the Prime Minister, has produced more deaths in India during the last three months than during the whole of the period between the time of the Indian Mutiny and the time when my right hon. Friend assumed office.
  Sir S. Reed: I never think that it is an attractive part of the procedure of this House that Members cannot sit still for a few moments without interrupting. I have never, since I have been here, interrupted any Member; I never give way to any Member. I gave way to the hon. Member today simply to make that point clear. I say without hesitation that if the Government of India Bill had come up again, in the circumstances we had before us, I should vote for it again. I should have had no hesitation in doing that; I have no regrets for having done so, and my interest in, and feeling for, India is not less than that of the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn).
  To return to my main thesis, we had two alternatives. We could say, "We will conquer Burma with armed Forces, and keep there, for an indefinite period, two British Divisions as a minimum, based on this country, without the help we had from adjacent areas in the past." Supposing we did that, and supposing we reconquered the country, and supposing we recreated and re-established the Civil Service, for that has gone, and the other services, which have been violently disturbed, where should we be at the end of that period? What would be the situation which we should then have to face? Having held down the country for an indefinite period, could we then say, "We have reached the stage now at which we can depart in peace, with goodwill, your love and your affection"? The answer to that is clear and inevitable. Some of us in the last Parliament spent
  1914
  a good deal of time considering the position and prospects in Burma. We came to the conclusion that there were three clear things to be done, that, first, there should be a brief period of direct rule; secondly, the establishment of self-government in Burma; and, thirdly, the negotiation of treaties with that Government in regard to finance, commerce and the protection of British interests. We hoped then, as everybody did, that Burma would be a partner in the Commonwealth and Empire. That that has not happened is, unfortunately, a bitter disappointment.
  I was rather staggered to hear, in the course of this Debate, that if Burma had remained within the Commonwealth, possibly temporarily, these discussions would have proceeded in an atmosphere of calmness, without prejudice. If that is the lesson drawn from events in the last few weeks, it baffles the imagination of man to know how it could have been drawn. The other alternative is that we should proceed to negotiate with the Burma Government, which has been thrown up by her own people on as free a vote as will ever be obtained in Burma under modern conditions, the Treaty which has been put before us, and the grant of independence which is embodied in this Bill. Like others, I profoundly regret that Burma has opted to be outside the Commonwealth and Empire, yet I feel very strongly that membership of the Commonwealth and Empire is not something to be forced upon a reluctant people, it is a priceless privilege to be conferred upon those who are conscious of its benefits and advantages, and of the greater protection, security and hope which it embodies for them. I think that the Burmese Government have made a profound mistake, but we have to get rid, now and for always, of the idea that we always know better what is good for for other people than they think they know themselves. That is an attitude of mind calculated to produce a great sense of mischievous exasperation.
  For those reasons, I cannot refuse my support for the Bill which the Government have presented to the House. I have no constructive alternative to offer. On the other hand, I find that any possible alternative will almost certainly lead to evils or disadvantages even greater than those which may accrue from this step. I trust that the Motion to give

  1915
  this Bill its Second Reading will not be forced to a Division, but if it is, I shall feel, with a full sense of responsibility, that I must go into the Lobby in support of the Bill. I do so with no illusions. I have heard it said many times from the other side of the House in the course of this Debate that we are giving freedom to Burma. I will put it another way: We are giving to Burma the fullest opportunity for working out her own freedom, and we hope that this Bill will work in that direction. I do not think for one moment that Burma will develop on the lines on which our own Parliament and our own institutions have evolved. Our own democratic system is one which is sui generis, entirely peculiar to the Anglo-Saxon race. Yet that Burma should have this opportunity and liberty to work out her own system I have not the shadow of doubt. Even if I had any doubts because it is some years since I was in Burma, they would be entirely resolved by the knowledge, which has been mentioned already, that the Government has the solid support of the British community, who are most directly concerned with the future of Burma.
  I would ask the Prime Minister to give careful consideration to the plea made for the smaller, almost forgotten men who have been doing their work in Burma, such as port officers and others, who do not come within the major Services but who still have a claim upon our attention and our consideration. Another thing to be done is to strain every nerve to re-establish the industrial economy of Burma, because there the whole future of the land and, therefore, that of a large part of South-East Asia, which is so dependent on her resources, very largely rests. Having listened to every word of this Debate, I must say, with all respect to those who sincerely hold different views, if they fail to find any definite alternative to the policy the Government are pursuing. Therefore I give my support to that policy and, if necessary, I will go into the Lobby to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill which is now before the House.
  7.50 p.m.
  Brigadier Peto: I, too, have listened during the whole of the afternoon and I have been much struck by two speeches—first, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham
  1916
  (Mr. Nicholson) and, second, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) who took the alternative view. At this late hour in the Debate I find it very hard to add anything new, but I have two points which I would like to bring to the notice of the Government. The first is to consider what would happen in the unlikely event that this Bill did not receive a majority tonight. According to the Constitution, a copy of which I got from the Library where it arrived only yesterday, I see that the Constitution was agreed on 27th September and that it says, in the first line, that Burma declares itself an independent Republic. It would seem to me a little premature, if that is so, when we are now debating here the Second Reading of the Bill to give that independence.
  In the Treaty it says that the Government will invite Parliament to pass legislation to give the Union of Burma independence and that the Treaty will be ratified on the day on which Parliament has agreed to give them independence—by 6th January, 1948. Is it not rather premature for the Union of Burma to take independence and form an independent Republic before- any legislation is passed in this country to that effect? I bring that point out with the object of calling attention to the fact that the whole procedure for giving independence to Burma has been very much rushed. It has been done in a hurry. Like so much other legislation in the past two years, it has been pushed across without any opportunity to debate the issue before deciding whether we should accept one alternative or another.
  As is usual, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has been much criticised in the House by Members of the Government. He has been criticised today because he is considered by the Government not to be constructive and to be irresponsible. The difference between: the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford—which is the view taken by many of us on this side of the House—and that of the Government, is that we think that it would be a great deal better had things been steered as my right hon. Friend said that he would have steered them, so that there should be a transition period during which the Union of Burma

  1917
  remained within the Empire and was given self-government within the Empire for a period of time. That is the difference of opinion. There is nothing else between the Government and those on this side of the House who consider that this Bill which gives Burma complete independence is premature. Everybody in all parts of the House would give the Union of Burma self-government. That is what has been worked for not only by the Leader of the Opposition but by others including my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). That has been worked for for some years, the difference being on the question of whether or not for a period of time, Burma should or should not be within the Empire. I am wholeheartedly in favour of voting on the side of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree to using whatever force was necessary to achieve that object?
  Brigadier Peto: The point is that it might or might not have been necessary to use force. Who can say that, had my right hon. Friend and his colleagues been in the Government, the necessity for using force to restore order in Burma after the end of the war would have arisen? No one can say, least of all the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the situation would have been the same had there been leadership such as there was during the war.
  The other point I wish to make is one that was raised by Lord Rankeillour in another place during his speech on the Address. It was with regard to the safety and safeguard of minorities. The Prime Minister today said that there was quite adequate safeguard for minorities. If one reads the Constitution, it gives certain rules for citizenship in Section n, which are completely negatived in the following paragraph. This says that citizenship can be taken away by order of the Burmese Government if and when they think fit. Section n says:
  "Nothing contained in Section 11 shall derogate from the power of the Parliament to make such laws as it thinks fit in respect of citizenship…or for the termination of the citizenship of any existing classes."
  1918
  How-that can be considered compatible with safeguarding the interests of minorities, I fail to see. Further, in a letter written on 30th October to the "Daily Telegraph," Lord Rankeillour concludes by saying:
  "When I add that the Supreme Court …"
  which is, of course, the final arbiter—
  "…is to be entirely dependent on the Burmese Parliament, it will be seen that no lasting protection for the minorities is secured and that the future is as dark for them as it is in the two Dominions of India. But in Burma there is still time."
  I agree with that, with the exception of the last remark. I do not agree that there is still time. We can see that, though time may in fact be available, we cannot possibly use it owing to the hurry with which this legislation is being done. There is no opportunity for discussion. The decision has already been taken by the Government without any discussion in this House and that is the end of that.
  One cannot help remembering all those sailors, soldiers and airmen, who in 1942, fought to defend Burma from the invading Japanese, and one cannot help thinking of the sailors, soldiers and airmen who, under the gallant leadership of General Alexander, General Wingate and General Slim, among others, fought and gave their lives in very large numbers to recapture Burma in 1944–45. One is forced to ask for what they were fighting? Were they fighting for the whim of a Socialist Government, so that the same country which they fought to restore, should be given away without any discussion and without any thought for what the consequences might be? Personally, I would say that the selfless devotion with which these men fought is being thrown away, and I would say that the idea of giving away the Empire, about which there was so much discussion this evening, is no new one on the part of the Socialist Party. I could quote an instance where the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister for Economic Affairs made a now very well-known remark to that effect. It was in 1936 that he said:
  "It is fundamental to Socialism that we should liquidate the British Empire as soon as we can."
  If that does not prove that, at any rate, in those days, that was their idea, I do not know what does.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Follick: I have listened carefully to this Debate on Burma today, as I listened carefully almost the whole time to the Debate on Egypt and to that on India, and I really cannot see any difference in the arguments put forward by the Opposition in any one of those Debates. Their whole idea seems to be that we have got to hold on to every scrap of earth that we have ever possessed, and in the same position as we have always held it. They totally ignore the progress made in the world, and the fact that these very great territories have marched with the progress which the rest of the world has made.
  It must not be forgotten that we are not only a great Empire, but great Empire builders. We have built this great Empire, in many cases, from nothing. It must be realised how we did that. I am not speaking against the Empire or against our Empire-building in any way, because there is no greater Imperialist in this Chamber than I am. I believe in Empire in the right sense. In the first place, we went to these lands for trading purposes; that is to say, for exploiting the territories with which we were trading, and to get out of those territories as much as we could. In order to exploit these territories efficiently, we had to give certain developments to the inhabitants so as to make use of those inhabitants, and, as we developed our interests in these different territories, we had to give them greater advances so as to exploit them better and more efficiently; otherwise, it would not have been worth while, but would have been bad business. We had to educate them and teach them to take over greater responsibilities. We had to train and educate teachers, doctors and lawyers so as to make the territory more exploitable. We had to provide universities for them and bring their people over here to study in our universities, so that they could use their own universities better. Quite naturally, a time comes when the people say to us, "We can look after this territory ourselves now; why should not we do so?" That is great Empire building. That is the right sense of developing civilisation throughout the world.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman has used the words "exploit" and "develop," but I think he
  1920
  changed the places of them, and has given a wrong meaning different from what he intended. The picture he was giving us, surely, was that of development, which was benefiting the inhabitants as well as the people who went in? The word "exploit" has quite a different meaning.
  Mr. Follick: I made my position quite clear. We had to develop the territory in order to exploit it more efficiently. That was made quite clear, and there was no need at all for the interruption. In the course of time, there were further developments, and we brought them up to such a height of civilisation that the people were able to look after their own affairs and to govern themselves, and the time came when we had to take a decision either to remain there by force or come out as good friends of those territories. The Tories have never understood this kind of development. I am old enough to know the history of South Africa and the Tories would not let go of South Africa. It was, the Liberals who did it, and what was the result? What did General Smuts say when he came over here and was asked why he was fighting on the side of the nation which had defeated him. Smuts said:
  "That nation, which defeated us, treated us like a Christian people, and so we are fighting for those Christian principles which they are defending."
  Brigadier Peto: On a point of Order. Has this anything to do with the Debate?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I had thought he was out of Order, I would have stopped the hon. Member. He is creating a background, and, therefore, is in Order
  Mr. Follick: They do not understand civilisation. The same thing happened with Ireland. They refused time and again to give the Irish Home Rule—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Now the hon. Member is getting very wide of the Bill.
  Mr. Follick: I want to mention that, if Ireland had not been given self-government in the last war, they would have been against us, instead of friendly to us
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not in Order. We are now dealing with Burma, and not Ireland. He must relate his remarks to the Bill.
  Mr. Follick: I have explained how we, on this side of the House, really extended the old traditional Liberal idea of liberty and civilisation, and are going ahead on the grounds that these people are now reaching such a degree of development that they can be safely left to manage their own affairs. I would like to give a comparison of Empires in the past. Previous to the rise of the British Empire, there were two great Empires in Europe, the Spanish and Portuguese. The Spanish lost every one of their territories in America, because they would not give them any form of development or government of their own, whereas the Portuguese gave to the Brazilians, first of all, co-partnership, and then independence, and the result has been that Brazil has always remained the greatest friend of Portugal, whereas the South Americans have always been hostile to the Spanish.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will now get to Burma very quickly.
  Mr. Follick: I am just giving illustrations to show that, by granting these people their freedom and their independence, we retain their friendship. The retaining of their friendship is much more important than holding them in bondage, because, in retaining it, we retain their trade, their commerce and their industry, and we are still able to send our people there to help them develop their independence and their Government—and to make a bob or two out of it, which we will not make if they are our enemies. For those reasons, I say that we are not casting off a part of the Empire light-heartedly. What we are doing is retaining the friendship of the people of Burma for many years to come by recognising their right to freedom. For that reason, I shall most certainly go into the Lobby tonight in support of this Bill. I believe that, in the future, the people of this country and the people of Burma will be able to say that today was a day of great thanksgiving and pride.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) will forgive me if I do not follow him in that delightful historical fantasy in which he has just been indulging. Clearly, the professor of history whom We studies most closely is Einstein,
  1922
  because what he was saying was not relatively accurate.
  In all seriousness, I wish to say that I approach this problem of Burma with considerable mental trouble and anguish. During the war, I was working at the back of Burma, with Burma as the objective of my endeavours. I have, therefore, some idea, some local knowledge of the problem, as of other parts of the Empire. On the political side, to which I am only going to devote a very short time, I feel that my objection to this Bill is based on the fact that to some extent—quite possibly unintentionally—it is a sham, and that it does not do, cannot do, and will not do, what it expresses as its intention. It treats Burma as a homogeneous whole, and talks of Burma as if it were one country with one people. That is not the case. Of the many tribes included in Burma, only one-third are in Burma geographically and ethnologically, and two-thirds are outside, and have a different loyalty either to China or Siam. It is plain nonsense to believe that it is possible just to draw a line, and to say that one-third of this is Burma, and will be governed under the constitution here. That is not facing the reality.
  Mr. Follick: In the past—going back into history again—were not the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish divided, and have they not been fused into one political whole? Could not that happen in Burma as well?
  Mr. Fletcher: It took a good many centuries for that to happen, and it has not entirely happened even yet. But, to come back to the real problem, the serious problem, here we have a Bill which is possibly going to have the most serious effects upon people whom we talk about as Burmese, but who have practically nothing in common with what is going to be the majority party in the Burmese Government. I feel that the gravest responsibility of all is towards those people, because those tribesmen, who, as I know personally, were among those who rendered us the greatest service of all. The British troops, for whom strong pleas have been made this evening, have been withdrawn and are now—those who survive—safe, but the troops who helped us, the Karens, the Shans, and others, are left there. I feel that the most difficult obstacle in the way of accepting this Bill

  1923
  at the present moment is the responsibility which we must feel towards the people to whom we can give no adequate protection.
  This Bill will not stop the machine gun bullet or the knife of a dacoit, and it will not stop murder and rapine. It is no use the people in villages, when they are attacked saying, "the Bill protects us," because it will not. Those peoples have no access to the sea. The Burma Government will have access to the sea, and will be able to import arms if they wish to use force. I am not saying this in any hostility to Burma, but there is no doubt that there is not yet that degree of responsibility which most European countries, and Western European countries in particular, have arrived at after a good many centuries. Therefore, I have the gravest fears that we are sacrificing, without due regard to what it means, people who have helped us in the past, most notably during the war. That will not only have its effect in Burma; it will have its effect throughout the Far East and in other countries where our sense of responsibility and justice means a great deal, and where we govern because of our known justice and responsibility. I feel that this is probably the point which is the most difficult of all for His Majesty's Government to answer.
  I would like to turn to the economic side of this question. I notice that on this aspect the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) spoke most contemptuously of Burma Shell. The moment the words "vested interest" are used, even on the Government Front Bench and on the benches behind it, there is a sort of titter of contempt and dislike. Indeed, it is very curious to note that in this Debate and in others when a vested interest is a British one, it is suspect, but the moment it is not British, either by being grabbed or by other forms of acquisition, it begins to acquire an entirely new sanctity. We are getting back to the Gilbert and Sullivan situation—
  "The idiot who praises in enthusiastic tone,
  Every century but this and every country but his own."
  We should pay a little more attention to the question of these much despised vested interests. Whether we use the word "develop" or "exploit"—I am willing to concede the use of words to the hon. Member for Loughborough—the standard of living has been raised, the
  1924
  country has been developed and has been put on a better footing because of these much despised vested interests. If there is to be a good future relationship between Burma and this country, it must inevitably depend on a proper working partnership between these vested interests and Burma. It is no use Burma expropriating the whole lot and paying no compensation. I will come to the question of compensation shortly. She is totally and utterly incapable of increasing her standard of living. Eastern countries do not stand still any more than Western countries. I have known and seen a good deal of China over the years, and I have seen how, after arriving at a high point of civilisation, it is perfectly possible for a country to go back again. Indeed, unless there is a working partnership on the economic side between Burma and this country, without using the word "exploit" at all, the future status and standing of the man in the street in Burma is going to decline.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) was speaking of what had not been done in the last two years and said that we had not put Burma on her feet, there was again a good deal of laughter. At the beginning of this year I made a trip to Burma, Siam, IndoChina, Malaya and Hong Kong, and on the evidence of my own eyes and ears I say that less has been done to get Burma out of her difficulties and relieve her of her great wrongs and the destruction which occurred during the war, than has been done in any other country in the Far East. That has been because there has been no certainty of tenure for British and foreign firms in that country. They have not been able to make a constructive policy for getting on with the job in conjunction with the Burmese, because they have not known from one day to another whether they are going to stay or be turned out. The technical knowledge and the capital goods in the form of machinery that we can supply, and for which we have a responsibility in areas in which we are continuing to remain, and even in the areas which we are leaving—all these things are in great jeopardy until some new basis has been hammered out by which we can live as partners with the Burmese.
  There is one very difficult question that arises out of this Bill. It is that the

  1925
  claims, amounting to nearly £100 million which have to be met and considered. There are hundreds and thousands of them, small ones and big ones. I have no direct claim; but in accordance with the tradition of this House, that a Member who has an interest involved or that might be involved should declare it, as I have a parallel claim in another country, Malaya, which may be affected by this, it is only right that I should declare it, although I have no direct interest in Burma. In considering these claims it is extremely important that we should have at the earliest possible moment some sort of statement from His Majesty's Government as to how they are to be treated. They fall under three heads.
  Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member will get nothing.
  Mr. Fletcher: The voice from the Moscow minaret again. If we got nothing it would be beyond our expectations. As I was saying, these claims come under three heads. There are the claims on insurance policies for which the then Government of Burma, which was the British Government, were responsible. Those are subject to contracts between the parties, and there can be no doubt about them because they are direct claims. Then there are the claims which arise from the scorched earth policy, carried out at the orders of the military chiefs who were in charge of the country during the retreat from Burma, to deny to the Japanese plant and machinery so that they could not use them against us. The third category is that of the rehabilitation claims, arising out of the destruction that was carried out.
  It is most vital that His Majesty's Government should approach those in a realistic spirit. If we look at Burma at present, it is quite clear that the vast totality of these claims, however just they may be, should not fall on a country which has not begun really to recover from the war, for that would not be a very fair settlement. But on the other hand, injustice must be avoided, and the claims of those who suffered in carrying out the policy of the Government, given to them directly in writing, or under the insurance claims, must be treated properly. Here we are up against this inate dislike, based on misunderstanding, of anything that can be called a vested
  1926
  interest. If we can find another label to put round the neck of the bottle, it seems to Socialism to be perfectly in order, whatever the contents of the bottle may be. What I should like to elicit from whoever replies for the Government is a clear statement on this. It is the acid test of the future relationship in commerce between Burma and the outside world. If this matter is to be settled—and it can be settled, given goodwill on both sides, by give and take—
  Mr. Gallacher: We give, the hon. Member takes.
  Mr. Fletcher: That is all right. I can never enter into any game of skill or chance with the hon. Member. I can only say most seriously—hoping that we may have no more of these frivolous interruptions—that the whole basis of our future working with Burma, and of trade with Burma, is that the Burmese must have from us brains, knowledge, technical equipment, and technical assistance, and so much depends on how this matter of the claims is handled and is settled.
  I believe myself, from a certain amount of conversation with people in Burma and here, that it is not an insuperable difficulty. But I do beg of His Majesty's Government to realise that two years have elapsed, that during that time not sufficient has been done, that a sort of paralysis has set in in Burma, which has stopped the effort of all parties to rehabilitate those regions which need rehabilitation so urgently. We have got to put in new machinery, create new transport, new railways. They cannot be produced by Burma itself. We can give them all the political liberty we like, but that is not steel. We can give them a brand new Constitution, but it is not lorries and transport. The political idea must not altogether outweigh the practical needs of the situation, and those cannot be released and put into action for one single moment until this vexed question of settling the claims of the past and setting up a new partnership has been taken in hand and a practical decision, equitable to all parties yet full of what is necessary in the way of seeing what can be done, has been set on foot and approved.
  Therefore, I make a final appeal to the Government not to believe that in passing this Bill tonight—as they will do—they have settled either the safety of many people in Burma or the adequate economic

  1927
  progress of a country towards which everybody in this House, in his heart of hearts, has the greatest good will.
  8.26 p.m.
  Sir Waldron Smithers: I hope hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in this Debate will forgive me if I do not follow the arguments they have put forward—and I have listened to most of them. I have risen in my place tonight to raise one specific point. I feel it is my duty to do so, and I look upon it as a great responsibility. I want to speak on behalf of many loyal and devoted subjects of the King who have lived in and worked for Burma, but who cannot speak for themselves and have no means of putting their point of view.
  On 30th October this year I asked the Prime Minister a Question about the conditions of, and what would happen to, the Anglo-Burmans in Burma, and in his reply to my supplementary question the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "…if the hon. Member can give me evidence that there has been a change in the position of the Anglo-Burman community on this matter, I will certainly look into it."
  I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, who is to reply tonight, will remind the Prime Minister of that promise and keep him to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) asked a supplementary question about an individual, and, as I see it, to try to explain his trend of thought and, I hope, that of the Government, the Prime Minister replied:
  "I will always consider any individual hard cases, but the point put to me was rather one of the Anglo-Burman community.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1077.]
  Therefore, I do ask the Government, even at this late hour, to do what they can—and I shall make a definite appeal at the end of my speech—effectively to look after the interests of the Anglo-Burman community. I have had a very long letter from a responsible person, representing responsible and reliable people in Burma. It is much too long to read to the House, and, therefore—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I notice the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie), the hon. Member
  1928
  for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) are reading books which do not seem to have anything to do with the Debate.
  Mr. Gallacher: It is the Burma Constitution, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely, we are entitled to look at that?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member, has proved himself to be perfectly in Order in that respect.
  Sir W. Smithers: As I was saying, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when you did me the honour to interrupt me—
  Mr. Kirkwood: It was not meant as an honour.
  Sir W. Smithers:—I have had a very long letter from a representative of reliable and responsible people of the Anglo-Burman community in Burma. It is much too long and detailed to read, but I have gone to considerable trouble to make a résumé of the salient points, and I hope that in fairness to these people—who, after all, are British subjects—the House will bear with me while I read this short extract:
  "Of the Burmese delegates it may be said, 'These people flatter with their lips, but the poison of asps is on and in their tongues.' Things are going from bad to worse for us Anglo-Burmans, and nothing will be done till the British public is told the naked truth. Mr. Attlee's speeches are deplorable because they are so misleading. Does the British public know that in Burma the whole population is composed of many different people, each having its own lore, its own standard and manner of life and its own form of religion. Why should they be made to knuckle down to one particular group of Burmans? Is the public aware that in speaking of Freedom and Independence, Burmese politicians mean that independence and freedom of thought and action is to be the sole right of one Burmese group, and in particular the Buddhist Burmese? And that if anyone voices the utter injustice and bullying that is going on, he or she stands to be attacked personally and either dacoited or killed outright? Never has Burma been in the grip of terrorism as it has been since power was placed in Burmese hands. Does the public know that the services of Anglo-Burmans are steadily being dispensed with, and that they are being denied the right to live in every way in accordance with their upbringing and outlook on life; and that regardless of all qualifications and facts, Anglo-Burmans in the Navy and in the Army are to be replaced by Burmese Bur-mans forthwith?
  "In every office and Government department, every Anglo-Burman is to be ousted, and we are not to get other jobs in place

  1929
  of those from which we are being turned out. British money is being freely spent, and since it cannot be denied that it was by the British mainly that Burma was brought from darkness into the light of progress, and that it was mainly by British arms that Burma was recaptured from the Japanese, and that large numbers of Anglo-Burmans laid down their lives for Burma, why has His Majesty's Government agreed to all the present injustices, and is it in keeping with British prestige and honour that Britain, through His Majesty's Government, has repudiated her responsibility for a community deliberately created by Britishers during the last century? Does His Majesty's Government approve of what is being done to Anglo-Burmans? "
  Now this is the point I wish to stress.
  "We wish to send a delegation of two or three members to discuss the matter with His Majesty's Government. Will we be allowed to? Burmese Burmans are having a good time travelling all over the world at the expense of the British taxpayer. Why should not Anglo-Burmans be given the right of one delegation? Why does Britain want to let us down like this? Only a delegation to His Majesty's Government can explain things fully. Unfortunately, the man chosen as High Commissioner, U Tin Tut, is dead against Anglo-Burmans. What is to happen to us if Britain repudiates responsibility for us and our future? Let both Britain and Burma put it down in black and white, and then let Britain send ships and money to take us out of the country and place us where we can live in peace and freedom and be suitably employed."
  Mr. Wyatt: Will the hon. Member allow me?
  Sir W. Smithers: No, I will not. After all, I am making an appeal for people who cannot make it for themselves in this Assembly, which, for the moment, is still free. I hope the House will allow me to get their opinion across.
  Mr. Attewell: I read it all in "The Times" this morning.
  Sir W. Smithers: The letter continues:
  "Till then, do not let Britain transfer any power, or else, let Britain never again speak of honour or honourable dealings. The only thing to help us is to send an open letter to The Times '."
  Mr. Gallacher: It was in "The Times" this morning.
  Sir W. Smithers: I want here and now to thank "The Times" for doing a public duty in giving publicity to the opinions, troubles and trials of a loyal section of the British public who could not otherwise put their trials across. Mention has been made in the Debate several times to the sacrifice of life and the terrible
  1930
  hardships that our troops went through to set Burma free. I would like to give the House one example. A nephew of mine was for 12 hours lying in a bush while the Japanese with fixed bayonets were stabbing every bush around him. By the grace of God, his bush was missed and he got away. That is typical of the kind of sacrifice that was made to set Burma free.
  I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply, once again, of the promise made by the Prime Minister. I ask him most earnestly, even at this late hour, to send a cable tonight—and I will give him the address privately; I do not want to give it publicly because if the name and address are made known those concerned will probably be murdered. [Interruption.] Yes, I am told that that is so. Would the Government send a cable and invite a delegation of two or three Anglo-Burmans to fly here, and if they can make any impression on His Majesty's Government, then it may be possible to introduce in another place, at a later stage, an Amendment to this Bill which would adequately protect the interests of these loyal people who have done so much for Burma in the past? I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give a considered answer to this rriuest when he replies.
  8.39 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: I beg to move to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add, "upon this day six months."
  We have had a most interesting Debate on this very important Bill a Debate which has, I think, done credit to the House, although very strong views have been expressed on both sides. I cannot conscientiously stand at this Box—with a perfectly free hand in the matter and no pressure put on me by my right hon. Friend and Leader—and do otherwise than move this Amendment.
  As a preliminary, I would like to make one or two personal observations. I promise the House not to bore it with my observations. As is known to some of the older Members of the House who have been here for the last 10 or 15 years, I was for many years at the India Office, and was frequently in conflict with my right hon. Friend and Leader in those days, not only over the India Bill, but

  1931
  before it, on the subject of self-government for India. I still hold the view that I have always held, which is my reason for voting against this Bill tonight, that the stages of self-government both for India and Burma should be gradual, constitutional and proper. I maintain, and I shall endeavour to prove it in the time available to me tonight, that the procedure which this Bill has taken is exactly contrary to that which a number of us in all parties fought for before the war in a political sense, namely, the extension to Burma and India of self-government within the Empire. In the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, we did not hear one word to show that that promise had been carried out. May I quote what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted, which the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), who spoke after him, never attempted to answer, namely, that the White Paper of 1941 said that certain things could not be done
  "until she "—
  that is Burma—
  "can sustain the position of a self-governing country within the Empire."
  Therefore, I move this Amendment to the Motion, for it would not be consonant with my conscience, having regard to the background in regard to self-government for India and Burma of which I have spoken, that at the present stage of her development full self-government should be granted to Burma, with terrible results for the ordinary population. That is my answer to the very reasoned speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). He made a reasonable and temperate speech, in which he said that it would not be consonant with his conscience to vote against the Bill. It is not consonant with my conscience to hand over the people of Burma to the kind of Government which will be in power in Burma in the days to come.
  I make no attempt to defend my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition from the attacks which have been made upon him tonight in this House, for he is well able to do it himself. All I would say by way of reply is that we on this side of the House have just as much right to claim that this is going to be calamitous to the ordinary people of Burma as it is for Members on the other
  1932
  side of the House to say that we should at this very moment hand over self-government to Burma without taking any precautions to see that self-government as we mean it is exercised. As I have a fair amount of time to put my points, I am going into detail a little later on to show the House where I stand on these matters. We heard my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) ask—
  Mr. Kirkwood rose—
  Earl Winterton: No, I am sorry I will not give way.
  Mr. Gallacher: Be courteous.
  Earl Winterton: I have not interrupted hon. Members on the other side when they were speaking, and I would appreciate it if they would let me develop my arguments.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is it the form of government—
  Earl Winterton: I think that if the hon. Member will be good enough to sit down and listen to what I have to say, he will see what I mean. I have not interrupted any hon. Member and I am putting a reasonable point of view. I hope I shall be allowed to develop my argument, and if I am, I will try to convince the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). The hon. Member for Orpington made what I think the House will agree was a very moving appeal. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has gone now."] I know the hon. Member for Orpington has gone, and he apologised to me before he went. He has gone to get some food. [Laughter.] There is nothing funny in that. He is entitled to go and get his food, as he has been sitting here for the greater part of the day. It may be a subject for ridicule, but I think that when we are dealing with a rather serious matter, these little points should not be made. The hon. Member for Orpington made a most moving appeal on behalf of the Anglo-Burmese. I noticed the House, including hon. Members opposite, listened to him with respect. That is only one of the cases which I am going to develop in a moment or two.
  The hon. Member for Aston made an attack upon my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I will reply

  1933
  to it with this very simple statement which I do not suppose the hon. Member for Aston or any hon. Member opposite would agree with, namely, that my right hon. Friend's speech was one of the greatest exposures which I have ever heard of the makebelieve, avoidance of logic, and ignorance of hard cruel facts which are the invariable main features of Leftish philosophy. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman who got up and made what he, no doubt, thought was a very effective attack upon my right hon. Friend. He did not make the slightest effort to answer a single one of the facts which my right hon. Friend brought forward. The hon. Member said nothing about the deplorable record of one of the so-called statesmen of Burma who has subsequently been assassinated. He made no attempt to deal with the factual record that my right hon. Friend put before the House. He seemed to think there was something wrong in stating the deplorable record of a man who had been responsible for the torture and death of thousands of his own fellow countrymen, before he was assassinated by another of those gentry. I did not hear in any of the speeches delivered from the opposite benches one single answer to any of those points. Perhaps we may hear an answer from the Secretary of State for Air, when he replies.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Nor have we had any evidence.
  Earl Winterton: The evidence can be read in the newspapers by anyone of average intelligence. Whether the hon. Gentleman answers that description or not, I do not know. The evidence has not only appeared in the newspapers but in the official histories of the war, and it has been borne out by every sort of factual observation.
  I wish to pay a tribute to the Burmese civil servants. Here is another of these strange lacunae in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Aston. Those hon. Gentlemen have said a great deal about the high mission that the Government are performing but not a word of praise for the devoted men, both British and Burmese civil servants, who, for two generations, have given their lives to help the Government of
  1934
  Burma. I should have thought that a particular tribute might have been paid to them. I was rather surprised that in an otherwise unexceptionable speech, there was no reference to them in the speech of the Prime Minister. I would like to pay a tribute to them. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply, and who has been a very good friend of the Indian civil servants, will share my admiration for what the Burmese Civil Service has done.
  I would call attention to another matter which is of some importance. Unlike India, Burma has declared its intention of getting rid of all European civil servants, who will be denied the chance of further service. Both the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan, with much greater wisdom, have given the opportunity to British civil servants to continue to serve. It is a fact, as I have proudly announced from this Box, that the situation in India since self-government was given would have been infinitely worse but for the restraining influence of certain Englishmen in high positions in the ordinary Civil Service and in the Army. We have not had a word from the Prime Minister, but no doubt we shall get it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply, about the non-Secretary of State servants, those who used to be called in the Indian service the uncovenanted servants. Those men claim proportionate pensions such as have been granted in the past in the case of Indian servants, and compensation for loss of office. Having had previous official experience of this matter, I agree that in law these people probably have no claim, but I am perfectly certain that they have a very strong moral claim to fair treatment. The Prime Minister's speech was listened to by a very small number of his supporters but I thought that he might have referred to the case of these uncovenanted civil servants.
  In order to go into the reasons why it is in accord with my conscience that I have moved the Amendment, I want to mention certain matters which have hardly been referred to in the speeches we have had tonight from the opposite side, or from anywhere else in the House. Let me take first the case of law and order. May I repeat, for the benefit of those hon. Members who have been good enough to come in since I started speak-

  1935
  ing and thus to make a better House, what I said at the beginning of my speech, that the condition laid down in the White Paper was that self-government should be conferred on Burma by gradual stages; in other words, when Burma was ready. The first of the points I am going to make is in itself an answer to any suggestion which may be made by the Prime Minister or anybody else that the present Bill is being brought in at a time when those conditions are fulfilled. It is true, as the Prime Minister said, that lawlessness and crime have always been fairly widespread in Burma, but I do not think they have ever been more widespread than they are today. I have collected some figures which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will challenge. Nearly 12,000 crimes, mostly of violence, were committed in Burma between January and July. In August, there were 168 murders and 1,269 robberies, and in September the figures were higher. These are only the statistics of reported crime.
  Mr. Wyatt: Will the noble Lord allow me—
  Earl Winterton: No. I have a long speech to make and I see no reason why I should give way. I have not interrupted other hon. Members. Why should we, when opposing a Motion at this Box, be subjected to interruptions by hon. Members?
  Mr. Gallacher: It is the recognised procedure.
  Earl Winterton: Very well, I will give way.
  Mr. Wyatt: I am sure that the noble Lord would not want a complete misstatement of facts to go on the record on an important matter like this. The total of dacoities for September shows that the figures have not gone up since January. The figure for September was 1,116, which is rather less than in January.
  Earl Winterton: I stand by the figures that I have given and say that the, figure is higher than the average for the previous month. At any rate, if the hon. Gentleman is right and there has been a slight decrease in the numbers, so much the better. What he and any other fair-minded person cannot deny is that this
  1936
  is an appalling record of crime in Burma. What he equally cannot deny is that these are only the official statistics of reported crime and that it may be assumed that the Government of Burma have not been in a position to state all the crimes that have not been detected. There was an indiscriminate distribution of arms after U Aung San's assassination in the hope that disorder would be put down, but it resulted in weapons getting into the wrong hands and in increased banditry all over the country. There have been instances in more than one place of armed troops and police trying without success, to put down armed revolt.
  I come now to communications. What an astonishing thing it is, if one looks at it from a practical point of view and gets rid of all the sentimental Leftism which has imbued so many of the speeches from the opposite benches, that after the admittedly deplorable damage done to Burma by the fact that a big war was waged within her boundaries we, as a nation which above all others has in its long history been successful in restoring a country of that kind—putting back the railways and restoring the communications that have been destroyed—should have left and given up the work when the country is in the deplorable state it is in today. The result is that, railway communication in Burma is most unsatisfactory.
  Let me now take some figures. The present volume of Burmese exports is less than 20 per cent. of the prewar figure. It would be difficult to imagine a more serious position than that of both agriculture and industry in Burma. Are even hon. Gentlemen opposite quite so sure that a country in that condition is better without the British than with them? Are they really so sure as they appear to be? Are they so sure that a country in the industrial and economic condition of Burma can get on far better without the aid-of the trained civil servants and business men who have hitherto kept her on her feet?
  Take the question of finance. Not one word have we had in any of the speeches from the benches opposite—hardly a reference to it was made in the Prime Minister's speech—about the deplorable state of Burmese finance. The 1946–47 budget shows an estimated revenue of £20 million, and expenditure of £30 million. By comparison, in the

  1937
  wicked days of the British—so disliked by Members opposite; they think it terrible that the British actually governed another country successfully—there was a balanced budget of £13 million. Now there is a deficit of £10 million. Burma owes us a great deal of money. [An HON. MEMBER: "As a result of the war."] Yes, of course, but because of that, is it not an act almost of criminal negligence on the part of His Majesty's Government to leave that country, just when we might be in a position to help the Burmans not only to help themselves, but to pay back some of the money they owe to us? [Laughter.] I was prepared for those jeers. I know Members opposite think that the prospect of anyone ever paying back to us money which is owed to us is unimportant. Money does not matter to them. But we have some regard for the finances of this country, and I should have thought that it was a very serious thing to become entirely irresponsible about the financial position of Burma when she needs our aid so much, and owes us so much.
  In speech after speech Members opposite have said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford has made a wholly irresponsible speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] My right hon. Friend laid it down, as the central theme of his speech, that not one of the things which were regarded in 1945 as essential to constitutional advance has been fulfilled. There is only a semblance of law and order outside the towns in Burma, communications have practically broken down, agriculture and other industries are in the doldrums and Burma is verging on bankruptcy. Nothwithstanding this, Members opposite say that we must accelerate self-government. Another thing we should have been concerned with was to see that in this transfer of power proper respect was paid to the rights of minorities. It is all very well for the Government to say that, on the whole, the minorities are satisfied. As has been said from these Benches, there is no satisfaction on the part of the Anglo-Burmans—
  Mr. Wyatt: Nonsense.
  Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman can say "Nonsense" as much as he likes, but it does not alter the facts. I have had dozens of letters from people
  1938
  who are just as influential as those who have written to the hon. Member, and there are bitter complaints about conditions in Burma. As for the tribes, what else could they do? When we deserted the people who were our best friends in the war, what else could they do but make friends with those like some of the Burmese statesmen, friends of Members opposite, who were the friends of the Japanese in the war, and who made termas with them when the enemy were within their gates?
  I do not want to go into the whole question of our position in Burma, but I suppose that even in the Socialist Party there is some regard for British commercial interests there. Indeed, I understand that the new theory of Socialism is that there is some merit in private enterprise. We have important commercial interests in Burma, and I see nothing in the Bill, and nothing in the deliberations or consultations which have led up to it, to make me think that British commercial interests are safeguarded in Burma. On the contrary, the whole theme of the Bill, and everything which has been said by the Burmese, is that British interests there, and the British financial position, will have a very poor deal. It is quite true that responsible Burmans, and there are many, know in their heart of hearts, even though they may not say so to Leftist politicians from this country when they visit Burma, that without alien direction and capital Burmese economy will crash, but unfortunately the control of the extremists is so great that it is difficult for them to state that. As regards the financial position, I see no reason to hope, and every reason to fear that the Burmese financial position will be such that the money which she owes us will not be paid for a long time to come.
  I want to make a few observations of a different kind. They concern the spiritual and moral aspect of the matter which, as the Minister for Economic Affairs said the other day, ought to form part of all the transactions of this House. Here I think—though I may not give the impression by my attitude occasionally towards them—that hon. Gentlemen opposite have a sense of fairness, and I would commend to them the questions which I shall put on this subject. If I may say so with real respect, it is all very well to attack my right hon. Friend the Leader

  1939
  of the Opposition for making what they are pleased; to describe as a reactionary speech of the 8o's and 90's, but there are moral questions which Leftists in these days have to answer as well as those on the Right, as to whether the ultimate results of what they advocate, of what they no doubt earnestly believe in, are quite as moral as they suppose, and whether the so-called reactionaries on some moral questions, as well as on many practical questions, may not, after all, be right.
  I will begin my questions by answering a very common aphorism which was quoted frequently when I first came to the House, with a truism. It is still quoted occasionally, in the way in which people bring out of the lumber box of quotations one which they produce with great aplomb. It used to be said in the old days by almost every member of the Left that good government is no substitute for self-government, and it always got cheers. It was indeed one of the mottoes of 19th century Liberalism. Unfortunately, it is equally true that self-government does not necessarily imply the retention of impartial justice and reasonable equality for all the religious and racial elements in a' mixed community such as Burma, which alien rule, so far as it can, guarantees. I propound that not in any spirit of personal hostility, but because it shows the great difference between the philosophy of those sitting opposite and most of us on this side of the House. We do not think that mere self-government is a substitute for good government, unless that self-government can give to the people what that good government was able to give them. And with all our faults—and goodness knows they were numerous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I admit that—with all our faults, both in India and Burma, we gave some things to those countries which they certainly have not today, and which they never had before we went there. That is something which we should all think about, including those of my hon. Friends who are not prepared to vote against this Bill tonight.
  I am the last person to suggest for a moment that only the people of this country or the people of Europe are capable of self-government. In fact, I would go further and say that there are people in the world outside Europe who are more suited to self-government
  1940
  than some of the countries of Europe. Despite the length of time I have been in this House, I have been to almost every African country. I have been on more than one fleeting visit to India. I have both worked and fought in the Middle East. I would say it is undoubtedly true that there are certain primitive communities in the two continents, Asia and Africa, which understand and practice democratic self-government. You get it in African villages in what is known as the headman system, whereby a man is elected very often by popular vote. You get it with Arab sheikhs and, on the North West frontier, with Indian chiefs, because none of those people can act without the assent of the tribe. I myself, in the far-off and rather over-advertised days of the Arab revolt, have been at gatherings of Arab tribesmen where there was a regular debate.
  If I may be permitted a frivolous personal reminiscence, on one occasion I made an impassioned speech through an interpreter begging that the lives of certain prisoners who had been caught pillaging should be spared. I mentioned that I was an English Member of Parliament at which, to-my great annoyance, there were shouts of laughter. When I asked the reason, I got the reply, "Everybody looks on a Member of Parliament as a joke, because we have seen some of them out here, and we think that every man should have a right to decide in conclave what the future of the tribe should be, not merely an elected representative." There are communities in which democratic self-government is possible, but those communities are racially and religiously homogeneous.
  I assert that the conditions in Burma are such that those requirements do not exist. There is no racial nor religious homogeneity except, ironically enough, among the frontier tribes. It is an interesting fact, which should be remembered, that it is the frontier tribes, who were our very best friends and supporters in the war, and who will greatly miss us when we depart from Burma. I say to the hon. Member for Aston, or any other hon. Member who talks of democracy in the East, that they need to be far more discriminating than they are, otherwise they put themselves in a very embarrassing position—this is a friendly suggestion—from the point of view of their strongly held convictions, since, when they talk of

  1941
  conferring democracy upon a community like Burma they are giving democracy to a handful of not too scrupulous politicians, supported by some of the worst examples of private enterprise. They are propounding a theory which is in direct conflict with the views which they put on platforms here.
  By all means, give self-government to a democracy where they are people deserving of it, but, in the case of Burma could anyone say—and here I will sit down if anyone wishes to interrupt me—that she has ever been, in the course of her long history, or is ever likely to be, a democratic country in the sense of the word as we use it in this country? We only went there because the situation was so terrible that the Burmese had to have recourse to us. The situation was so terrible that Burma could not go on. Burma, in general, has so many races and considerable social contrasts that one cannot call her a homogeneous community. She has a large illiterate peasantry on the one hand, and a quick-witted, reasonably well-educated, political intelligentsia with little sense of administration or responsibility, on the other hand. I must repeat what I said on a previous occasion when I spoke on the Burma Bill, that I defy anyone to deny the essential truth that:
  "Burma …. will have exactly the same type of government that all Asiatic countries have always had, except when ruled by European nations …. We are allowing those countries to return to an Asiatic conception of government and we must all hope it will prove to be a success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1947," Vol. 436, c. 2376.]
  I think I was over-optimistic in expressing the hope that it would prove to be a success.
  However much hon. Members may laugh at me, I do not think they will laugh at what I am going to say. I said that more confidently six months ago because then I had not seen the calamitous results of conferring so-called self-government on India. I think that someone tonight, besides my right hon. Friend, might have risen on the other side of the House and said what a terrible thing it is that half a million people have been starved and tortured to death because the Indians, to whom we gave self-government, cannot agree among themselves—half a million people who might have been alive today had we still been in India. The hon. Gentleman may not think that it rests upon his conscience. I think it
  1942
  does, and upon the consciences of all those who sit upon the other side of the House. That is a matter of opinion, upon which the hon. Member is as entitled to express an opinion as I am. I am being sincere when I say I think it should rest upon his conscience. I associate myself with everything which my right hon. Friend said—it should rest also upon the; conscience of the Prime Minister and upon the conscience of the Government.
  There is not the slightest doubt, I am afraid, that the system of Government which we are to confer—if that be the right term—upon Burma will mean dictatorship, armed struggle for power, financial difficulties, revolts by minorities, everything we see happening in India. I remember the days—so long does my mind go back in this House—when we were discussing the new régime in China Many hon. Members of the Liberal Party were very enthusiastic about it; some of us were less enthusiastic. We were told that for the first time China was to have democratic government. Another hon. Member, now dead, said that it would mean 100 years of peaceful development. We see what has happened in China, and that instance could be multiplied. Almost all the aphorisms of Gladstonian Liberalism have proved to be untrue.
  All of us, like the hon. Member below the Gangway, the Prime Minister, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to follow me, have met Burmans for whom we have the highest regard. I have never met people who were personally more charming and attractive to work with than those with whom I sat at the Burma Round-Table Conference. They had a great sense of humour and many of them were men of the highest intelligence and culture. They are of a people who are gifted with an artistic perception of beautiful things which we can envy, and with a sense of humour which commends them to us, but their whole history—why should we not be honest and state our opinions?—shows that they have a bad record of cruelty and irresponsibility towards each other. No one can deny that.
  Those who ask what the alternative of my right hon. Friend and others of us would have been can have this answer—a perfectly fair and honest answer. Another 15 or 20 years of partial self-government, which was what those of us who met at the Burma

  1943
  Round-Table Conference contemplated, might easily have made all the difference and have produced statesmen worthy to rule their fellow countrymen, and not people of the type described by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech.
  The Government have chosen another course. I would like to pay a tribute to the hundreds of thousands of British and loyal Indians and Burmese—several of them were subsequently tortured by their "great statesman," the man who was murdered a short time ago, for being loyal to us—who died to save Burma in, the war. Despite all that, the Government have said that if the Burmese wish to leave the Empire and be ruled, in part at any rate, by those who were friendly to the Japanese invasion during the war, so let it be. That is the whole case of the. Government. I hope we shall have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman to what my right hon. Friend said. What is the explanation of the Government about dealing with men of the character with whom they dealt when they came over here, men who were traitors to their own country, bitter enemies of ours, responsible for the death and torture of thousands of their fellow countrymen who were loyal to us? What is the answer? What is the Government's explanation? We heard nothing about it in the speech of the Prime Minister. I would have said it was a matter which should rest upon the conscience of the Government.
  I notice that "The Times," quite untaught by the fact that it described the events in India before the recent massacres took place as a great act of statesmanship, says that this Bill is an act of statesmanship. From some points of view, so was the partition of Poland or Hitler's pact with Mussolini. But both meant death and mutilation for millions. I think that the Burmans will be very lucky if it does not mean death and mutilation for many of them, judging from the state of the country at present. I do not think I will be contradicted when I say that personally, apparently unlike "The Times," I think that statesmanship should have some regard for the probable results on the ordinary man and woman affected by its decision.
  Hidebound Tory as, no doubt, hon. Gentlemen opposite think me to be, I think that in dealing with this matter
  1944
  we should have some regard, not for theories, but for the effect on the ordinary Burman man and woman. The hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton) made a perfectly moderate speech to which I listened with some admiration, If, from his knowledge of Burma and his distinguished service in that part of the world, he seriously believes that this Bill will result in better conditions for the ordinary man and woman in Burma, he is perfectly entitled to vote for it; but, being a fair-minded man, equally I am sure that he will agree with me that if I believe that it will not, I am perfectly entitled to move the rejection of the Bill. That expresses my whole feeling on the matter.
  I would say a few words more before asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman one or two questions. Of course, supporters of this Bill are entitled to say frankly that this country and the Dominions, weakened by two terrible wars and with Leftist Governments in power here and in the two Pacific Dominions, can afford neither the expense, nor the odium of controlling an Asiatic land like Burma. They are quite entitled to say that. I rather thought, from one or two of what I thought were very moderate speeches from hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, who differ from me, that that is what they had in mind, though personally I do not agree with them. Similarly, it may reasonably be contended that the 70 million or so people of pure European descent in this country and the Dominions, as tough and as competent as any people of any age or clime and homo-genic, save for a small dissident racial minority, in Canada and one in South Africa, can hold their own in defence and trade without going to the trouble of trying to govern ungrateful Asiatics. Hon. Members can take either of those views, and there is something to be said for both.
  All I say, with the utmost conviction, at the risk of causing great dissent possibly even among some of my hon. Friends, is that what no one in this House is entitled to do is to talk with hypocrisy and self-admiration of the wonderful benefits which the Bill will confer upon the ordinary Burmese man and woman in the street. They are not entitled to say that because it would not be true. They could say, "We have to do it because we are compelled by circumstances." They

  1945
  could say, "We have to do it because we of the Socialist Party believe that self-government is always better than government by anyone else." But what hon. Gentlemen are not entitled to say, and what nobody has said, and what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister carefully avoided saying in the course of his speech, is that the result of the Bill is going to be beneficial to the ordinary man and woman in the street in Burma. They know quite well that it is not going to be beneficial. I would say, though such a statement never commands support, that every peasant in any clime or continent does not in the least care who his rulers are so long as they will allow him to cultivate his land in peace and give him and his family a reasonable living.
  That is the peasant point of view, and it is very difficult to explain to the British, because they long since ceased to be peasants. That is the peasant point of view, and the Burmese peasant, unfortunately, has a very small chance of either under this Bill, and that, I suggest, is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham, who, in his very moderate speech, said that there was a great upsurge of national feeling. Of course, there is among the politicians and the people he met when he went there. Is anybody going to say that the average Burmese peasant has at any time said that he prefers the state of dacoity, robbery and corruption in high places which goes on under the Burmese Government, or the lack of equal justice—
  The Prime Minister: The explanation I have been given by our own officers out there is that this is the most incorruptible Government which the Burmese have ever had. I really think that the noble Lord should not say that.
  Earl Winterton: I will withdraw then. I did not mean it in a financial sense, but only in a political sense. I think the right hon. Gentleman made a perfectly proper and friendly interruption, but I am not withdrawing the phrase "political corruption," because all the evidence which reaches me is to the contrary. There has never been anything but political corruption. Does the right hon. Gentleman really ask us to believe that in an Asiatic country like Burma, there has ever been anything else but political corruption? Is there anything else in China? Of course, there is political corruption.
  The Prime Minister: I quite agree with the noble Lord, but it was reported to me by our people out there that there are politicians today in Burma who are not corrupt. I know the amount of corruption there was among the old Burmese politicians, but I am bound to testify that the present Government contains straight and incorruptible men.
  Earl Winterton: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I say that what I have said was not a reflection on present Burmese politicians for one moment, but I cannot withdraw what I had said in another respect—that there is bound to be, in a country like that, an enormous amount of political corruption in the ordinary sense of the word. If I may carry the war into the enemy's camp—and I hope I did not catch the right hon. Gentleman's interruption accurately in one respect—that there has never been a less corrupt Government than there is in Burma today—does he really suggest that the Burma Government is less corrupt than other Burma Governments?
  The Prime Minister: Less corrupt than any other Burmese politicians. The noble Lord made a very sweeping accusation. He said they were corrupt, and I said the present Government was not corrupt as compared with any other Burmese politicians—I do not say with all other Governments, because I do not know all the other Governments which have held office in Burma. I said that, compared with previous Governments, this one holds a very high standard.
  Earl Winterton: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that clear. It was not a reflection on the devoted services of both Burmans and British who served Burma and the British Empire under previous Governments. I have noticed, in recent years, that the habit of putting questions by Opposition speakers from this Bench to the Government has now in a sense decreased, and the former custom of answering these questions which used to persist in the old days, has, I am sorry to say, largely been abandoned, but I hope that I may put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman tonight. Can he tell us whether there are any conditions in Burma giving even a vague guarantee of democratic self-government in the sense-in which I have ventured to expound it tonight, without any opposition from hon.

  1947
  Gentlemen opposite? Can he give any guarantee that that is so? Secondly, can he tell us whether there is any real racial homogeneity in what we call Burma? [An HON. MEMBER: "America."] I was not talking about America; I am talking about Burma. This question, as my right hon. Friend reminds me, happens to deal with a different part of the world. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should brush up his geography.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I did not interrupt the noble Lord; the observation was not made by me.
  Earl Winterton: I am sorry; it was the hon. Gentleman beside him.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. John Freeman): I can assure the noble Lord it was not made by me.
  Earl Winterton: The third question I wish to ask is that, if, as may unhappily be the case, there is before Burma a period of anarchy and internal misery, will His Majesty's Government show any remorse, as they have, apparently, shown no remorse about producing the conditions which have resulted in the terrible suffering and atrocities in what was once British India? That was the question put by my right hon. Friend, and I would like to repeat it. Do they feel any responsibility in the matter whatsoever? Do they say that, because the Burmans have asked for this, they have no responsibility? I think we should have an answer to that question. Lastly—and this is the most important question of all—do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite take the Gladstonian view of the '8o's or '9o's against which Lord Randolph Churchill, and, indeed, Lord Rosebery and some other Liberals fought so fiercely, that when we have a wholly or partially primitive country, and scuttle or are driven out, we have no sort of responsibility for the ordinary people who supported us? We have not had a very' good record sometimes in the past in that respect. Have we no responsibility" for the Anglo-Burmans? Have we no responsibility for the tribes who gave us such magnificent assistance during the war?: I would like to have an answer to that question. Does it, or does it not, matter to the conscience of the Govern-
  1948
  ment and of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite how many of those people are tortured, enslaved and imprisoned, so long as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen can get up on the Benches apposite, or at a public meeting, and say with hypocritical unction, so dear to a section of Britain, "We have conferred the great benefit of self-government on Ruritania"? Do these things matter to the Government or not? Will they give us an answer to them tonight? It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to attack my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for having laid down certain propositions, but I say at the end, as I said at the beginning, there has not been a single answer to any one of the points he made in any of the speeches from the benches opposite. I now gladly give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air.
  9.29 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The noble Lord has covered a good deal of ground tonight, and has addressed a large number of questions to me. I- am afraid it is going to be difficult for me to answer all his questions, together with all the other questions that have been put by other speakers. What I would say, with regard to the four, five or six questions which the noble Lord has just addressed to me, is that, in my opinion, they would be equally relevant if we were discussing the grant only of Dominion status to the Burmans and not the grant of independence outside the British Commonwealth. For example, one of the questions he asked was, Is there any racial homogeneity in Burma?
  I must confess that I am surprised the noble Lord addressed his question about the racial composition of the population, because he has had much longer experience in dealing with Bunman affairs than I have had, and I think he knows as well as I do what the population of Burma is. It is roughly 17 millions, of whom approximately 13 millions are what might be called straight Burmans and the other four millions are Shans, Kachins, Chins and Karens. I merely cite that particular question to illustrate that the questions which the noble Lord has just addressed would have been just as relevant if we had been discussing the grant of Dominion status.
  Earl Winterton: That is no reason for not answering now, is it?
  Mr. Henderson: I will take the noble Lord's first question: Is there any guarantee that the conditions in Burma resemble in the vaguest way democratic government? The noble Lord was a party to the passing of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, and the present Government of Burma are operating under the provisions of that Act as amended by various orders. Apart from that, let us take the composition of the constituent assembly. There is adult suffrage in Burma—there are roughly seven million men and women voters—and a General Election was held some months ago. I think 43 or 45 per cent., of the registered voters voted, and the representatives elected have met in this constituent assembly. They have produced a constitution, and under that constitution provision is made for a directly elected lower House, based again on adult suffrage, with an upper House which is known as the Chamber of nationalities. If there is any meaning in the phrase "democratic government" as we know it in this country, the authorities who have produced this constitution are democratically elected, and they have provided in their constitution for the democratic election of the legislators who are to operate after they have obtained their independence.
  The noble Lord based his main case against the Bill upon the fact—and he quoted the right hon. Member for Wood-for (Mr. Churchill)—that not one of the things regarded as essential in the White Paper of 1945 have occurred. He based his case upon a quotation from pargraph 1 of Part II:
  "It is and has consistently been our aim to assist her political development till she can sustain the responsibilities of complete self-government within the British Commonwealth…"
  The noble Lord argued that Burma had not yet arrived at the position at which she could sustain responsibilities of complete self-government. But if we look further down the White Paper we find in paragraph 3 reference to the proclamation that was issued in 1942, the effect of which was to put the Government of Burma into commission. It provides as follows:
  "As the proclamation issued in 1942 exhausts its validity in December next, it is proposed to make it permissible to prolong
  1950
  its validity for three years more, that is till 9th December, 1948. Parliament is asked to approve this extension for a period of three years only "—
  that is, till December, 1948–
  "in the hope that it will be possible by then, if not before, to establish conditions in which a General Election can be held and a Government established…"
  Those conditions have occurred. The General Election has taken place, and the Government have been established under the Constitution. Therefore, I submit to the House that it is not the case that the conditions which were adumbrated in the White Paper have not yet happened, but that, in fact, they have, and that we are, therefore, entitled to allow, as was pointed out in a subsequent paragraph, that constituent Assembly to meet and to draft their Constitution.
  Earl Winterton: Within the British Commonwealth.
  Mr. Henderson: The difference is this, that the Opposition—or those Members of the Opposition who take the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford—rest their case on the fact that the White Paper provides for Dominion status within the British Commonwealth of Nations, whereas we are giving them independence with the right to be outside the British Commonwealth of Nations. That, of course, does bring this House face to face with a fundamental aspect of the society of nations which we know as the British Commonwealth of Nations. I do not believe that I can be accused of exaggerating when I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's view of this Bill strikes at the very foundation of the British Commonwealth of Nations as we know it today. The essence of the British Commonwealth is voluntary association of those nations which form parts of it. If we are to be told that the people of Burma may have Dominion status but that they are not to be allowed to exercise their right to decide whether they will remain within or without the British Commonwealth of Nations, then I suggest that that is entirely inconsistent with the conception—
  Mr. Churchill: Who ever said anything like that? If they have Dominion status, it is quite true that in due course they have the right, if they choose, to opt outside the British Empire. No one has disputed that. That was the Statute of

  1951
  Westminster. No one has disputed it. But the intervening stage was to give them the chance of exercising free option.
  Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir, but the elected representatives of the people of Burma take the other view. They do not want to have Dominion status for a period of "due course." They have decided unanimously in their Constituent Assembly that they want to start their independence outside the British Commonwealth ab initio, and not after a period of "due course"—whatever that may be.
  I should like to make my own position clear on this point, and I am quite sure that I am speaking for the great majority of my colleagues on this side, if not for all of them. I have great faith in the British Commonwealth of Nations. I believe it sets an example to the rest of the world in the relations that exist within it between the nations that compose the British Commonwealth of Nations, and I certainly do not stand at this Box tonight in any spirit of jubilation because Burma has seen fit to leave the British Commonwealth. But I do take my stand upon this: I believe that the policy of the Government is right, that the Government are doing the right thing in allowing the people of Burma to exercise their free right to control their own destiny, whether or not they are doing the best thing from their point of view.
  This Bill marks a further step in the development of a policy which, I am convinced, represents the true, democratic genius of the British people. We do not regard ourselves as dormant Imperialists whose duty or pleasure it is to impose our will upon subject peoples, or whose function it is to exploit less advanced peoples for our own benefit. There was a time not long ago when the Government of this country, while giving expression to many laudable sentiments, yet so carried out their policies as to perpetuate British domination wherever it was thought economic advantage might be gained. That policy may have suited certain sections of this country who stood to gain by it, but it was never the objective of the broad masses of the people. They have always, I believe, taken the view, which is shared by the
  1952
  present Government, that it is our task to enable others to enjoy the same democratic freedom that we ourselves enjoy.
  Mr. Churchill: What about the deaths of half a million people in India? Enjoying democratic freedom! Half a million killed, and who has done it?
  Mr. Henderson: Every hon. and right hon. Member of this House regrets the tragic events that are taking place in India and Pakistan today. But do not let us forget the history of the world. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that even in the history of the United States of America—a country for which he and I, and the rest of the House, have the most friendly sentiments—they had to go through tribulation; tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, were slaughtered during the Civil War in the fifties—
  Earl Winterton: What a comparison.
  Mr. Henderson: The point is, whether we are dealing with the United States of America or whether we are dealing with India or Pakistan, once we have acknowledged the right of the people of those countries to settle their own destinies, then it is not for us—
  Earl Winterton: It is disgraceful to compare America with this situation.
  Mr. George Porter: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the noble Lord, who himself claimed the protection of the Chair, not to extend to my right hon. and learned Friend the very courtesy for which he asked?
  Mr. Henderson: I am quite indifferent to what the noble Lord has to say. This afternoon the right hon. Member for Woodford made, I must confess, what I thought was a speech which in parts was not worthy of him. He is a man of great personal prestige and great political authority, and I cannot help thinking that some of the remarks he made will be difficult of understanding for people in far off countries who do not understand the cut and thrust of debate as we know it in this country and in this House; they will not understand the references which he made, for example, to one or two of the leaders of the Burmese people. It is not for me to make apologia on behalf of the late U Aung San. It is a matter of perspective, of point of view, as to when a

  1953
  man is a traitor. He may be a traitor from the point of view of this country, but it does not follow that he would be a traitor from the point of view of his own country.
  Mr. Churchill: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman again, but in the case of U Aung San one has very little choice. Either he was a traitor to Burma when he helped the Japanese to come in, or he was a traitor to the Japanese when he deserted them to join the British. We get him both ways.
  Mr. Henderson: What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is, that he was the author of the phrase "working your passage home," which he applied, I believe, to Marshal Badoglio. There is only this to be said, that I have never heard a British subject paying tribute to the support given to us by Marshal Badoglio which we know Lord Mount-batten, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, has seen fit to pay to the services of the late U Aung San.
  Mr. Churchill: I really must cavil at this comparison between U Aung San and Marshal Badoglio. Marshal Badoglio was an Italian who fought for his country when war was declared by the Government of the country, and at a certain stage, when the tyranny of Mussolini was overthrown, in which he took a part, he came over to our side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Be patient. That is quite a different thing from a man who comes with an invading Army into his own country, helping a foreign nation to invade and overthrow his own country, and then, when he sees that that foreign nation is going to be beaten, changes over to the other side. You must be just, even to Marshal Badoglio.
  Mr. Henderson: I think that Marshal Badoglio's record was a little erratic, because at one time he was prepared to play ball with Hitler.
  Sir Peter Macdonald: What has Marshal Badoglio got to do with Burma?
  Mr. Henderson: I have been long enough in this House to know that one is entitled to use examples by way of illustration. I was very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he and his friends could not support the
  1954
  Government, with regard to this Bill, on Imperialistic and moral grounds. I do not propose to follow him as regards Imperialist grounds, but I was very interested that he should base his opposition on moral grounds, because I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, all sections of this House and the population of this country were morally bound to do what we are doing in this Bill. I will tell the House why. If I may make a personal reference, the right hon. Gentleman has had a great effect upon my mind twice in my life—once when I was a schoolboy listening to a Debate, nearly 40 years ago, in the House of Commons on Home Rule for Ireland, which the right hon. Gentleman was winding up, just as I am winding up this Debate. It had been a much more acrimonious Debate than we have had here, and he made a fine fighting speech, breathing the very essence of Liberalism with a small "1." That speech left an indelible impression on my mind. The subsequent occasion on which action by the right hon. Gentleman had a profound effect upon my mind was when he signed the Atlantic Charter. I took an opportunity to refresh my memory by getting a copy of it and looking through it, and I should like to quote this extract to the House. It states:
  "The President of the United States and the Prime Minister Mr. Churchill representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of our respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world."
  After the first and the second principles, the third states:
  "They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live."
  Mr. Churchill: It is well known that when I came back from the voyage where the Atlantic Charter was signed, I was asked in this House formally about its application to these very problems of our Eastern Empire, and I gave a full and clear answer agreed upon by all my colleagues in the Cabinet, including the then Deputy-Prime Minister, who is now sitting by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's side. He should not quote the statement of the Atlantic Charter, unless he quotes this agreed answer which was made.
  Mr. Henderson: Was not that explanation based upon the fact that it was agreed by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that this was already the policy of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Churchill: No, it was explained exactly how the words of the Atlantic Charter applied. It certainly was implicit in the answer that we were moving forward to the establishment of self government in these countries as they became fitted for it.
  Mr. Henderson: It is a matter of opinion when people of any kind are fitted for self-government.
  There are one or two questions which were addressed to me with which I should like to deal. The hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) raised the question of the non-Secretary of State services in Burma. May I say at once, in company with the noble Lord, both he and I have worked in the Burma office and know the valuable services that have been rendered by the civil servants who have been sent out from this country—and the Burmans recruited in Burma—and the excellent service they have rendered in the past. I shall be only too happy to associate myself with the tribute which he has paid to them tonight.
  The position with regard to the non-Secretary of State services, as they are covered by paragraph 5 of the Treaty, which, if hon. Members will look at it, is an undertaking by the Government of Burma that they will be responsible for all the pensions, remuneration, and other conditions of service of the British who are engaged in service in Burma. They have now agreed that a proportionate pension will be paid to those British civil servants who belong to the non-Secretary of State services, on the basis that their services are no longer required. The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) raised the question of compensation. The position is that under the war damage insurance policies, the claims in respect of them are in process of being settled at the present moment by the Government of Burma.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: What about the other claims?
  Mr. Henderson: Those are under consideration.
  Mr. Fletcher: Is the responsibility for meeting these to be that of His Majesty's Government or the Burmese Government?
  Mr. Henderson: The question of these payments when made is to be settled between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Burma.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) raised the question of the Anglo-Burmans. I think that every Member of this House will have every feeling of sympathy for these people. The great majority of them have kith and kin in this country and, therefore, on that basis, I think that there was nothing between us. In so far as it is possible to obtain their views, we can only do so through the Anglo-Burman council, which for some years and before the war was recognised as the official body speaking on their behalf, and they have made it clear in pronouncements that they believe that their future lies in Burma. I can only say that the letter which the hon. Gentleman read out to the House tonight is the very opposite of the information which I have received, based on a statement made by a Mr. Rivers, who is a responsible member of the Anglo-Burma community and a member of the Constituent Assembly. In a broadcast a few days ago, he said:
  "I am grateful to the Premier "—
  that is the Burmese Premier—
  "for his recent assurances to us of equal opportunity and advancement in the service of our country. His assurances are proved by the fact that our small community has been privileged to be actively associated in the shaping of the destinies of our country. The fact that a few of the highest posts of administration in our country have been given to Anglo-Burmese for the first time in our history is further proof of the Premier's recent assurances to us and I call upon each one in my community to give of his best in the service of our country."
  I think that indicates from the official spokesman on behalf of the Anglo-Burmese community that that community takes a rather different view from the letter which Was read out by the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir W. Smithers: Even so, will the Government at this late hour receive a deputation?
  Mr. Henderson: I do not think that any advantage would arise if I indicated that the Government would receive a deuta-

  1957
  tion. In conclusion, may I say this Bill is in keeping with the highest traditions of this House. By it, the British Parliament will be adding one more free and independent nation to the number on this earth. This nation of ours, which stands in the van of freedom-loving peoples, is the better able to appreciate and understand the aspirations towards freedom of another people. We have done much over past decades to aid and encourage Burmese progress in the art of self-government. Let us now bestow the priceless gift of full independence in a mood at once generous and hopeful and with our sincere wishes for Burma's future peace, prosperity and social
  advancement. I hope and believe that by what we are engaged in doing tonight we shall create a new relationship between the peoples of the British Commonwealth, of Nations and of Burma that will be based on the solid foundation of mutual friendship, trust and respect, and one which will have lasting strength, because its roots are firmly implanted in the charter of freedom which we are considering tonight. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to support this Bill.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 114.

  Division No. 21.

  AYES.

  [9.58 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Holman, P.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Deer, G.

  Holmes, H. E, (Hemsworth)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  House, G

  Alpass, J. H

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hoy, J.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Diamond, J.

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

  Anderson, F (Whitehaven)

  Dobbie, W.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Dodds, N. N

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R

  Donovan, T.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Awbery, S. S

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Dye, S.

  Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

  Bacon, Miss A

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

  Baird, J.

  Edwarde, Rt. Hon. Sir (Cwellty)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Balfour, A.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Janner, B.

  Barstow, P. G

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Barton, C

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Battley, J. R.

  Evans, A. (Islington, W.)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Bechervaise, A. £

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Berry, H.

  Evane, John (Ogmore)

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Beswick, F.

  Evane, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Keenan, W.

  Bing, G. H. C

  Ewart, R.

  Kenyon, C

  Blenkinsop, A

  Fairhurst, F.

  King, E. M.

  Blyton, W. R

  Farthing, W. J

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Boardman, H.

  Fernyhough, E

  Kinley, J.

  Bottomley, A G.

  Follick, M.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr H. W.

  Foot, M. M.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Bowen, R.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

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

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Leonard, W.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

  Lever, N. H.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Gallacher, W.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Brown, T. d. (Ince)

  Gibbins, J.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Buchanan, G.

  Gibson, C. W

  Lipton, D. L.

  Burden, T. W

  Gilzean, A.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Burke, W. A.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Logan, D. G.

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

  Gooch, E. G.

  Low, A. R. W

  Byers, Frank

  Gordon-Walker, P. C

  Lyne, A. W.

  Callaghan, James

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  McAdam, W

  Carmichael, James

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  McEntee, V. La

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Champion, A. J.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  McGovern, J.

  Chetwynd, G R

  Grey, C. F.

  Mack, J. D.

  Cluse, WS

  Grierson, E.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  MacMillan, M K. (Western Isles)

  Coldrick, W.

  Griffiths, Rt Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Macpherson, T (Romford)

  Collindridge, F.

  Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Colman, Miss G M.

  Guy, W. H

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Cook, T. F.

  Hall, Rt Hon Glenvil

  Marquand, H. A.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N W.)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Corlett, Dr. J

  Hardy, E. A.

  Medland, H. M.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Crawley, A.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Mikardo, lan.

  Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R

  Daggar, G.

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hobson, C R

  Monslow, W.

  Moody, A. S.

  Rees-Williams, D. R

  Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Reeves, J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Morley, R.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Richards, R.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Mort, D. L

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Tiffany, S.

  Moyle, A.

  Robens, A.

  Timmons, J

  Murray, J. D

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Nally, W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Usborne, Henry

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

  Rogers, G. H R.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Viant, S. P

  Nicholson, G,

  Royle, C.

  Walker, G. H

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

  Scollan, T

  Warbey, W. N.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  O'Brien, T.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Oldfield, W. H

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Orbach, M.

  Sharp, Granville

  West, D. G.

  Paget, R. T.

  Shurmer, P.

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

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Paling, Will T. (Dowsbury)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Wigg, George

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Parker, J.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Williams, D. J (Neath)

  Parkin, B. T

  Skinnard, F W.

  Williams, J. L, (Kelvingrove)

  Pearson, A.

  Smith, C (Colchester)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Perrins, W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Piratin, P.

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

  Williamson, T

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S W.)

  Willis, E.

  Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

  Solley, L. J

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Popplewell, E.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Wilson, Rt. Ho. J H

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Stamford, W

  Woodburn, A

  Pritt, D. N.

  Steele, T.

  Woods, G S

  Proctor, W T.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Wyatt, W

  Pryde, D. J.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. G (Lambeth, N.)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Stross, Dr. B

  Younger, Hon Kenneth

  Randall, H. E

  Swingler, S.

  Zilliacus, K

  Ranger, J

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Rankin, J.

  Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)

  Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.

  NOES

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Gammans, L. D.

  Pitman, L. J.

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

  Hare, Hon. J. H (Woodbridge)

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon R

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Price-White, Lt -Col. D

  Baldwin, A. E.

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

  Raikes, H. V

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Bossom, A. C

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bower, N.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Ropner, Col L

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Ross, Sir R D. (Londonderry)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com C. (E'b'rgh W)

  Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)

  Bullock, Capt. M

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Carson, E.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

  Challen, C.

  Jennings, R.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Channon, H.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W S

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

  Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

  Clarke, Col. R. S,

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Stuart, Rt Hon. J. (Moray)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

  Studholme, H G.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Sutcliffe, H

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

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Linstead, H N.

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

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A. F

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Touche, G. C.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O.

  Turton, R. H.

  Digby, S. W.

  MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Vane, W. M F

  Macdonald, Sir P. (L of Wight)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W

  Donner, P. W.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Walker-Smith, D.

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

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Marlowe, A. A H.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Duthie, W S.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon Walter

  Maude, J. C.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

  Fox, Sir G

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'stor)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fraser, Sir L. (Lonsdale)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Fyle, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M

  Orr-Ewing, L. L.

  York, C.

  Gage, C.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

  Pickthorn, K

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS
  Select Committee appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally:
  Mr. Cluse, Mr. Driberg, Mr. John Foster, Mr. Wilson Harris, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Messer, Mr. Naylor, Mr. Stamford, Dr. Barnett Stross, Mr. Thornton-Kemsley and Mr. Walker to be members of the Committee:
  Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records:
  Committee to have power to, report from time to time:
  Three to be the Quorum.— [Mr. R. J Taylor.]

  Mr. Howard discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates, and Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth added.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to, the Urban District of Cirencester, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd November, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of East Elloe, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd November, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act,
  1962
  1932, to the Urban District of Hay, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd November, be approved."
  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 Hinckley, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd November, be approved."
  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 Borough of Oswestry, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd November, be approved."
  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 Wilmslow, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd November, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (DEVELOPMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
  10. p.m.
  Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: The subject to which I want to draw the attention of the House tonight for a few minutes is development in Southern Rhodesia. I am interested in Southern Rhodesia, and it is customary when we are speaking here to disclose our interest in the subject under discussion. My interest is one which began to develop before the war, when I found myself having to lecture on various parts of our Commonwealth. During the war that interest was increased, when I found that Rhodesians with whom I served in the Royal Air Force were doing the same job as myself and others, and that brought home to me the fact that we were all members of one nation.
  I carried on that interest, and got into touch with events in Southern Rhodesia as much as I possibly could while here in England, and, in doing so, I rather infected friends of mine with that same keen interest. So much so that a week or so ago an acquaintance of mine went to Southern Rhodesia, filled with the same sort of interest in that country, and is now making great efforts to get additional

  1963
  transport going in that country—which is three times the size of England and Wales—to help build up Southern Rhodesia's economic resources.
  Further, I am much interested in a project already put forward to form the basis of increased immigration into Southern Rhodesia. That project is increased housing capacity. I and many others feel that the future of Southern Rhodesia is assured. There are steel plants already in operation, and ample resources for feeding those plants, and business men from this country have already committed themselves to long-term projects for making Southern Rhodesia the steel-producing centre for the whole of the Continent of Africa. In addition, the massive resources of water power, of which children in this country already know from pictures of the Zambesi River, the Victoria Falls, and so forth, are marked down for much more rapid exploitation. In years to come Southern Rhodesia will be the African centre for the electrical development of the whole of that Continent.
  We know that every part of our Commonwealth would like more immigrants than are being received today, but the major difficulty is transport. We cannot move as many people as wish to go from this country to various Dominions, because we lack ships and aircraft. Even when priority passages are obtained then; is no housing accommodation for the immigrants. Despite this the future of Southern Rhodesia, from the point of view of immigration, is assured, because those who served in the R.A.F., at operational training aerodromes in that country, remember how impressed we were by it, and its possibilities.
  The reason I have brought up this subject tonight is not mainly for these long-term projects, but to bring to the attention of the House the possibilities of short-term action in Southern Rhodesia, if our Government can act along with the Government of Southern Rhodesia to exploit as quickly as possible some of the resources lying to hand in that wonderful little country in order to help us to bridge the terrible dollar gap. I suppose we all know that the centre of that famous story, "King Solomon's Mines" was really concentrated in Rhodesia, but it would be a truism to say today that "King
  1964
  Solomon's Mines" are waiting now to be exploited, and can be exploited without the difficulty we have to encounter when we exploit similar raw materials in our own country. There are only fewer than 100,000 white people in that country which, I repeat, is three times the size of England and Wales, and yet the resources are ready to be tapped. Not only that, but if we tackle the situation properly, we can tap them and pipe them over to the countries where we must get exports in order to bridge the dollar gap Some of these raw materials which I shall mention in a moment would be only too welcome now in large quantities in America, both North and South, and in return, through that channel, we could get increased supplies of beef from South America, hides, and so on.
  First let me mention chrome. There is a small place in Southern Rhodesia where chrome has been mined for some time. My information—and it is also the information which Sir Miles Thomas found out a few weeks ago—is that already there are 300,000 tons of this chrome ore lying in a stock pile at a place called Selukwe. It is worth half a million pounds at present market value, and it cannot be used because the railways and the road transport facilities are not enough to move this commodity which could be sold at once to the United States and thus bring dollars into the sterling area immediately. That is only one way. We all know that in these days gold has fallen rather in popular esteem, and that a more valuable thing is better supplies of coal. I think I am safe in saying that in Southern Rhodesia there is the most wonderful coal mine in the world—if one can call it a coal mine. Many of us have been aware for some time that it existed, how easy it was for the coal to be mined, how it is in much greater seams than in our country, and how one did not have to send miners walking four and a half miles from the place where the cage gets to the bottom of the pit before they start work, as was mentioned from this very bench only last week by one ex-miner. Sir Miles Thomas said on 21st September, in the "Sunday Times," after his recent return from Southern Rhodesia:
  "I marvelled at the possibilities of the Wankle coal mine. Instead of going down in a cage, one actually motors to the coal face. It is as simple as entering the Mersey Tunnel—and the height of the underground work

  1965
  ings is nearly as great. The coal seam is 26 feet thick. There is enough in the deposit—5,200,000,000 tons—to give a yield of 2,500,000 tons a year for 2,000 years."
  That is long enough for us to develop atomic power in this country and say goodbye to coal. He said:
  "It is high quality, good coking coal with a thermal equivalent of 13,500 B.T.Us."—
  whatever they are—
  "The price at pithead is under 10s. a ton. It sells as domestic fuel in Salisbury 500 miles away, for 35s. a ton delivered and 27s. a ton in truck. Industrial consumers naturally pay lower prices."
  That is the position of coal. It is easy to get plenty of it and enough to last this country for many a long year to come. There is a similar story to tell of other raw materials—mica asbestos, which, I am led to believe, is consumed mostly by manufacturers in this country. There is gold, of course, which as I have said, rather falls behind some of these other raw materials these days. Then there is tobacco which is helping us out, but it is a curious thing that tobacco in Southern Rhodesia is exported to America of all places, and is one of the ways in which dollars come back to the sterling area. It is a landlocked little country—little compared with other African countries, but much bigger than this country—and its outlet to the sea is normally through Portugese territory. There is a single-line track working and the normal outlet is to the Eastern part of Africa through a foreign port. On the West, much further off, is a port in British territory, and between there and the port one has to go through Bechuanaland. On examining the map I find that some years ago another man had a similar idea to mine that we could force a way through to the West coast. That is a possibility which can bear examination, and it was thought of 15 years ago. Railway lines do exist, and the gap is only 600 miles.
  I wish to emphasise that here are valuable deposits on British territory. We are hungering for dollars, and many things which we hope to export have never been exported to America, and some believe never will be exported there, but in this wonderful part of the Empire—these King Solomon's Mines—there are valuable deposits for which Americans North and South are hungering. Would it not be worth while for the Government
  1966
  to summon the civil servants of the Commonwealth Relations Office and of the Economic Planning staff to sit down for a week or a fortnight to study this question, especially as representatives of the Dominion Governments will be here for the Royal Wedding, and see if there is any way by which we can exploit these deposits as they were exploited during the war? I think it would be a thing worth trying. If it failed, at least it would have been an effort, and if it succeeded the prospects are endless. We should be simply digging up dollars on some of our own territories in Africa, and, it may be we could sacrifice some of the steel rails that we want in this country, some of the trucks, and some of the manpower which we are due to direct, in order to make this short-term effort and to get a better return for that effort. I think it worth while for the Government to consider it, and I ask the Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply for the first time, other than answering Questions in the House, to consider it. I congratulate him beforehand because I shall not have an opportunity afterwards. I hope he will accede to my request.
  10.24 p.m.
  Colonel Ponsonby: I wish to support what has been said. Rhodesia is an oasis of potential wealth and the only difficulty is that communications are at the moment very difficult. I am afraid that it is a long-term policy to drive that railway to the West. I hope, however, that in the near future the survey for that 600-mile railway will be completed. A great deal of that line would go through Bechuanaland, which is a Protectorate, and I hope that that will be one of the schemes which may be dealt with under the new Bill, which we shall hear about tomorrow. In the meantime, I would endorse what the hon. Member has said.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Rankin: I listened with interest and appreciation to what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) had to say, and I do not wish, in the few minutes at my disposal, to indicate any deep difference in my attitude from his. He mentioned two commodities which were produced in Rhodesia and he gave the pit-head price of one of them—coal—as 10s. a ton. That

  1967
  is an interesting figure, and we must keep it in mind, because when we talk about a pit-head price of 10s. a ton for coal we must remember the standard of living which is indicated by the kind of price which is paid for that coal. He mentioned tobacco, which we get from that wealthy area. One of the last returns I saw dealing with the tobacco industry in Rhodesia showed a profit for the year of £12 million, out of which £7 million went out of Rhodesia in the form of dividends to people who were taking no part in creating that wealth, and the average wage of the individuals who work in those tobacco fields was £5 per year. That is an aspect which we have to keep in mind. We certainly want to develop the trade and wealth of Rhodesia, but at the same time we wish to raise the standard of living of the working people in that area, so that with a higher standard of living they will be able to consume some of the commodities which we can give them in fair trading in exchange for the products of that wealthy area.
  10.29 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) for raising this matter, which is of great common interest to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Southern Rhodesia. As he said, Southern Rhodesia is a self-governing member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the way in which its wealth is developed is, of course, its own affair. It is most important to bear that in mind when discussing these matters. On the other hand, we are, as I shall try to show, extremely ready to agree to help in any way in which we are able, and there is frequent, constant and friendly contact between the two Governments. My hon. and gallant Friend gave a fair and accurate description of the sources of wealth in that very rich country. He mentioned the mineral resources there which are only just beginning to be tapped—chrome, of which Rhodesia is one of the main sources of supply, and coal. He gave a description of the Wankie coalfield. We must remember that that is only one small corner of one coalfield. There are other coalfields of
  1968
  that sort yet to be tapped. Then there is asbestos, of which Southern Rhodesia is by far the biggest source of supply in the world. The iron and steel industry is just "opening out and there is at Que Que a great plant which will be the best equipped plant south of the Equator.
  Now, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth and the hon. and gallant Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) both stressed and put their finger on a critical matter, namely, transport. The immediate difficulty is transport, though there are some other long-term difficulties connected with the shortage of labour. But the immediate shortage is rolling stock and locomotives. I do not think it is possible in any short run for the Government of Southern Rhodesia to build great new railway lines. I think they are a long-term proposal which will help in the long run, but the short-term need is locomotives and rolling stock. The situation which my hon. and gallant Friend described about chrome is general in Southern Rhodesia. At all sources of supply great stock piles amounting to something like two years' supply are accumulated, because there is not the necessary rolling stock to remove it. The development of coal and iron is also held up by the shortage of transport.
  I am glad to be able to report that the Government of Southern Rhodesia are taking strong and energetic steps to deal with these bottlenecks. Earlier this year they nationalised the railways in Southern Rhodesia and placed important orders, in this country and in Canada, in the main, for rolling stock and locomotives. We are doing everything possible in this country to see that locomotives and wagons are given due priority and their delivery is expedited. There are 30 locomotives on order in Britain, and eight were delivered between June and August, The remainder, I am assured, are coming through with due priority and the rate at which they are coming through is constantly watched. Eight hundred wagons are due to be delivered from this country by the end of 1948. I do not think we can go quite so far as my hon. Friend suggested and sacrifice all our own major interests, because we, too, have vital interests in this field of transport and we have to balance one thing with another. But I do not think anyone can claim that we are not giving high and due priority to these

  1969
  things urgently needed, in our common interest, by Southern Rhodesia.
  We are also giving help in a number of long-term directions, one of which my hon. Friend has mentioned. That is in regard to immigration, which is of great long-term importance and also of some short-term importance. An agreement has been signed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Southern Rhodesia by which free passage is given to a number of ex-Service men and women. We, on our part, pay the ocean part of their passage, but transport is holding that up badly at the moment. The other long-term interest is the development of power Here, there is the great and ambitious scheme to develop the Kariba Gorge on the Zambesi River which appears to have magnificent resources which could be developed not only for the industries of Southern Rhodesia, but of Northern Rhodesia as well. The Governments of Northern and Southern Rhodesia have agreed between themselves and John Brown and Co., Ltd., to investigate the possibilities of water power and railways and minerals in the two countries and to pay for these investigations. If these investigations are satisfactory, and no one can say beforehand that they will be, though it seems probable that they will be, they have agreed to enter into a contract with John Brown and Co., Ltd. The results of a preliminary survey in Northern Rhodesia have been encouraging. But that scheme is going to be expensive and elaborate and will cost £18,000,000, and to complete the scheme is likely to take 10 years. Mr. Davenport, the Minister of Mines and Public Works said in a recent speech—
  Colonel Ponsonby: Is it not the case that the £18,000,000 is to be put up by the two Governments and £5,000,000 by industrialists?
  Mr. Gordon-Walker: That is quite true. I mentioned £18,000,000 because it is proposed by the two. Governments in Rhodesia that it should be raised in London. We have been asked for our views and we have expressed the warmest support and encouragement. Of course, it is impossible for the Government here to give a pledge to raise a given sum of money two or three years from now. We cannot possibly know the state of the capital market, and capital investment is a very serious problem; but, short of that commitment, we have given the warmest encouragement to this development. We must remember that the success of the scheme is not yet assured, but it is a highly hopeful scheme.
  We are doing exactly what the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked us to do at the end of his speech, namely, to meet with the experts and Ministers of Southern Rhodesia and go thoroughly into the future developments of Southern Rhodesia. Very fortunately, Sir Godfrey Huggins, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, is coming to this country for the Royal Wedding and is specially prolonging his stay, with the Ministers and civil servants he is bringing with him, so as to go into full discussion with the Government, covering this, and many other matters. We, for our part, welcome this initiative that he has taken and we will conduct the discussions in the most generous way possible, and we will do everything we can to help the Government of Southern Rhodesia in any way that it can suggest, and which is feasible, to develop the really great resources of that very rich country
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

CIVIL AVIATION
  Works Stoppage, B.O.A.C.
  Works Stoppage, B.O.A.C.
  British Colonies (Air Services)
  British Colonies (Air Services)
  Cardiff-Bristol-Weston Services
  Cardiff-Bristol-Weston Services
KENYA
  Kikuyu Demonstration, Nairobi
  Kikuyu Demonstration, Nairobi
  Nairobi Airport (African Passengers)
  Nairobi Airport (African Passengers)
  Railway Workers (Remuneration)
  Railway Workers (Remuneration)
  REQUISITIONED SCHOOL, PALESTINE
  REQUISITIONED SCHOOL, PALESTINE
  INDENTURED LABOUR, SOLOMON ISLANDS
  INDENTURED LABOUR, SOLOMON ISLANDS
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (TRAVEL FACILITIES)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (TRAVEL FACILITIES)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Dumped Fish
  Dumped Fish
  Bread Rationing
  Bread Rationing
  Social Functions (Meals)
  Social Functions (Meals)
  Feedingstuffs Licence, Milton
  Feedingstuffs Licence, Milton
  Australian and New Zealand Meat
  Australian and New Zealand Meat
  United States Pears
  United States Pears
ROYAL NAVY
  Strength
  Strength
  Dockyards (Merchant Ships)
  Dockyards (Merchant Ships)
  Retired Officers (Employment)
  Retired Officers (Employment)
  Commissions (Electrical Branch)
  Commissions (Electrical Branch)
  Crown Lands, Plymouth (Public Facilities)
  Crown Lands, Plymouth (Public Facilities)
  Rosyth Dockyard (Civilian Production)
  Rosyth Dockyard (Civilian Production)
  Devonport Barracks (Reconstruction)
  Devonport Barracks (Reconstruction)
  Sea Cadets
  Sea Cadets
  Electric Galley Ranges
  Electric Galley Ranges
  Air-Conditioning Improvements
  Air-Conditioning Improvements
POST OFFICE
  Postmen (Ex-Service Men)
  Postmen (Ex-Service Men)
  Vehicles, Dorset
  Vehicles, Dorset
  Cable Communication (Europe)
  Cable Communication (Europe)
  Telephones (Party Lines)
  Telephones (Party Lines)
  Collections, London
  Collections, London
BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
  Broadcasting Hours
  Broadcasting Hours
  Third Programme (Reception)
  Third Programme (Reception)
  GERMAN SUBMARINES (DESTRUCTION)
  GERMAN SUBMARINES (DESTRUCTION)
  RAILWAY COMPANIES (STAFF)
  RAILWAY COMPANIES (STAFF)
ROADS
  Winter Gritting Arrangements
  Winter Gritting Arrangements
  Maintenance
  Maintenance
  E.C.I.T.O. (SUBSCRIPTIONS)
  E.C.I.T.O. (SUBSCRIPTIONS)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Brabazon and Saunders Roe Aircraft
  Brabazon and Saunders Roe Aircraft
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Factory Extensions, Portsmouth
  Factory Extensions, Portsmouth
  Football Pools (Paper Allocation)
  Football Pools (Paper Allocation)
  ARMED FORCES (OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE)
  ARMED FORCES (OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE)
BRITISH ARMY
  Auxiliary Forces (Trade Unionists)
  Auxiliary Forces (Trade Unionists)
  Air Mail, U.K.—Palestine
  Air Mail, U.K.—Palestine
  POLES (TECHNICAL TRAINING)
  POLES (TECHNICAL TRAINING)
  STERLING CONVERTIBILITY
  STERLING CONVERTIBILITY
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Births and Vaccination Statistics
  Births and Vaccination Statistics
  Water Act, 1945 (Joint Boards)
  Water Act, 1945 (Joint Boards)
  EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS (NOTES OF PROTEST)
  EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS (NOTES OF PROTEST)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  CIVIL AIRCRAFT.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government, whether it has been decided that the construction of the Brabazon I civil airliners and the Saunders-Roe civil flying boats shall be suspended in whole or part.]
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, the noble Lord has doubtless in mind reports in the Press that owing to the economic position work had been, or might be, suspended on the Brabazon I civil airliner and the Saunders-Roe civil flying boats and other aircraft. That is not the case. The future of the airliners in question will be considered in the ordinary way entirely on their merits.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister whether the second part of his reply does not take away the very satisfactory first part, when he said that construction was not to be stopped? Does he mean it will be stopped?
  LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I was attempting to answer the question put to me as I understood it, and to make it clear that the present economic position is not a factor which has been taken into account in considering the future of these particular airliners, which will be considered in the ordinary way on their merits independently of the economic situation.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Do I understand that there is still some doubt as to whether these half constructed liners, on
  464
  which a great deal of money has been spent, will be proceeded with? That is really the point to which I would like an answer.
  LORD NATHAN: I cannot add at the moment to what I have already said to the noble Lord. It was intended to be a frank answer to his question.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: It does not answer it. I am sorry.

IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING HOUSES.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The question was as follows:
[To ask His Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to carry out the intention announced by the Minister of Health on July 31, 1947, to include in the housing programme the provision of financial assistance for the improvement of existing houses in town and country whether carried out by a local authority or by other persons.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, while it remains the intention of His Majesty's Government to include in their housing programme provision of the nature described by the noble Lord, it also remains their opinion that for the present the most urgent need is to concentrate on the building of new houses as much labour and materials as can be made available. No steps have, therefore, yet been taken to introduce legislation providing financial assistance for the improvement of existing houses, but the matter will be considered further as soon as circumstances permit.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, arising from that answer I would like to ask the noble Lord whether the discussions with the local authority organizations have been instituted with a view to arranging for a plan on this matter, as was indicated in a reply in another place?
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am not aware of the discussions to which the noble Lord refers. All I can say is that a circular has been sent out to the local authorities on the matter. If the noble Lord has not seen a copy I shall be very happy to supply him with one.
LORD O'HAGAN: I am much obliged.

AGRICULTURAL HOUSING.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Onslow, I beg to ask the question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what instructions have been given to local authorities to ensure that (a) houses built for agricultural workers are built on sites most suitable to local needs; (b) they are in fact occupied by bona-fide agricultural workers.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, local authorities concerned with the provision of houses for the agricultural population have been asked to maintain the closest consultation with county agricultural executive committees. By this means they should be able to secure the best possible advice tooth on the siting of new houses in relation to agricultural needs and on the occupational qualifications of prospective tenants.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, arising out of that reply, would the noble Lord undertake that the communications which have passed between the Minister of Health and local authorities on this question should be placed before Parliament or in some other way published?
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I will certainly bring that to the notice of my right honourable friend and see what can be done on the lines suggested by the noble Lord.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Borough of Oswestry Order;
URBAN DISTRICT OF CIRENCESTER ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF HAY ORDER;
Urban District of Hinckley Order;
URBAN DISTRICT OF WILMSLOW ORDER;
RURAL DISTRICT OF EAST ELLOE ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: 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, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TREATIES WITH SOVIET SATELLITES.
2.42 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART had the following Notice on the Order Paper: To move to resolve, That in view of the persistent violation by the Soviet satellites of their obligation to secure the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, of Press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting, the Treaties recently concluded with them should now be reconsidered.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that I have imposed upon myself to-day a pretty thankless task. I raised this subject eight mouths ago to-day, on March 5, in this House and I got nowhere. I think your Lordships will understand that, when I look at what has happened in Europe since that date, I realty feel it a matter of conscience to try again, and I therefore hope you will bear with me. The truth is that for a long time past now, consciously or unconsciously, we have all been involved in one of the greatest spiritual struggles of all time. It began officially in A.D. 1933 but it really began a good while before that. Now rival doctrines can co-exist, but there is one difference between the democracies and the totalitarian systems which seems to me unbridgeable. It is that Christianity and democracy teach that the individual matters and that human life is sacred, whereas all totalitarian systems override those fundamental tenets.
That accounts for the close kinship often apparent between Communism and Nazism, a similarity by now becoming a commonplace, in such matters as an expansionist foreign policy or the use of improved communications for increasing human hatreds. But there is one point of similarity which is all too frequently overlooked and that is that totalitarian do not keep treaties. For a long time past, in pre-war and post-war days, we have engaged in concluding treaties with people who have neither kept nor meant to keep them. If we go on with this policy we shall ultimately reach a situation where the whole treaty system will be discredited; and so I am trying again to-day to find some remedy for this really grave situation. I hope to show that

467
there are remedies, and that they can be found without too much drama and disturbance. In any case, I ask your Lordships to agree with me in saying that in the long run it is impossible to go on with a system whereby the faithful are always bound and the faithless always free.
Since the exercise of human liberties, as we understand them, is barred in the totalitarian States, we were certainly optimistic in concluding with some of those States treaties which provided for the exercise of just those liberties. Long before the period of ratification came it was apparent that those treaties were not only being broken but were going to be even more broken after we had ratified them. It may be within the recollection of your Lordships that before we rose in August I begged the Government not to ratify until there had been some further review of the situation. But because we did not seem yet to have found a long-term policy which necessarily involves a moral basis, we did ratify; and that led to one of the most tragic mistakes I can remember. On September 15 we ratified a series of treaties. On September 16 Petkov's appeal was due to be heard. Eight days later he was hanged. If I had had my way—I know the idea is preposterous—I would have liked to say to those concerned: "If you intend to proceed with this infamous course, which is the clearest possible breach of the treaty, there will be no ratification." For once we had the whip hand—and we grabbed a pen!
Petkov is dead. But I do not think he will perish, because he holds a high place in an innumerable array of ghosts who are the victims of sheer evil, and those ghosts will not be laid. I am not going to dramatize the case in any way or to over-state it by one iota. There is nothing unusual in the Petkov case, and that is exactly the whole tragedy. Petkov's case was simply one instance in the totalitarian technique of elimination. That elimination takes two forms. It is done in the mass, as the Nazis destroyed the Jews, or as the Communists liquidated the Kulaks. You can find other instances easily enough if you wish, such as the deportation of the unfortunate people in the Balkan States.
Then there is the other aspect, the systematic extermination of all critics,
468
particularly of constructive critics. Of that technique the examples are now far too numerous to relate; and I shall confine myself to quoting just a few of the most recent ones. Thus we have had the cases of Professor Farlan and Dr. Jovanovics in Yugoslavia. They got very long terms of imprisonment, which may easily mean a life sentence, on grounds so trivial as really to amount to no more than that they had an acquaintance with the West. In Poland we have the case of Mr. Mikolajczyk, with which I shall be dealing faithfully later on. But for the moment I will confine myself to the cases, among others, of Mr. Augustynski, the Editor of Mr. Mikolajczyk's paper, who got fifteen years on the same kind of charge, and Professor Tarnawski, the famous Shakespearean scholar, who got ten years for having a good acquaintance with English literature. In Hungary there was the case of Bela Kovacs, the Secretary-General of the Smallholders Party. He was done to death in prison. His widow was just told that she "need not send any more parcels." The Nazis used to send round some ashes in a box. In Rumania you have the case of Dr. Maniu and Mihalache and their colleagues and, after the Agrarians it will be the turn of the Liberals; and so it goes on. It does not really matter very much whether a man is slowly strangled on a gallows or whether he is still more slowly suffocated in prison. In any case, all opposition is extinguished. Thus, you have in Poland and Bulgaria the situation that the real Peasant Parties have been wiped out. As I said just now, in Rumania the Liberals and the Agrarians, and in Hungary the Smallholders, have been virtually liquidated. Already the turn has come to Pfeiffer and his People's Independent Party. Next it will be the turn of Barankovics and the Catholic Democrats, and next the Socialists. I see no future for the Socialist Party in Hungary. Indeed, for the Socialists everywhere in Eastern Europe the lights are slowly to be put out. In Poland again many of the best of them have been arrested. They are not allowed to exist at all in Soviet Germany. A great many of them have just disappeared and, if you listen to the concerted and brigaded venom of the Eastern bloc directed against the leaders of the Social Democratic Party in Germany, it is practically an incitement to murder; it stops little short of that. In Hungary they are either

469
ostracized like Peyer or betrayed by Szakasits. In Rumania they have been fused by their intimidated headmen, Voitech and Radaceanu, and from now on they will have little more to say than "Grotewohl" in Soviet Germany.
Now we have an open declaration of political war directed against all the most respected Socialist leaders in Western Europe by the Comintern, the only body that has enjoyed resurrection without ever suffering dissolution. Here they are all again, just the same old lot as before, man for man and woman for woman. They are, in fact, the very natural successors of Herr Bohle and his Auslands-deutsche. You remember the institute for Nazis abroad which was supposed to be run from Stuttgart but which was really run from Berlin. Now we have an institute for the Communists which is nominally run from Belgrade but which is really run from Moscow. The totalitarians find difficulty in not echoing each other.
What is the origin of this apparently implacable hatred of the democrats in general and Socialists in particular on the part of the Communists? I think it is because fundamentally Socialists are possessors of a rival doctrine and, above all, of a kindlier doctrine, and that word "kindlier" is the operative word. A little while ago one of the supporters of the noble Lords on my left—I think they may be proud of him—a Mr. George Orwell, wrote a most excellent book called Animal Farm. It was a story of a farm that was only too anxious to be socialized, but the animals had reckoned without "Old Squealer," the great hog, the commissar who hogged everything when he got on top and divided up the pie with his henchmen. He started off with the slogan "All animals are equal" but, once on top, he changed that slogan to "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." That is a very admirable definition of the Communist hierarchy in a society that professes to be classless and of the Communist tyranny such as is being exercised in Europe now.
But Mr. George Orwell has now written another book called The English People. There is a passage in that book in which he puts his finger even more inexorably on the spot. He says:
"The outstanding and by contemporary standards a highly original quality of the
470
British people is their habit of not killing one another."
There you have it. Totalitarians do kill when the technique demands, and one of their great grievances against Western democracy is that it does not, like Saturn, devour its own children. If I may be quite frank, they regard men of the type of the noble Lords on my left as a sort of, if I main coin a composite word, "labourgeoisie." They eliminate them as and when they can. That is all in the day's work. One of the reasons why I have dwelt on this point to-day is that I want to ask the Government, even though I fully understand their difficulties and sympathize with them, whether they are resigned to seeing their colleagues gradually blotted out in Eastern Europe, or whether they think there is something further which they could do; and, if that is their mood, I should like to offer same suggestions, because I do not think that that game is up yet; something can be done.
Let me begin by explaining in a little further detail what we are really up against. For that purpose, I must say a word about Dmitrov. Dmitrov was accused by the Nazis of something which he had not done and he has survived. You might have thought that that would have made him more compassionate towards other innocent men. Not at all. He hanged Petkov mercilessly. It is just the technique at work again, the technique of elimination, and it must be seen in that light and in no other, like all the ether cases which I quoted earlier in ether countries. Perhaps it may bring home the point a little more clearly to your Lordships if I take an example nearer home. Almost on the morrow of the murder the Dean of Canterbury went out to Bulgaria and, to quote the Sofia radio, expressed his sincerest admiration for Dmitrov. That may seem to some of us rather an odd brand of Christianity. I confess that at first sight it would seem so to me, but it is not really nearly as odd as it sounds, because the Dean also believes in the technique of elimination. If anyone here doubts that, he has only to read a little book called Christians in the Class Struggle, issued with the approval and patronage of the Dean and some other distinguished ecclesiastics, in which this technique is approved. Indeed in that pamphlet is also set forth "Old Squealer's" contention that the people

471
who have done the job must be privileged compared with those who have not. So there is nothing very surprising in that. There is, it is quite true, in the eighteenth Chapter of St. Matthew, a parable about a steward which says quite clearly what Christ really thought about people who, having got mercy themselves, refused it to others, but that appears to have been forgotten in favour of the technique.
Now, I feel bound, incidentally and in passing, to say just a few words about Mr. Mack, M.P. He was on the scene of the murder before the Dean. It seems to me that he went there to satisfy the vanity which was apparent in the speech he made in another place on October 22, when he said that his reception in Bulgaria was an event unparalleled in Bulgarian history, and that no one in history had ever done more than he to raise British prestige. Then he came home and he said that Petkov was rightly hanged. I am bound to say I feel he got away with that rather lightly in another place, and if speeches of that kind can be made with such relative immunity there, I think it is rather a good argument for the existence of your Lordships' House. What again, on the other hand, are we to say about Mr. Solley, M.P., who is reported by the Rumanian radio at the end of last month to have said, before the man had been heard, that Dr. Maniu was probably guilty? Utterances of that kind by people in responsible positions do nothing to deter, and a good deal to promote, the tendency towards judicial murder in those unhappy countries, and I am grateful for the patience and courtesy by which your Lordships have allowed me to point out that very essential truth.
Now I come to the treaty which we have concluded with technician Dmitrov. That treaty has been grossly violated from the start, and it always will be, because what I have been trying to point out to your Lordships this afternoon is that the terms of the treaty are in conflict with the technique of elimination, and that technique is always going to pull more strongly than the terms of the treaty. If we have not realized that yet, we have realized nothing. Well, then, what are we to do? Again I say how grave I consider the situation, how disastrous I think will be a policy of drift, and yet how fully
472
I sympathize with the Government in the enormous difficulty in which they are placed, because nobody has ever had to deal with people quite like this before.
Eight months ago to-day I raised precisely this question, and I have only raised it again because the situation has deteriorated, as I expected, so badly in the interval. In that speech I urged very strongly that the whole of this subject of treaty observance should be referred to the United Nations. That suggestion met with no favour. I will not weary the House with the reasons for which it was rejected. But I still think that it should be first choice among our list of remedies, and so I am taking it upon myself to ask the Government once more and very earnestly whether they will not reconsider that decision and whether, in view of all that has happened, and is happening, they will not refer it even now. If they still say "No," I must take "No" for an answer again, and I must try to think of something else; and I have tried to think of something else. I repeat that it is impossible to go on with a system whereby one side is always tied into knots; that only handicaps the good, whereas the perfidious have a free hand.
It seems to me possible that something might be done on this line which would, perhaps, give a minimum measure of security in dealing with the ever growing police States who do not keep their word. Could we perhaps introduce a new principle into international relations, the principle that all violated treaties become automatically invalid at the option of, and to the extent desired by, the aggrieved party? I hope your Lordships may see some possibilities in that. The aggrieved party would then be able to reflect at leisure and with dispassion as to how far he wished to carry that interpretation. In many cases he might not wish to exercise his regained liberty at all; in others he might wish only to exercise it on one point. It would, perhaps, have this further advantage, that there is no need for any denunciation of treaties. And I would like the Government to be quite clear to-day that I am not asking them to denounce these present treaties; I am trying to find something more sensible and practical than that. You would not need to denounce, you would not need any rupture or break of relations, and you would not have to recall your Ambassador and instruct him to ask for his

473
passports in the old-fashioned melodramatic phrase. You would simply consider how far you wished to take advantage of your regained liberty.
It is easy enough to see how that would work in the case of bilateral treaties, but in the case of multilateral treaties it is more complicated. Even so, it would work quite simply in practice, I think, if you once adopted that principle. In the case where you did not wish to exercise it, of course, nothing further would happen; but if you thought that on one particular point you, yourself, should be no longer bound you would naturally and loyally consult your co-signatories and, if they agreed, you would act accordingly. If the majority of them were against you the principle would remain, but it would not be operative in that particular instance. I want to be perfectly fair even to myself and say that it might be urged against that suggestion that that would act as a precedent for the police States to do likewise—to trump up charges against us and break off treaties. That looks like an objection, but it is not really because the police States break the treaties anyway. It is very much simpler for them to go on breaking them and banking on us doing nothing than to pick a quarrel with us beforehand and risk going to the United Nations and having a row about it. They will not go out of their way to change it, and even if they did, it would alter nothing in practice. What I have said is a possible suggestion. I do not put it forward as a panacea and, indeed, I should be very grateful if anybody else could find something better. I hope indeed that somebody will find something better to-day.
Now the Government may have some difficulty in acting on this moral basis. Again I want to make things as easy for them as I can. Even if they do take that line, that need not deter them from repudiating people like Mr. Mack and Mr. Solley, or the Church from repudiating the Dean of Canterbury. After all, the Archbishops found no difficulty in repudiating the Bishop of Birmingham the other day on account of some of the features of his doctrines. But the Bishop has never included the totalitarian technique of the elimination of his fellow-Christians among his doctrines. Or again, if one wishes to do something, there is the case of Mr. Zilliacus and his seven
474
colleagues who have just returned from a complimentary tour of the Comintern or Cominform—whichever you prefer—and have declared war on Mr. Attlee and Mr. Bevin. Well, my Lords, in our British language we have two Christian names which belong to both sexes. They are epicene—Clare and Evelyn. And now we have a third, not wholly indigenous, Konni. Epicene Konni appears to belong to two Parties, the Socialist Party and the one that persecutes the Socialists.
I feel prompted to ask what is the opinion of the Government on the following point. In long past years, friends of the noble Lords on my loft were frequently, and, as I thought, very rightly, condemnatory of the people who went out to Party rallies at Nuremberg. It is a matter on which I can speak with a good record, for I succeeded in preventing any official attendance there at all until Sir Nevile Henderson beat me. Therefore, I feel entitled to ask what exactly in your opinion is the difference between the people who used to go out to Nuremberg and these new people now who rustle round Europe belauding the new jackboot. I should think that if there is one thing on God's earth that experience and common sense have taught everyone except fools and "fellow-travellers," it is the enormous danger of encouraging expansionist totalitarians to believe that they enjoy widespread sympathy in our own ranks. I believe that people who do that sort of thing deserve the severest censure from every man and woman in this country who wishes to preserve his or her own life.
I freely admit that these matters of discipline in State or Party are in one sense absolutely no concern of an Independent like myself, but in another I think they concern us all. If no notice is taken of these things a false impression is bound to be created in Europe. In the second place, it will be no good for Party or Church to fold their hands and say that they can do nothing. There is always something that can be done. That, if I may quote myself, is what I said in my last speech in this House—there is always something that you can do. I can carry it even further to-day.
Under these treaties which we have ratified, the Bulgarians owe to the Greeks £11,000,000 sterling in reparations. So far, they have paid them practically noth-

475
ing in restitution even of what they owed under the Armistice. And so far from feeling obligated to pay any reparations they are complaining the whole time and even wanting to take Greek territory instead. Your Lordships may be fairly sure that when the time comes there will be plenty of bilking there. Are we going to be prepared for that? I say that we should be, and there is something very simple that can be done if you are prepared to exercise your rights and to treat these treaties as a whole. Under these treaties Italy owes Yugoslavia £31,000,000 sterling. If the Bulgarians do not pay the Greeks why should not we be able to announce that so far as we are concerned we absolve Italy from this obligation to pay the Yugoslavs? If the Russians will not compel their satellites to honour their obligations all the treaties must be reconsidered. So far they have not only not urged their satellites to do as they are pledged to do, but they have actually encouraged them to defy us when we have asked for the fulfilment of our own elementary rights. That has got to stop.
I now come to the case of Poland. Be it remembered that under the Potsdam Agreement we are obligated to pay out a sufficient proportion of the dismantlings in Western Germany to give satisfaction to Poland via the Russians. Let us look at what has happened. Let us take the case of Mr. Mikolajczyk. The case of Mr. Mikolajczyk, your Lordships will agree, is a case in respect of which none of you here and no one in this country can escape some measure of responsibility. He went out to Poland to carry out the policy of ultra-appeasement of Russia. He hoped that by consenting to the cession of nearly half of Poland to Russia, the Russians would at least leave liberty to the rest. That was the basis on which he went out and that was the basis on which the matter was discussed in both Houses of Parliament here. I was present in this House, so I am aware of that. No one could have been more entirely swindled than we have been.
I saw Mr. Mikolajczyk shortly before he went out. He knew that a very hard time awaited them, but I think what actually happened must have far surpassed his worst apprehensions, because his followers have been murdered and gaoled, persecuted and terrorized and maligned. They have been treated with
476
every combination and concoction of fraud and force which gangsterdom can devise. Now, at last, he has had to flee the country in order to avoid being butchered like Petkov. Every one of those steps, and all his sufferings during all these past years, have been the clearest possible violation of every promise given to us not only by the puppet Government in Warsaw but by their Russian masters as well. I think I am entitled to ask: Is so much perfidy really to pass entirely unnoticed? If you will adopt the recommendation that I made tentatively in the course of my speech you will at least be able to consider—if I may again use my own words—with leisure and dispassion, whether it is really fair that we should always perform all our obligations and that other people should perform none of theirs. Is "heads we always lose, and tails the others always win," a policy or a mug's game? I say that it is a mug's game, and I would not play any more.
But, at least, if this suggestion of mine could be considered the Government would be in a position to consider quietly, in full possession of their liberty, whether they should really go on paying all this out to Poland if none of the Polish obligations to us is ever to be fulfilled. I would like, therefore, to sum up what I have been trying to convey to your Lordships to-day and to say that this present system of drift can only end in disaster and the complete discredit of the treaty system. There are three things that can be done. The first thing that can be done is nothing, and that is just the very worst thing of all. That seems to be quite inadmissible. The second is to reconsider my suggestion made eight months ago that the whole of this grave subject be brought before the United Nations. The third is the suggestion I have made to you to-day. I beg the Government very earnestly to consider these suggestions and if they like none of them to try and find something better. Nobody would be better pleased than I if their ingenuity surpassed mine. I am sure it does. I do beg them, in formulating a long-term policy, at least to equip themselves with such powers of treaty enforcement as may be available and do what they can to ensure that they should no longer be continually deceived and defied by every perjured police State. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in view of the persistent violation by the Soviet satellites of their obligation to secure the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, of press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting, the treaties recently concluded with them should now be reconsidered.—(Lord Vansittart.)
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, we have listened, as customarily, to a brilliant speech from the noble Lord who moved this Motion, but I do not think we should allow ourselves to be carried away by his great eloquence and by his acute wit. The Motion he has moved is very carefully worded and it asks only that the treaties shall be reconsidered. I do not know whether or not the Government are prepared to accept that Motion, but I do ask your Lordships to examine for a few moments what reconsideration really implies. To my mind there are only two alternatives—either the treaties which have been so recently entered into shall be denounced now or in the near future, or they must be retained in force. The noble Lord tries to introduce a new principle into International Law. I hope I am not misquoting him, but, so far as I can understand, he suggested that we could repudiate certain clauses without a denunciation of the treaties themselves. If that is a correct interpretation of what he said, I think it is a very dangerous and a completely novel one. If you denounce these treaties it certainly is not possible to imagine that new treaties will be concluded while they remain denounced.
I agree entirely with all that the noble Lord said about the ill-faith of the countries which have signed these treaties. They are continually and deliberately violating them. The case of Mr. Petkov, to which the noble Lord referred, was perhaps the worst and most flagrant example among all these violations. It is, as the noble Lord said, simply murder. But I would like to join issue on this point: does the noble Lord really believe that if we had not ratified the treaty the life of Mr. Petkov would have been saved? I do not think he does. Supposing these treaties are denounced, what is going to be the result? I think you will have complete confusion. There will be
478
nothing on which we could base our diplomatic protests. I know I shall be told that these protests are generally and continually ignored and they have no effect. That may be true, but at any rate we have a solid legal basis on which to stand. Denunciation, however, would certainly deprive us of our one remaining weapon, except of course the use of force, but I do not think the noble Lord wishes us to consider that in this connexion.
LORD VANSITTART: I think the noble Lord has failed to hear me. I was particularly asking the Government not to denounce the treaties.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am trying to explain, if the noble Lord will listen, that there are only two alternatives. I have rejected the last suggestion as being incompatible with International Law as it exists to-day. If the Government think it is desirable and that the time has come when it should be done, we can at any time bring those who are responsible for the violation of these treaties before the assembly of the United Nations, that is to say, before the bar of the public opinion of the world. If that happens, the transgressors would have to justify their actions. They cannot plead that they are outside the competence of the United Nations because the treaties specifically refer to considerations which normally would be of a domestic character. Noble Lords might say, quite rightly, that to resort to the United Nations would not prove immediately effective; but I still maintain that in the long run the public opinion of the world is a factor which no country can continuously disregard.
Therefore I have rejected the third course proposed by the noble Lord. Although I have agreed with his indictment and diagnosis, I sincerely believe that the treaties should be allowed to stand, because to abandon them would be a completely ineffective gesture and would fall almost into the same category as the withdrawal of Ambassadors. Your Lordships know that that withdrawal really is a useless step and never produces any result. I do not see that we can reap any advantage from denunciation. The violations will certainly continue and we should have deprived ourselves of the weapon of intervention—namely by (a) protest by ourselves, and (b) bringing the matter before the United

479
Nations. Perhaps these measures are not worth a very great deal to-day, but I still maintain it would be foolish to throw them away lightly.
3.28 p.m.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, I find the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, a very difficult person to speak after and a very difficult person to disagree with. I am not going to compliment him, as I might, on the extraordinary technical excellence of his speech. He would not want that, as he is far too much in earnest. But I think the noble Lord impresses us all, he certainly impresses me, as a man whose love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity compel us to pay very great attention to what he says. I do not want to begin by criticizing, whether capable of it or not, or throwing doubts on his account of the facts. I am quite confident that the main indictment against these nations is true, because it is an indictment of the system of government, and that system of government which allows no discussion and no rights is bound to produce those results. I am entirely with the noble Lord in all that. Whether we agree with his practical proposals or not, I think we ought to be grateful for the fact that time and again he recourses to those frightful things that are happening, and asks us to take them seriously. If the noble Lord had only wanted to say that the Government should reconsider their attitude towards Russia and her satellites, one could not have objected. If the noble Lord had repeated his proposal (I cannot remember whether or not it was ever a formal Motion) that those things should be referred to the United Nations, again I, personally, could not have objected. But I do, with the noble Earl who has just spoken, very much doubt whether we can do much by way of the treaties.
Of course, there is one thing which the noble Lord did not definitely propose, although he implied that he would like it done. He would like the Party represented on these Benches to make it quite clear that they repudiate Mr. Zilliacus and company. He says that nothing but evil springs from the impression produced in Eastern Europe that these people are of consequence in the counsels of this country. I myself do not think they are
480
of any consequence in the counsels of this country; and if I may say so, speaking as a humble Back Bencher, I think it is time we said so officially. I say that quite seriously because, in my opinion, harm is done by the impression, very easily gained, when members of the Party of which I am proud to be a member so act that, for all their disclaimers, lead people to believe that they speak for England or, even if they speak for something less than England, that they speak for the Labour Party. They do not. I think the Labour Party should make that quite clear. With that—which I believe is partly what the noble Lord wanted done—I should entirely agree.
Yet I want to say certain things which I think we ought to have in mind. Are the Governments of these countries worse—hateful though they are in many ways—than the Government of Russia before 1914? Are they worse in all these ways than the present Government of China? I think not. I say that quite deliberately. I think what is sauce for the European goose is sauce for the Far Eastern gander. If we are going to take this line, we shall get into certain difficulties. That is no reason why we should not do it, but we need to be careful. There again, if all the noble Lord means is that we should reconsider our attitude, I say let us do that, but do not let us be tied down to any practical proposals. When I read the noble Lord's Motion I thought he intended certain practical proposals, but it is clear now that he does not want to prejudge the position. If I am right there, that makes a difference.
Secondly, I want to say something which is much more difficult to say, and of the truth of which it will be more difficult to persuade a good many of your Lordships. Are the Governments of these countries worse than they were before the war? In some ways, yes; but in some ways they are better. So far as open violation of individual rights and all the rest of it is concerned, these countries before the war had a certain standard of respectable behaviour. But the countries of which I know a little—Bulgaria, Rumania, Poland and Hungary—were countries governed by a wealthy minority, to the detriment of a great agricultural proletariat, very badly treated and living at a low economic level. We have got to remember that. We have to remember that since the war there have

481
taken place in these countries great agrarian revolutions; large estates have been divided, and very largely the peasants have got the land.
The noble Lord may say: How is that consistent with the fact that it is the members of the Peasant Party who have been persecuted? I know that revolution devours its own children, and the general political doctrines which they have got from the East are so poisonous that they produce these evil results. Nevertheless, I think there must be many inhabitants of these countries who feel that, to some extent, they have gone through a liberation. We must be careful not to produce the impression that what would happen if we prevailed would be that the peasants' land would be taken away and the other people put back into ownership. I gather that that is a very common belief in these south eastern countries. Noble Lords may remember the harm that was done in Russia round about 1919, when the peasants had the land, and certain things happened which made them believe that if the Bolsheviks were defeated they would lose it. We ought to be very careful of that. I know that there is a deal of nonsense talked in calling these satellites of Russia "democracies." I have talked about that before. It is mostly "stuff," but there is a little in it. An oppressive government by the rich has been replaced by an oppressive government by the poor. That is not very much, but it is something. Therefore, one does not want to produce the impression that we are going to put the whole thing back again. We must be very careful about that.
Thirdly, I would remind your Lordships that this Motion talks about Soviet satellites. Let us remember that they are Soviet satellites. Why should we deal with the satellites, who do not very much matter and who have more or less to do as they are told? I do not know if noble Lords saw last Saturday's Manchester Guardian. It contained a very interesting translation of a document by a gentleman called Zhdanov, in which he had given instructions to what the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, persists in calling the Comintern—he may be right—but what the best people, I am told, call the Cominform. I agree with the noble Lord that there: is not much difference between them. I commend that document to your Lordships, and especially would I
482
do so to noble Lords who sit on these Benches, and to some of their friends in another place. It contains the Russian instructions to the Conference of Communist Parties in Warsaw and denounces the Right Wing Socialists who serve their American masters to maintain—note these words, my Lords—"the grievous heresy that the criterion of true democracy is the existence of many Parties." That is a "heresy" which is now denounced. Let us realize that that has now become the official doctrine which all the satellite countries have to observe. That document also denounces—I think my noble friend Viscount Cecil will be interested in this—"the bourgois intelligentsia dreamers and pacifists who are deceived by the idea of world government."
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Who said that?
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: This is also Mr. Zhdanov. I do not know if noble Lords have ever read the classic passage of appeasement in the beginning of Burke's letter to a friend of the National Assembly. He says various things which I should have liked to read, but he ends by saying:
"There is one case indeed in which it would be madness not to give the fullest credit to the most deceitful of men when they make declarations of hostility against us."
Some of us in this Party might pay some attention to that and think about it.
Lastly, I think what one has to ask is: Would actions which seem to be primarily attacks on the satellites of Russia be more likely to throw them completely into the hands of Russia or not? Are we to suppose that those countries have no souls of their own, and are we to suppose that those countries have no views of their own? We saw the other day that some of them were at least moved by the Marshall Plan and clearly wanted to share in it. I do not often like being told to be patient or to tell other people to be patient, but I think that in regard to the satellites of Russia one should try to give them a chance and try to make them believe that Russia is not their only source of salvation. It is for that reason, moved as I am by the noble Lord's eloquence and feeling, and agreeing as I very largely do with his statement of facts, that I still distrust this Motion.
3.42 p.m.
LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, I am concerned in what I am going to say not so much with the treaties which have been concluded as with treaties which I understand will shortly be concluded—at least, I hope they will. I want to say a few words about Czechoslovakia and a few words about Austria. Both those countries in their present state illustrate in a very striking manner the thesis on which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has addressed your Lordships this afternoon. I do not know how many of your Lordships are familiar with Czechoslovakia, but it is a very highly civilized country. It is a country which, if I may say so, contains a very civil, very peaceable and very pleasant people, and it is—whatever meaning you attach to the word "democracy"—undoubtedly a democratic country. No one can say of it, if hereafter a Communist régime is substituted for that which now exists, that it has turned from being ruled by the rich to being ruled by the poor, because I do not believe there are any rich people in Czechoslovakia. It is, so far as I can see, a pure example of an over-socialized State. It looks, and desires to look—in spite of the fact that Slavonic blood runs largely in the veins of its inhabitants—for its civilization and culture to the West, and if it is allowed, it will continue to do so.
Czechoslovakia has had many shocks, particularly in the last few months. Some few weeks ago when I was in Czechoslovakia I was attending a meeting of the. International Law Association, an Association which is international both in respect of the fact that it studies international law and in respect of the fact that it draws its members, so far as it can, from every nation in the world. It has no politics and does not talk politics, except that when you are dealing with totalitarian States it is extremely difficult to keep politics out of the legal philosophy; and I imagine it contains men and women of every school of political thought. There is a Polish branch of the International Law Association. There are also Poles of the opposite political Party—learned men now resident in this country—who wished to attend the meeting, and who, I believe, obtained visas from the Czechoslovak Government to enable them to do so. The Government of Poland, however, informed the Czechoslovak Govern-
484
ment that if any Pole from this country ventured to attend the meetings of the International Law Association, no Pole from Poland would be allowed to do so. Accordingly, the Poles from this country abstained. That is one instance of the kind of pressure that is brought to bear upon that country, and that is within my own knowledge.
The next instance is not within my own knowledge, but it is very well authenticated. Your Lordships will remember that when the invitation was issued under the Marshall Plan to the various States of Europe to meet and consider the application of the Plan, Czechoslovakia at first accepted and subsequently withdrew her acceptance. Now the Czechoslovaks believe—I do not know whether it is true or not—that when it was learnt in Moscow that the invitation had been accepted, the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia was informed that if Czechoslovakia persisted there would be a Communist rising in Pilsen, and that Russia would find it necessary to march in to preserve order, and accordingly Czechoslovakia withdrew. At present, the inhabitants of Prague are living in a very great state of dread. They do not believe—in fact it is obviously true—that they can hold out against the military force of Russia. They believe that that military force will, on one pretence or another, using the old Hitler technique, be employed, and, as one of them said to me: "All we can do now is to wait for the next war, and unfortunately we shall then be on the wrong side." It was impossible in that beautiful city of Prague, in the wonderful weather which we had, not to feel constantly among these friendly people the sense of intense depression at their helplessness and the appalling peril which hangs over them.
That is Czechoslovakia, and I pass now to Austria of which I know far more. I was in Austria for a week in September. I well remember with what high hopes we went into Austria two years before, and with what delight and relief the Austrian population welcomed us. Those hopes have vanished and that delight and relief have passed away. The-Austrians, like the Czechoslovaks, are frightened, and very much frightened. I cannot help for a moment turning aside and saying how painful it is to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, said and to suppose that in those countries there is any issue

485
between the rich and poor, or anything of the kind. The Austrian Government is a Government of peasants, farmers and small professional men. I do not know what has happened to the people who owned the great estates.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: I did not say that—
LORD SCHUSTER: I have not yet finished. It is exactly the same with Poland and exactly the same with Czechoslovakia. To represent that the change to Russian domination is a change from tyranny to—what shall I say?—freedom or rights of the common man, although I am sure it is said in all sincerity, is very painful. Let me just go on with Austria. Why is it that all these hopes have vanished? In the first place it is due perhaps to something which never could have been helped and could never have been remedied, the general food situation, the complete raptures of continental trade and the fact that Austria for so long has been a training ground for armies, and has known so many revolutions. I suppose it would not have been possible that the Austrians should have been preserved from hunger or that they could have been kept warmer, although more might have been done but for other reasons to which I will come in a moment.
We must remember that the Austrian, when he is accused, as he frequently is accused, of unwillingness to buckle to his task, has been underfed, bitterly underfed, for more than two years, and that he is never warm in the bitter winters we have had in Vienna. The second cause is the ceaseless, sturdy, stalwart, open and underground hostility of the Russian Government. Throughout the whole of our negotiations with them they have ceaselessly sought to keep Austria in a condition in which administration could not be carried on. Every effort of the Austrian Government to stand by themselves has been repressed. Austrian industry has been hampered. I would like to say a word or two at greater length about that in a few minutes. The attempt of Austria to set on foot the necessary police force, which is needed not only for individual protection but to deal with frontier incidents, has been thwarted in every way possible.
I cannot tell, and I do not think any one of those associated with me in Austria
486
could have told, what exactly it is that Russia was then or is now aiming at. I do not think it likely that we shall ever understand the Russians and I am quite sure that they will never understand us. They credit us with Machiavellian guile and wickedness. They do so perfectly sincerely, and this accounts, I think, for their attitude towards us. I think they sincerely believe that they have in their hands a panacea for all the ills of humanity, mixed with the feeling—and here I want to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, about the Austrian Government—that has animated Russian soldiers and diplomats ever since Czarist times: that Russia is mighty and should be greater and mightier yet until she governs the whole of Europe.
But if you go as we went, not infrequently, to a great Russian feast, with blaring bands and blazing searchlights, you cannot help seeing what is the Russian view of the relations between man and man. The place blazes with generals and the generals blaze with stars. There is, I almost said, one door for the cat and one for the kitten. The grading of people, the breaking up of them into social classes and castes, is absolutely incredible to Western ideas. I may be indiscreet in making my next observation: the pleasures which they hold out to the different classes also differ in peculiar ways.
In these circumstances, what are we to do? We are about, or are supposed to be about, to conclude a treaty, together with Russia, France, and the United States, with the Austrian Republic, which would enable us and the other Allies to withdraw the troops and I suppose reduce the staffs at present in Austria to nothing much more than advisory bodies—all very desirable things to do if they can be done and if those who bargain with us will keep their word. Will they keep their word? We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, how the satellite countries have kept their word. If we go out and the Russians remain, what is going to happen to the members of the present Austrian Government? The Right Wing are in a majority of about four, and the Government are composed of peasants and farmers, small shopkeepers, small professional men, and Socialists with a few Communists. The Austrians have become accustomed to Communists in uniform

487
and they do not like them in plain clothes. I do not know what we are going to do, and I do not even want to ask His Majesty's Government to give any reply to my question, because that might embarrass them. I want only to make clear to your Lordships' House and, if one may hope so, to this country, the dreadful peril in which these people stand, and the extent to which, quite apart from our own interests, we are committed to their protection.
That brings me to my third and last point. I do not want to attack His Majesty's Government for two reasons: first, because in all these matters it has always treated us with great courtesy and kindness, and secondly, because I am not making a Party point—I should be saying just the same wherever I sat in your Lordships' House and to whatever Party I belonged. But I think that His Majesty's Government, whatever its complexion, has to bear a very heavy share of blame for the way in which matters have gone in Eastern Europe, particularly in Austria. For weary months we screamed from Vienna, entreating His Majesty's Government to remember that Austria existed. They said in effect, "We will attend to you when we have attended to the much more important question of Germany." I do not want to suggest that Germany was not, and is not, an important question—of course it is. But Austria is a vital dangerpoint from our point of view.
It all goes back really to the muddled hurry of the Potsdam Agreement. The Potsdam Agreement is the miraculous example of the magnificent achievements of modern diplomacy, in which you do not quite know what you want to agree about or what it is you intend to say. You put it all down together somehow on a bit of paper, and then, when it has been signed, you spend the next two or three years trying to find out what is meant. It is quite impossible to attach an intelligible meaning to the. Potsdam Agreement as it affects Austria. But one thing was perfectly clear, and that was that it was never the intention that any action should be taken which would leave Russia free to take away industries and other possessions which were the property of Austrians, and thereby hamper Austrian commerce. It was undoubtedly
488
not intended that the Russians or anybody else should take away property which belonged to the nationals of this country or of the United States. For two years now there has been a deliberate policy of pillage and spoliation. Sometimes, more usually; it has been done by force. Banks, it is true, have not been robbed by someone breaking in but by a corporal and a file of soldiers marching in and saying that, by order of the Commander-in-Chief, all the things in the vaults are to be handed over at once. Although we do not know very much about what is taking place in the Russian Zone, we know quite well that in that zone there are oil wells which are the property of British and United States nationals. We know that the Russians are in possession of them, and I have a very grim suspicion that by the time the Russians are finished with them there will not be any oil in them.
I have one last word to say before I sit down. I do not know how many of your Lordships have been in Vienna since we entered into occupation—I know some noble Lords have. Your Lordships will remember that, owing to the great wisdom of those who planned our occupation, the British Forces, or some of them, and the British civilian employees, are situated in Vienna, as it were, in prison. They are completely surrounded by Russian occupied territory through which run two roads, one through the Semmering Pass and the other through Upper Austria to Linz, along which, by the gracious permission of the Soviet authorities, we are allowed to drive if we want to visit either the Americans or our own people. But you drive along those roads and you drive along no other, or, if you do drive along another, you will end up in a Russian prison. On either side of the road there is No 1ron curtain that you can see, but you are as completely shut off from the villages and from the fields on either side as if there were a barbed-wire electric fence.
As to what happens in those areas nobody knows. Does anybody suppose that in that territory the noble sentiments embodied in the Atlantic Charter, or those spoken of this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, are practised—that there is freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of Press and publication, freedom of political opinion or

489
freedom of public meeting? Of course there is not; and, of course, if we conclude a treaty with any nation, whether nominally free or not, which is under the subordination of the Powers of the East, we are not only going back on that which we have promised to the Austrian people, but we are making, if I may say so sincerely, fools of ourselves in the eyes of history and in our own eyes.
4.3 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate when the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, first spoke, but having listened to the very impressive speeches that have been made by various noble Lords well qualified to address your Lordships on these subjects, there are one or two very brief comments which I would like to make. I do not want anything that I say to be interpreted as implying any difference at all between the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and myself as to the misdeeds of Russia and her satellites. As to those misdeeds, which have been re-emphasized just now by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, with all the authority of recent personal experience, I agree with every word which those noble Lords have said on this aspect.
The recent events which have been referred to, in Eastern and Central Europe, are, I believe, the most deplorable development since the Dark Ages. It is, I know, a commonplace now to talk of a relapse into barbarism, in the sense of a complete collapse of civilization. To my mind, what is happening now is something much worse than that because it is the rise of a new and bastard civilization, a purely materialistic civilization based not upon any divine inspiration with the immutable principles of good faith and justice to which we have been accustomed, but upon mere man-made morals which alter and fluctuate according to the interests of the régime which happens to be in control in those countries. It is, of course, to the interests of those régimes that Communism should persist, and therefore it becomes to them morally right that they should persecute all those who are opposed to Communism. That is their justification, and to them a perfect justification, for such crimes as that committed against Petkov and the other outrages of which we have heard this afternoon. That is a really dreadful
490
development and, unless we can regain some common standard of good faith, to my mind there is no possibility of any fruitful co-operation between the nations of the world or between those two sections of nations at any time in the near future.
I must confess that I am, at the same time, a little doubtful as to the wisdom of the definite proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, put forward this afternoon. His suggestion, as I understood it—I am sure the noble Lord will correct me if I am mistaken—is that, in the case of flagrant violation of treaties, such as we have seen, it should be internationally recognized as legitimate for the aggrieved party to repudiate these treaties wholly or in part, which is the point with which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has already dealt. I quite see the purpose of this suggestion and I agree that the mention is admirable. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, will correct me if I am misinterpreting him in any way, but I took his suggestion to be to make it possible for nations who habitually keep their word to free themselves from obligations when those other nations which have been referred to as the police States obviously and flagrantly violate their side of the bargain. The danger of this proposition, as I see it, is this. That is a game which both parties can play. If we, having; a grievance, can repudiate treaties, the same is true of the police States themselves, and they are much more likely to do it than we are. They will trump up fake grievances of that kind and will then free themselves from the obligations which are becoming inconvenient to them without laying themselves open to any charge of bad faith.
That is a very real danger to the adoption of a proposal of this kind. However good its intention may be, to my mind it may very likely make a bad situation worse. For that reason, I should like very warmly to welcome the last words of the noble Lord's speech in which he put forward an alternative suggestion, that law-abiding nations should bring all such violations immediately to the notice of the United Nations. That Organization really was set up for this very purpose, to obtain ventilation of differences of view and of international crimes and misdeeds of this character. It gives an opportunity for the full facts to be

491
ventilated; it gives an opportunity for public opinion to come to definite conclusions on them; and I believe that the united public opinion of the world still may have some effect upon these States, whatever their personal views may be. In the comparatively early days of the United Nations, your Lordships will remember that His Majesty's Government took exactly this step with regard to Russian charges over our intervention in Greece and in Indonesia. The opinion of the United Nations representatives overwhelmingly exculpated us from all guilt, and the whole sting for a considerable time was taken out of the Russian attack. I do urge His Majesty's Government most strongly to adopt this course wherever the evil of bad faith pokes up its ugly head.
It seems to me, as I have said, that there is a danger that the actual proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, would only lower the general currency of good faith, which is the last thing we want to do. Therefore, I hope that His Majesty's Government will adopt the alternative proposal, that they should not hesitate to take every evidence of bad faith, of every international crime against obligations, to the United Nations. They should not hesitate to expose the full facts. They should speak with uncompromising frankness and should make absolutely clear all the information which they have and should lay it on the table before the world. I believe that that is the only way in which we can maintain the high standard of good faith which is the essence of civilized relations between nations.
4.10 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, it is with considerable reluctance and distaste that, in spite of the expertness of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart's pleading, and the charm of exposition to which we are accustomed in his case, I find myself, for once, on the other side of the fence. I cannot help feeling that although none of us would, I imagine, disagree with the principle of his Motion—namely, the disapproval he registers, which is shared by the last two speakers in the impressive and authoritative speeches that they have also made, of the things, scandalous to any Western mind, that are going on in the countries he has mentioned—the measures his Motion recommends are possibly not at
492
present advisable, with the exception of something which he put into his speech, which consisted of suggesting that strictures should be made against the activities of Messrs. Mack and Solley e tutti quanti.
He has, of course, rendered the task of answering him unforeseeably difficult by attaching a very wide and special significance to the word "reconsidered" in his Motion and also by amplifying its scope by introducing countries like Poland and Yugoslavia, whereas one naturally imagined, since Italy is not yet a satellite, he would only treat of Hungary, Finland, Bulgaria and Rumania with whom we ratified the treaties in September. I have naturally no notion, no more than anybody else, of what the Governmental reply will be, but it seems to me that it may well be little different from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, on August 5, on the question of the Hungarian elections. I venture to suggest this afternoon that in any case, apart from the fact that the treaties only came into force in September and that any brusque volte face on our part may well seem to give colour to that accusation of indecision which is so often thrown at the Western democracies by their enemies, it is in this case the spirit of the law which matters, and I feel that the spirit in this case consists in profiting by the main advantages of the status quo. Of these, the greatest one seems to me that of having our chief representatives there on the spot, and of enabling them to report on day-to-day developments, as mere charges d'affaires are often not so well able to do. If we were to trust to the Press for information, certainly in the case of Bulgaria and Rumania, no degree of accuracy could be guaranteed, for the simple reason that accurate accounts would sooner or later ensure the correspondents being bundled out of the country, or else even being arrested. It is that advantage which I trust we shall do nothing to spoil.
I am, in point of fact, reasonably well informed myself on what goes on in Rumania, and I have lately managed to secure some first-hand information on Bulgarian conditions. I can assure your Lordships that in both countries they are in every way appalling so far as any question of personal freedom goes, furthermore as your Lordships know, economic

493
problems of the grimmest nature only intensify the blackness of the picture. An article in the September Contemporary Review by a writer who would probably be arrested if he returned there, gives the measure of the frightfulness of daily Bulgarian life, life in a country once so fervently Russophil. In Hungary conditions since the elections are, as we know, politically little better than in the other two, though both there and in Finland, where the Russians seem to have behaved with a surprisingly intelligent leniency, there is an apparent degree of freedom of political speech. In Finland, indeed, this goes quite far; perhaps the Russians think they are not important enough to matter, or near enough to be easy to handle in an emergency; I do not know.
But what I want to stress is that in all these countries either the Russians or the local Communists (except, as I say, possibly in Finland), have brought about a revulsion against them, intensified, of course, by incidents like the Petkov and Maniu incidents, whose results can only be to set the inhabitants once again looking helplessly, but not altogether hopelessly, in our direction; and it is for that reason that I feel that, whatever faults it may have, it is to our advantage at this juncture not to disturb the continuity now set up, not to untie these new knots, even if they are unsatisfactory according to strict logic.
In addition to all that, it is difficult to see how we can rectify the situation by ourselves. What would be the American view of the noble Lord's proposal, I wonder. I have a suspicion that it might well follow the course that I am trying to recommend to-day. No, my Lords, if I may quote the Government's reply of August 5, and extend it to ourselves and to the public as a whole:
"We are perfectly aware of what is going on; we are not hoodwinked by any excuses or any misuse of words"—
such, may I add, as the revoltingly disingenuous piece of special pleading by Mr. Palme Dutt, in his letter of yesterday to The Times. We know what the fate of Petkov has been; we know what may await Maniu, who, among his early admissions, has admitted that he tried to follow the course Mikolajczyk successfully adopted; and, if to-day's Daily Herald has been well informed, we know that the Leader of the Hungarian
494
Independent Party, M. Pfeiffer, has already disappeared. And I, at least, know, for I learnt it to-day from a reliable source, that 1,500 Bulgarian families, belonging to what they call in Eastern Europe the intelligentsia and what we call the professional classes, have been ordered to leave Sofia for the countryside and the Black Sea ports, to make way for Communist families, on the grounds that the former were capable of making contacts with the inhabitants of the deplorable West.
We know that this is just one more example of this vast attempt to wipe out intelligent middle-class elements everywhere, the elements which are the essential cement of every community, and we know that what Mr. Walter Lippman has called "the cold war" is on. But I still think that, in spite of all this, it is better to temporize and maintain things as they are in Eastern Europe, if only by our continued presence there to keep ourselves informed and to put some little heart into these unfortunate victims of a system which is visibly losing ground elsewhere, but whose iron heel of the new pattern is not likely to relax its pressure there for as long as the various possessors of the boot can maintain it. I also feel that, in a sense, it is even more important for us to keep up these newly-arrived-at relations, because we are not likely to incur the envious blame that may fall to the lot of America for her championship of unbridled private enterprise, and we are and remain the ideal bridge between the two extreme versions of the rival ideologies already ranged, alas! in visible battle with each other. Nothing, however, in what I am inclined to recommend prevents us from protesting, both on the spot and here, as Lord and long and. as often as possible against the monstrous events taking place in that part of the world; and that, I feel, is the real value of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, to-day.
4.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, may I recall you for a moment to the terms of the Motion? It is as follows: "To move to resolve, That in view of the persistent violation by the Soviet satellites of their obligation … the treaties recently concluded with them should now be reconsidered." There are certain countries with whom treaties have recently been concluded,

495
and of these the countries called Soviet satellites are, I suppose, Rumania, Bulgaria, possibly Hungary and possibly Finland. Those, at any rate, are the Powers—no one would suggest that Italy is a Soviet satellite—with whom treaties have recently been concluded, and the noble Lord who moved this Motion dealt particularly with two of them—namely, Rumania and Bulgaria.
Now I want to point out that Austria is not a Soviet satellite. I do not so regard her, and I hope she never will be. Czechoslovakia I do not regard as a Soviet satellite. But whether or not you put them down as Soviet satellites, they are not Powers with whom treaties have recently been concluded, and therefore they are not in any way relevant, except by way of illustration, to to-day's debate. I mention that particularly having regard to Lord Schuster's remarks. Lord Schuster was in Austria for a considerable time, rendering most useful service as a servant of the Crown. He served us faithfully and well there. I would suggest to the noble Lord, with the greatest respect, that it was undesirable, on a Motion to which the matter is wholly irrelevant, to make—perhaps at all and certainly not without giving us notice—the observations that he did make with regard to the responsibility, the heavy responsibility, of this Government in relation to affairs in Austria.
He said, in effect, that when this matter had been referred to the Government, they said: "We have many more important things to deal with; this is a comparatively small matter." I cannot think that the Government said any such thing. Of course, it is a fact that the solution of the Austrian difficulty depended upon a solution of the general difficulty with Russia. If that were solved, everything else could easily be solved. To say that we did not regard Austria as an important matter, to say that we have not done throughout what we could with regard to Austria, is, I venture to suggest, not the fact at all. But I am not prepared to deal with the matter to-day. The allegation has been made. I cannot deal with it. I cannot deal with it because it is an allegation which is not germane to the Motion now before your Lordships' House, and when someone like myself is called upon in this House to be a "Jack of all trades" and
496
to reply to a debate, I suggest that it is only fair to me and to the House that if this sort of statement is to be made I should receive before the debate some notice, whether formal or informal, whether of minutes or of hours, of the intention, so that I may take advice and find out what the facts are upon these matters.
I prefer now to go back to the subject matter of the debate. With regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, so far as the facts are concerned, speaking on behalf of the Government and weighing my words, I am bound to say—and I say it with the greatest regret—that, broadly speaking, his survey is correct. In our view, it is correct, and there is no doubt whatever but that most grievous things have happened, are happening and, I am afraid, will happen. Further, I think it is true to say that I see no prospect of an immediate amelioration of the situation. I see, on the other hand, a prospect of deterioration.
I am not going—for I would be very reluctant to do so without knowing all the circumstances—to express my opinion on the speeches or the writings of the Dean of Canterbury and the politicians to whom the noble Lord referred. It would not be right that I should do so unless I had read them and considered them, and I have not done so. I do not object, for one moment, to people from this country going to Russia and her satellite countries. I think it is very useful. I think it is useful that they should get to know what is going on. I am a firm believer in trying to get to know these people better. It may be that if we get to know each other better, some of this suspicion which undoubtedly exists to-day will be got rid of. Of course, what matters is what these people say and how they behave when they do go to these countries. So far as I am concerned, I am very much surprised to hear that any member of my Party expressed his approval of the condemnation of Petkov. Of all forms of murder, the one which I dislike most is that which comes under the heading of judicial murder, and that is how I certainly regard this. It was said that another member, before the case was heard, had expressed in public an opinion as to the probable guilt of Mr. Maniu. If he had done that in this

497
country he would, of course, have been dealt with for contempt of court.
So much for the facts. Now I want to be completely realistic about these facts, as I have tried to be. What is the right thing to do? The noble Lord's Motion asks that the treaties should be reconsidered. Of course, you can only reconsider a treaty at the present time in this sense: you can make up your mind to denounce the treaty on the ground that it has been broken, and we have ample material on which to take that line, if it is the right line to take. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and also with the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, that I would not like to see introduced into International Law something which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, would, I think, agree is a wholly new principle—namely, that instead of merely having the right, if a treaty is repudiated, to say, "Very well, the treaty has gone," one should be allowed, in the event of repudiation, to hold that it has gone in part only. That would be a completely novel doctrine which has never been applied anywhere, and on the whole I think it would be disadvantageous.
The choice, as I see it, is between holding to the treaty for what it is worth at present, or saying, as we can say, "By reason of the manifold repudiations of the treaty which have taken place on your part, we on our part shall regard ourselves as absolved from all the treaty obligations." There is a third course, which the noble Lord indicated—namely, to adhere to the treaty and avail yourself of the machinery of the treaty to refer the matter to the United Nations. Speaking for myself with regard to that matter. I feel that this is a course which, obviously, we shall have to take soon. But before I take it I want to be certain that I have the best case on which to take it. There is a very simple case. Let me give your Lordships an illustration. The Greek Government have now ratified a treaty with. Bulgaria, and as soon as they appoint a Minister to Sofia, arrangements for reparations can begin. Now if the Bulgars refuse to pay the reparations which are due, then, under the machinery of the treaty—which shows the value of adhering to the treaty—we take the case to the three Heads of Mission. If they cannot agree, then the matter can go to
498
the United Nations. And then, of course, anything is possible with regard to forcing payment, by distraint if such a method can be applied.
Therefore I want the noble Lord to recognize that we are fully alive to the desirability, in certain events, of referring this matter to the United Nations. We have that under consideration at the present time, and shall not hesitate to avail ourselves of the course which he suggests if and when we think we have a perfectly cast-iron and clear case. Of course, if it goes to the Security Council—well, your Lordships know what can happen there, and what generally does happen there. There comes the veto. If it goes to the Assembly, the Assembly can pass resolutions, and I am not, in any sense, belittling the value of the resolutions which the Assembly passes. I believe that to bring all these things out to the light of day is a valuable thing to do.
I must say the noble Lord's speech was a valuable speech to have made. We did ratify the treaty on September 15 but showed quite plainly that, in ratifying the treaty, we did not in any way condone the breaches that had up to that date taken place. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I do not think for one moment that by not ratifying the treaty we should have saved the life of M. Petkov. On September 25, ten days after ratification, we said this:
"Opinion in London does not consider the Governments of Rumania and Bulgaria to be truly representative of the political feelings and traditions of the people of those countries. The fact that the peace treaties have been ratified by no means implies that the behaviour of these Governments is condoned; their denial of the fundamental freedoms, their dissolution of Opposition parties, their suppression of newspapers, their numerous arrests without charge, and similar undemocratic procedures, are condemned by British opinion which has shown its most positive expression in the deep concern voiced at the death sentence passed in Bulgaria on the eminent Opposition leader M. Petkov."
That was an official pronouncement made from London.
Why do I maintain at the present time that it is better to adhere to the treaty rather than to repudiate it here and now? Let me say what the provisions of the treaty are. First of all, there are restrictions on the size of the armed forces. Secondly, there are clauses dealing with the restitution of United Nations' property,

499
reparations and commercial non-discrimination clauses that guarantee British interests in those countries. We have No 1ntention of allowing those interests to go by default. Finally there are the clauses to which the noble Lord referred as being perhaps more often broken than any other, which secure to all persons, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedom. We believe that it is an advantage to maintain diplomatic representatives in those countries. We believe it is desirable if there is to be an iron curtain, that His Majesty should have some representative on the other side of the curtain to report what is going on, to make representations and the best use of moral pressure to see if we cannot get things made a little better. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth said, the day has long passed when the appointment of an ambassador to a monarch was simply a compliment to him and when the ambassador was withdrawn if we were displeased with that monarch. I always thought that of all the foolish diplomatic steps to take, the withdrawal of an ambassador was perhaps the worst. Therefore I should be in favour of maintaining the ambassador. So much for the treaty position so far as Rumania and Bulgaria are concerned.
With regard to Hungary—Which is presumably one of the satellites; at any rate their treaty was concluded recently—when Lord Vansittart last raised the matter, shortly before the Hungarian elections, Lord Pakenham, who replied for the Government, was more optimistic than Lord Vansittart about the elections. The Communists started by disqualifying from voting a very large number of people, on the ground that they were Fascist. Having done that they saw to it that they themselves, or at any rate most of them, each had two votes. Yet, after they had done all these things, the Communists secured only one-fifth of the seats, and four-fifths were given to non-Communist Parties, in spite of the fact that Hungary was under the thumb of the police. Nevertheless, what we should regard as anything in the nature of freedom is still denied to her. As to Finland, which is the fourth of these States, it seems to His Majesty's Government that the Finnish Government are behaving in a civilized manner. They are able to
500
carry on according to a standard which we would accept as a reasonable standard of decency, and are doing so without undue foreign interference.
Of course we could have declined to sign a treaty or to ratify it, and we are now fully entitled to repudiate a treaty. But thereby would go one of our main supports for the removal of Russian troops from inside those countries. What would happen if we withdrew and Russia then concluded a separate and definitive treaty? Would things be any better? This is a very serious and grave matter, and we have to keep our heads about it. We have this month negotiations with Russia, and a tremendous lot depends upon the success of these negotiations. I agree with the noble Earl that it is no good merely signing treaties if they are not to be observed. What I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, is that the suggestions he has made will certainly be carefully considered. In particular, the suggestion that these matters should be referred to the United Nations will again be considered, and when the suitable moment arrives—and the noble Lord will understand exactly what I mean when I say that we must select the occasion—the Government will have no difficulty in following that advice.
4.37 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, your Lordships were good enough to listen to me for some time when I originally spoke and I do not wish to detain you now, particularly as I am to be followed by a Motion which will interest a great many of your Lordships domestically. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that he would not be carried away by me. I have never flattered myself that I have ever carried him away. He is not easy to carry. Moreover, I have passed the age in which I wish to indulge in such athletic aspirations. It might lead to not only political but also to physical rupture! Although, under a misapprehension, he disagreed with a great deal of what I said, he did not withdraw from what he said the last time that I raised the matter, in March. He then gave me some support in referring the matter of treaty observation to the United Nations. With that I am amply satisfied.
With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, he and I are in general agreement. He raised one point

501
whether I thought matters were worse now than forty or fifty years ago. I do not think that bears very much on the particular case I had in mind. I was attacking the situation as absolutely bad, dismissing the relative side of the question. If we are to consider whether what I may call the technique of elimination was further advanced in 1907 than it is in 1947 then 1947 wins by millions.
Lord Schuster spoke about Czechoslovakia. I did not mention that country in the list of countries to which I referred as being in grave danger of having the remnants of democracy stamped out, but as a matter of fact, there is a great deal of truth in what he said, because the Communist Leader, Gottwald, has announced that he will insist on an absolute majority for the Communists at the next elections. He is already talking of purges, which is a very ominous word. Some of the more courageous writers—Peroutka, for example—have already taken alarm at this, and said that if that once comes about it will be the beginning of the single Party again.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was good enough to intervene in the debate and I am grateful for his intervention. I would have liked to make it clear to him—and I hope that I have made it clear to the House,—that the suggestion I made about recovering one's liberty to reconsider one's attitude towards a treaty which had been violated by another person was only made as a kind of pis aller. I made it in fact because my previous suggestion in March to refer the matter to the United Nations had been rejected. I should be infinitely better pleased with that, and I gave that again as my first choice to-day. I am therefore grateful for what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said today which leaves me to hope that these matters will be increasingly referred to the United Nations. I hope we shall be very ready to refer every breach.
A great deal depends on the quantity. One must not let too many things pass without that reference. The purpose of that (and that purpose, I believe, has been largely added to by to-day's debate) is to give some heart to the poor people in Europe who are suffering from these terrible oppressions. The Continent is full of them—people who hate totalitarianism in any form. They look to us for
502
some encouragement in making life bearable and giving them hope for the fu: ure. I honestly believe that to-day's debate will filter through to many of them and serve to give them fresh heart. With an expression of my gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for what he has said, and to the House; for having listened so patiently to me in saying something which I felt in my conscience bound to say, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BASIC PETROL RATION.
4.42 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to call attention to the abolition of the basic petrol ration; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. At the outset I would like to make the claim, with which I believe noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree, that the abolition of the basic petrol ration is the greatest single hardship that has been inflicted upon a warweary people by the present Government. The second general contention I would put forward is that the total elimination of the private motorist is regarded by the great body of people in the country as a pretty desperate sort of reward as part of the fruits of victory. To the best of my knowledge, petrol is the only commodity in general use which has been singled out for total abolition. We have had great restrictions on smoking, drink has become very expensive, and other things are becoming expensive. But petrol has been selected as the only commodity for total abolition.
I think your Lordships will agree that the recent debate in another place, with a very considerable drop in the Government majority, and perhaps the municipal election results, are, to some extent, indicative of the general resentment of the community at the abolition of the basic petrol ration. I wart to try to examine this position fairly, logically, and in a reasonable frame of mind, and during the deployment of my arguments I would ask His Majesty's Government certain questions. I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is to reply to this debate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was wondering if it would be convenient to the House if I spoke rather earlier in the debate, because I have a lot of figures to give to the House. I think if I speak third, after the noble Earl, Lord Manvers, it will assist noble Lords who speak later.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am sure we are all grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. He just now called himself a "Jack of all trades," but I think we who have listened to him replying to many debates think that he is also the master of many.
The first question which occurs to the mind of anyone who examines this position is: Could the need for the economy in petrol have been foreseen with a view to putting forward some other scheme than its total abolition? It is necessary, in answering that question, to look briefly at the history of this matter. Last spring the hearts of all motorists were gladdened by the knowledge that the basic petrol ration was to be increased by 50 per cent., and the one-gallon coupons were to become worth one and a half gallons. On August 6 the Prime Minister announced a cut of 33⅓ per cent. in the basic ration, and 10 per cent. for other users, to come into operation in October. Then, on August 28, the Government announced the complete abolition of the basic petrol ration, a decision, they said, due to a review of the position, and the strain on sterling. I will make the assertion—naturally I will willingly withdraw it if I am proved to be wrong; it is an assertion of some gravity—that the Petroleum Board were never consulted by the Government before the total abolition was announced. I hope that I am wrong in that, and, if so, I will most humbly withdraw. It is perhaps more courageous to make an assertion which you must withdraw than to ask a question.
We were told that the difficulty of convertibility of the dollar-sterling position was largely the cause of the withdrawals. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer's defence of convertibility was that he had grave misgivings about it all the time; that when the convertibility clauses were put into our Loan Agreement he was extremely worried. If one accepts that, surely it seems reasonable that the Government should have had plans in regard to petroleum in case the misgivings
504
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer proved to be justified. We can reasonably ask the Government: If the Chancellor had these misgivings on the increase in May, why partially cut down at the beginning of August, and why completely abolish at the end of August? It seems to me that there is a lack of plan in this Government of Planners, and we ought not to have had this haphazard contradiction of events, which certainly the ordinary public, and I think many members of your Lordships' House, do not understand.
I do not want to make a general political speech in any way, but when we think of this increase, and then two subsequent decreases in the petrol ration, we cannot help recalling the surprise which was sprung on the country by the coal crisis, and the series of other events which seem to have taken the Government by surprise as much as they have taken the general community. Someone remarked to me the other day that it was rather like Ethelred the Second; that this Government would go down in history labelled as "The administration of Attlee the Unready."
I pass now to the question of saving. This has been put at £9,000,000— £4,000,000 by the cut on August 6, and a further £5,000,000 by the total abolition. I do not want to go deeply into figures, but we should like to know how this £9,000,000 saving is calculated. Is it all a dollar saving? Does it represent the bulk purchase price of petrol bought in the United States, or does it include freightage; and if so is it a dollar freightage or a sterling freightage? If it be the latter, then obviously the £9,000,000 is not entirely a dollar saving; it may be a total sterling saving partly represented by dollars and partly by sterling.
Another point upon which we would like some light is this. If the basic ration were reduced to a coupon value of half a gallon, how much saving would the Government obtain in dollars? We on this side of the House do not in any way criticize the Government for making the maximum effort to obtain dollar savings at the present time, but the country does want clear facts as to how much is being saved. As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has promised certain figures I think I can leave that point there.

505
What we want to judge is whether any dollar savings by the Government, important and vital as they are at the present time, are not outweighed by the losses at home in several other directions. I do not want to make any absurd comparisons as to how the saving could have been achieved in other ways, but equally we are entitled to ask the Government not to try to put the case of food against petrol. I think we may take exception to the argument: "Well, of course, the saving does represent the equivalent timber for 110,000 houses." That was the defence put up by the Minister in another place. He said that the saving would be 187,000 standards of soft wood and that that was the amount required for 110,000 houses. Every one of us knows that whether the saving is represented in timber or not, 110,000 houses will not be built in the Government programme and by the maximum effort. It is no good comparing petrol and the houses we are not going to have with the houses you would not have in any case.
The next point I would like to raise is this. I wonder whether the Government realize the effect and the loss of general efficiency in our national life which will be brought about by this abolition. For the recovery of something less than a fraction of a penny in the pound of our dollar gap, they are throwing out of gear the smooth running of nearly the whole of our community. The car is no longer the rich man's perquisite. I take exception to propaganda speeches made in another place and in the country, and in the writings of the Government Press, which talk about "the rich man's hobby" and about "pleasure motoring." If your Lordships care to examine statistics you will see that there are approximately 1,800,000 motor cars registered in this country. Four out of five of those are under twelve horsepower; more than half of those registered are under ten horse-power and there are something like 250,000 motor cycles. I give you those figures to prove my point that the motor car is a thing used by every man to-day. Indeed, it is very often the poor man's reward for incentive. He works hard, he saves and he has his motor car as a thing of relaxation at weekends and to use during his business.
I know that some noble Lords believe in the perfect planned State, where all
506
men will work equally hard not for themselves, their wives, their children or their homes, but just for the glory of working for the State. That is the implementation of theory, will No 1ncentive being required. But unfortunately human nature has not yet joined the Fabian Society! Maybe it should have joined but it has not yet, and to-day men do seek incentive. The Government are recognizing that in many directions in their policy, so why not have a reward for working by allowing the small man to have his car, which very often is the normal means of transport for him? If your Lordships go to any industrial factory you will see a large range of small motor cars and motor cycles outside the factory gates. The motor car has become the normal means of transport for the executive and the technician going to and from their work. The technician and the executive know no hours. They do not fear overtime, because they have always known that they could get on their motor cycle or into their car, and get home somehow.
What will be the position to-day, when we need more than ever the expert technicians and executives in industry? They will have to look at the clock in order to see that they catch the five-thirty 'bus; and let us remember that it will not be the five-thirty 'bus as we know it to-day. It will be a five-thirty 'bus thoroughly over-crowded: probably they will not even be able to get on it. I believe that this step will do a great amount of harm to our industrial effort, and that the wheels of industry will steadily slow down as the wheels of the motorists cease to turn.
I want very quickly to turn to the rural districts. I am quite sure that the essential petrol, which it is intended the Government should issue, will not be sufficient for the needs of the rural districts of our country. In many rural districts there are no amenities. Petrol for the farmers is not enough, because all people contribute to rural community life in a whole variety of ways. It has been said in defence of the Government's action that essential petrol will be given for shopping, for schools and for doctors. That was the statement made recently in another place. What is the good of having essential petrol given you to visit the doctor if it is an emergency call, and your car has been laid up? You cannot apply

507
for petrol to go to the doctor for a series of problematical visits. Undoubtedly rural communities are going to be hit very hard.
Since this Motion was put on the Order Paper I have received many letters from all over the country. I would like to read one only, a letter from a country parson. He says this:
"For the country motorist, his car is his life-line connecting him with his shopping centre, enabling him to keep in touch with his friends, and to continue to take part in such social life as other restrictions have still left to him. … The Government will, of course, reply that the country motorist will receive E coupons for essential purposes. But it would be impossible to specify on any application form for E coupons the variety of calls for which the countryman has to use his car. For example, something may be urgently needed for the house, for the garden, etc. It might be possible to fetch it by using public vehicles, but this only by giving up a whole day, whereas with the car it is a matter only of an hour or two."
When the Government say that petrol will be given for essential purposes, they do not at the same time draw the attention of those to whom they are saying it, to the very severe interrogation through which a potential user of a motor car will have to go. I have here the form which is sent to applicants in rural areas, and for a moment I would like to give your Lordships some of the information that the rural user is expected to supply:
"State the name of the nearest place at which essential foodstuffs can be purchased.
Note: Only very exceptional circumstances, which must be clearly stated in (9) below, will be regarded as preventing the use of village shopping facilities."
Who is to say that village shopping facilities will really fulfil the needs of all those who live in the countryside? No village shop can at all times give the service as regards quantity or scope of articles that every household needs, and a visit to a large shopping centre is necessary. The next question is:
"State the walking distance (to nearest quarter mile) from residence to place named in (x)"—
that is the shopping centre. It is no good talking about a mile or half a mile or a mile and a half, if you are not going to take into account the age factor. It is much harder for someone of sixty to walk a mile than for someone twenty years younger to do so; and it is no good a person of ninety being told he ought
508
to walk three quarters of a mile. Who is to judge that a person must walk such and such a distance, or is to be allowed petrol? Another question is:
"State what goods are delivered to your locality by tradesmen and how many times per week."
The average person in a village does not know all the tradesmen's vans from various places which might or might not visit the village.
I think it is rather misleading for the Government to say that petrol will be given for various reasons when there is an inquisition such as this, and when the officer in a town office will judge the needs of each individual rural citizen whom he has never seen and in respect of a district he has never visited. One of the chief reasons why the basic ration was found necessary was that of administration, because it was realized that officials cannot judge each man's needs and, even more, cannot judge one man's need as against another man's. I would forecast that the administration of this particular coupon scheme will be found very difficult. All of us are hearing of long delays in respect of applications. I want to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack if he could kindly tell us—I am sure it would go out from him and from your Lordships' House to a very wide field—what local appeal machinery exists regarding petrol applications for the man who has not got satisfaction. No appeal machinery has been announced yet, and it is very important that we should know whether it does exist.
I would like briefly to touch on other aspects of this abolition of the basic ration. For instance, the Government are killing the efforts of many ex-Service men. These men have put their money and their hopes into small garages around the countryside and now they are going to find their hopes extinguished and their savings gone. Another consideration for a Government of the Left is that it is very unfair to introduce something which will hit the poorest man and allow the man who is comparatively well-off to get off much more lightly, because he can hire a car, while the poor man who has had his petrol taken away has no such advantage.
Then there is the financial aspect. The loss of revenue the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put at £19,000,000—

509
£10,000,000 from licence duties and £9,000,000 from the petrol tax—on the basis of half of the 1,800,000 cars coming off the road, that is, 900,000. Let us assume that the user of a car spent £100 a year on petrol, tax, insurance and general running and maintenance. You are, therefore, putting £90,000,000 of new inflationary money into circulation at a time when the Chancellor says he wants less and less money in circulation instead of more and more money chasing fewer goods. Various suggestions have been made as to how the Government might have more petrol. I will not argue this because the Government have sources of information which an ordinary member of the Opposition does not possess. Let me ask only this. Could we have got any more from the sterling area? The production in Iran has been between £18,000,000 and £20,000,000 worth a year, which is more than the whole of the consumption of the United Kingdom. Of course you have to sell for dollars, and we know that that is the maximum amount. Six or seven million more tons have been produced from the Middle East. Could we have had more tankers from the United States? I understand that six tankers have been bought or chartered and we could have brought all the petrol required for the continuation of the basic ration.
Next there is the question of savings. The Government say that the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are going to cut waste. We all want to see the Services save petrol, though not, of course, at the cost of essential training; and the Minister of Fuel and Power said the Services would be using 600,000 tons of fuel in the year ending June, 1948. I would like to know what is the Service use of oil in its widest sense—diesel oil, aviation spirit, kerosene and paraffin. We feel that there ought to be a saving not only in respect of motor spirit but in respect of all forms of fuel which is used. It is as well to remember that a normal four-engined bomber flying for fifteen minutes uses enough fuel for a man to keep a ten-horse-power car on the road, doing 1,500 miles, for a. year. We do not want to cut down training; but we feel that if there is a rigorous surveillance of petrol used by the Services it should go a measurable distance towards achieving the economy necessary for the restoration of the basic ration. We want an example of economy
510
from the Government; but all we are getting is a bill for £22,928,000 this year for motor cars purchased on behalf of the Government. This year they have bought 1,255 passenger cars, and they have on order another 1,360. I will not say that that is not necessary, but at any rate we should like to feel that the Government are setting an example themselves as regards saving and that each Department has a target figure to which it has got to get down.
Surely it might have been possible to achieve savings on commercial vehicles. It is a fact that the long-distance haulage industry does not come under the Ministry of Fuel and Power but under the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry of Transport have not found themselves able to check the black market in commercial petrol which has been going on in long-distance haulage. Could we not have reduced the basic ration to half the coupon value and put a limited radius of action, so that no-one could run more than, say, fifteen miles from the point of issue of their petrol licence book? I have never seen an adequate answer to the suggestion of that scheme.
Finally, what of the future? The Government stand firm on this, and I know that they are going to stand firm because they have declared so. There have been inspired Press statements that the basic ration is not going to be reviewed until next June or July and, indeed, that it might stay off for the whole of next year. This debate will have served a useful purpose, apart from drawing attention to he regrettable and, I think, avoidable decision which the Government have taken in the past, if the noble Viscount could tell us this: that the Government are not going to wait until June or July to review the matter, but will keep it under constant review—to-night, to-morrow, and every day, in order to see whether the basic petrol ration can be restored in some form, however small, at a far earlier date than next summer. I do not believe that you can keep a great section of the people of this country in the state of subjection which they feel they have been put into by the abolition of this basic petrol ration. If the Government will undertake that their review shall not be in respect of a Chancellor of the Exchequer's finances and the Ministry of Fuel's petrol requirements only, but shall also be a review taking into consideration those wider

511
questions of national well-being and national efficiency which I have tried to sketch very briefly to-day, then in my belief the Government in the very near future will see the error of their ways and realize theft the basic petrol ration should never have been taken away from the people.
5.12 p.m.
EARL MANVERS EARL MANVERS had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the grave inconvenience caused to country-dwellers by the loss of the basic petrol ration; whether it is the case that civilian consumption of petrol is a drop in the ocean compared with Service expenditure; and whether this attempt to impress foreigners with the conditions of austerity under which we are living does not impose needless hardship on our people; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will have noticed that there is on the Order Paper a Motion standing in my name which is rather similar to that which has been so eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I have been told that it would be a convenience to the House if my Motion were to be taken at this time, so that one reply might be made to the House on both Motions.
My excuse for raising the matter of petrol at all is that I raised it three years ago during the War. I ventured to suggest at that time that if the aeroplanes which were darkening the sky overhead were each of them using 160 gallons of petrol an hour, that if the Army tanks which surrounded my house in Nottinghamshire could travel only three-quarters of a mile to the gallon, and that if the naval motor-boat which my daughter was driving on Southampton Water used 16 gallons of petrol per day, it was surely needless to harass the unfortunate country dweller by taking away his basic petrol ration, which amounted to only ten or twelve gallons per month—I repeat, per month. Since that time, an even more striking example has been brought to my notice, a device named F.I.D.O., which, I believe, is used for clearing the fog away from aerodromes. I have been told, but I have not been able to verify it, that F.I.D.O. uses no less than 1,000 gallons per minute in performing its duty. I want to make it
512
quite clear that I do not grudge to our pilots, and I do not grudge to their passengers—of whom I am sometimes one myself—any measure of safety that F.I.D.O. may give them. I quote the immense quantity of petrol used by F.I.D.O. only by way of comparison with the microscopic requirements of the civilian motorists.
When I brought up the question three years ago, the reply came from the noble Lord, Lord Bruntisfield, who was at that time Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. The noble Lord gave me a most informative, lucid and courteous reply, but it amounted practically to: "Don't you want to win the war?" I did want to win the war, of course, and I felt obliged to withdraw my Motion at that time. I do not suppose that that particular argument will be available to the Government spokesman to-night. If I were asked, "Don't you want to win the peace?", I should reply, first of all, that I am not quite sure what that means; and, secondly, that, in my view, there is very little peace to be won by denying petrol to the country motorist, and, at the same time, by ruining wayside inns and garages in the manner which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye.
During the debate on the Address in reply to His Majesty's most gracious Speech at the opening of Parliament, this question was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Rochdale, in terms of greater eloquence than I can command, but I did not observe that any reply was made by the Government to their cogent arguments. I am very glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is going to follow me again tonight. It has been observed that, in a democratically-governed country, it is sometimes necessary to defer to the wishes of the people. I am in hopes that His Majesty's Government will decide that this is an occasion on which such deference might reasonably be shown.
5.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thought that it might be convenient to your Lordships if I were to speak at a very early stage, because I intend in the course of my observations—I am afraid that this is going to be a very dull speech—to give some figures which have not yet been revealed, in order

513
that your Lordships may see how we stand. That I will deal with when I come to the actual point. So far as the Government are concerned and I am concerned, your Lordships need not trouble to emphasize the fact that this involves very real hardship to not a few people, and even if it does not involve hardship, there are not so very many pleasures nowadays that we can lightly throw one of them overboard. Consider that, and consider, if you will, the case which I unfold, in the light of the very unpleasant circumstances of the day. I am not going to make a speech which is, in the slightest degree Party or, I hope, controversial. I am going to give your Lordships, so far as I have them, the facts and the figures, just as if we were all sitting round a board together, in order that we may know where we stand.
May I begin by reminding your Lordships—because your Lordships must consider the general setting—of the statement which Sir Stafford Cripps made in his speech in another place last week? He said that if we go on at the present rate throughout the year 1948 we shall have a dollar deficit of the equivalent of £475,000,000. Therefore he said it is essential to make all the cuts we can, and to export to dollar countries so that we may earn dollars on all the goods we can, and, supposing everything goes according to plan, and we manage to reach all our targets and sell all the goods we produce, we shall still have a dollar deficit in the year 1948 of the equivalent of £250,000,000. My Lords, I am not like the fat boy in Pickwick, and I do not want to make your flesh creep, but I must point out that the assumption that we can do all those things is a considerable assumption. If we take that assumption as granted, at the end of 1948 we shall have £270,000,000 left in the world with which to support and maintain the whole sterling area. That is the position, and it is as well that everybody should realize it.
I went to America this summer and I made speeches. I wanted to tell the Americans that we were not going to lie back comfortably, as it were, and expect them to come to our aid, but that we were going to do everything we conceivably could to help ourselves—we were going to tighten our belts and take the hard path, even though it hurt. That
514
very dear friend of this country, my old friend John Winant, of whose tragic death we heard only yesterday, came to see me and said, "I do beg you to go on with that theme. You must show my people that your people are prepared to put up with all sorts of hardships and inconveniences to help yourselves. Then your case for assistance here will be unanswerable."
Every restriction involves a risk to productivity, even if it is a mere restriction on pleasure. A man may work hard during the week, as some of your Lordships do, and. on Saturday or Sunday go and play a game of golf—which in your Lordships' case I expect is generally an excellent game. The tact that you have that exercise and that change of thought is a good thing for you, and it means that you can do your work for the rest of the week more efficiently I realize to the full that this cut means that many of us will have to do without that, and, as Lord Balfour said, it is quite wrong to think of motoring to-day as the privilege of the rich man. You see people crammed in cars going to the seaside in order that the children can have the chance of a day on the sands. It is, of course, the fact that a man has in that the inducement and the spur to work. We realize that, but we must do something to get these figures down, even though it hurts.
Let us look at what we are doing. I am not going to compare one thing with another. First of all we are cutting our capital construction for the present to the extent of £200,000,000; that covers all new building, houses, lactones, new plant and machinery. At the present time we have 260,000 houses under construction and 90,000 under contract, and we shall finish those. But we have to come down in 1949 to 140,000 houses; and those of you who know what unhappiness is caused to-day by the housing shortage will realize what it means to come down from 260,000, the number of houses now under construction, to 140,000. So far as steel is concerned, we have to cut that to the extent of 30,000 tons a quarter, which means that work in some factories must be stopped altogether and supplies for the railways, which are in a bad way, must also be cut.
Perhaps as important as all this is what we have had to do in regard to food. I understand that before the war we con-

515
sumed on an average about 3,000 calories per day. The figure before these cuts was 2,870, and it has now to be reduced to 2,700. That is done to save £66,000,000. That £66,000,000 is made up of a lot of little things, all of which are small in themselves—"bits and pieces," as Sir Stafford Cripps called them. We have not to take this bit, or call attention to a particular piece, and say how small it is. We have to apply the old maxim, "Take care of the pence and the pounds will take care of themselves," and we have to collect these pence from wherever we can get them. That is the general setting of this grim and horrible story.
Now I come to consider the exact petrol position. I will give your Lordships all the figures I can, and if my figures are not plain, I hope you will stop me. I thought it would be convenient if I spoke at this time, because there is obviously some misapprehension about these figures. I will start with the United Kingdom consumption of petrol for the year ended August, 1947. In some respects this is estimated and, for the moment, I am leaving out surpluses. With regard to transport generally—and by that I mean commercial, public services and miscellaneous—consumption was 2,930,000 tons, which is near enough 3,000,000; with regard to private motorists, the basic ration was 890,000 tons and the supplementary ration 730,000 tons, making a total for basic and supplementary of 1,620,000 tons. So the two figures are, broadly speaking, for commercial transport, passenger and goods, and so on, 2,900,000 tons; and for private motorists 1,600,000 tons.
I can only give you the figure for the Services up to the year ended June 30. The figures, therefore, do not quite tally, but I think it is a fair indication of what they were for the year ended August 31. The Services consumed 1,065,000 tons, excluding aviation spirit. The amount of aviation spirit was 304,000 tons. That is the position, I think, for 1947. Our estimate for 1948, assuming we continued on that basis—that is to say, with the basic ration as heretofore and without the cuts—is that the total consumption would go up from 4,500,000 tons (which was the total for the year ended August, 1947) to 4,800,000 tons.
516
With the proposed cuts and with the abolition of the basic ration we estimate that the total consumption will be 3,800,000 tons (of which the Services' consumption will be 620,000 tons) as against the 4,800,000 tons had there been no alteration in the basic ration and no cuts. Your Lordships will notice that the Services really are showing a very considerable reduction. If they make the cut that is estimated, their consumption will go clown from 1,065,000 tons, which was the actual consumption for the year ended June 30, 1947, to 620,000 tons, which is the estimate for the year ending August, 1948.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether the aviation spirit figures come into that last figure?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure, but I will find out if I may, and let the noble Lord know. The figure of 1,065,000 tons, I understand, did not include aviation spirit. The figure for aviation spirit was 304,000 tons. I have not the comparable figure for 1948; it may be that the Service Ministries do not want to reveal what their estimate is. If there is no objection to revealing it, I will find out what it is and let the noble Lord know. But aviation spirit is not included in the figure so far as I know.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just said is not in agreement with an answer given in another place last week, and which is reported in Column 1041 of the House of Commons Hansard. It says there that the consumption of the Services will be 530,000 tons in the case of the Army and 66,000 tons in the case of the Royal Air Force. That makes a total of approximately 600,000 tons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know how the difference in these figures arises. The noble Earl, I think, means that his figures add up to 600,000 tons, while my figure is 620,000 tons. I am afraid I have not the necessary information to reconcile these figures. Now I am told that I have not made it plain that the figures of 4,500,000 tons, which represented the actual consumption in 1947, 4,800,000 tons which would have been the equivalent in 1948 had there been no cuts, and the 3,800,000 tons

517
which we estimate for 1948, all represent civilian consumption. The Services are outside those figures. If I have not made that plain it is my fault.
The next question is this: If the estimated basic consumption is of the order of 960,000 tons, which is one figure I have been given (it is only an estimate), we must, of course, concede something by way of ration to people who really need it for business purposes, and we estimate that they will take 160,000 tons. So we estimate that the saving is 800,000 tons—not a full 1,000,000 or 900,000 tons. A saving of 800,000 tons of petrol was equivalent in value to £7,500,000 at the time the cut was announced. At the present time it is equivalent in saving to some £9,000,000. Of course, if the prices fall it will go down; if the prices rise it will go up. I treat the figure for the moment as £7,500,000, that being the saving at the prices existing at the time the cuts were announced. The basis of that is f.o.b. plus freight. It is not based on retail prices or retail charges in this country. It includes No 1nternal United Kingdom charges. I do not know, for the moment, whether that freight charge is dollar or sterling. I do not think that in practice—and I will give the reasons for that in a moment—it very much matters.
Now let me turn to a different topic altogether. It is very often said: "Surely you can get this petrol. You need not buy it from dollar sources at all. Get it from your British controlled companies." I will tell your Lordships the facts about the estimated production of the British controlled companies—I mean in particular companies like Shell (I am disregarding the Dutch side of that concern), Anglo-Iranian and Trinidad Leaseholds. The production of those companies and other big companies which I have not mentioned, for the year 1948, is estimated to be 8,000,000 tons. Now see where we get. I have already told your Lordships that the United Kindom consumption is estimated to be 3,800,000 tons and the sterling area consumption is estimated to be 5,600,000 tons. Many of your Lord-shops understand this much better than I do, and, of course, you will realize that countries in the sterling area who have pooled their dollars with us can demand that we supply them with the petrol. If we did not they would simply buy dollar
518
petrol and we should have to supply the dollars to do it.
The foreign trade consumption is estimated at 2,900,000 tons. That is divided as follows: hard currency countries, like Sweden, 1,600,000 tons, semi-hard currency countries, such as Denmark, 850,000 tons, and the soft currency countries, such as France and her possessions, 450,000 tons. The supply to the soft currency countries is under consideration, but we have some moral responsibility with regard to them; and moreover it is only wise to maintain, if we can, our organizations, to keep them just turning over. Now let me summarize the figures. They are 3,800,000 tons for the United Kingdom, 5,600,000 tons for the sterling area, and 2,900,000 tons for foreign trade. That makes a grand total of 12,300,000 tons. That is what we have to supply, as opposed to 8,000,000 tons which is the estimated 1948 production of the concerns to which I have referred. Therefore your Lordships will see that in regard to petrol we are marginally on dollars all the time to the extent of 30 per cent. And, of course, we cannot fulfil our necessary requirements without buying dollar petrol. Those are the figures, and I have tried to give your Lordships a full statement of them. I think they show that the conception of being able to buy from sterling areas as opposed to dollar areas is erroneous.
Two schemes have been put forward by the motoring clubs. First, they have said: Retain half the basic ration—that would be a saving of something like £3.750,000—and have cuts in all other uses of petrol proportionately, according to the extent to which each particular use is deemed to be essential to the national need, so as to reach the total of £7,500,000. It seems to me that the scheme has this vice. It merely transfers the burden from the user who is less likely to be essential to the user who is more likely to be essential. I am bound to say, even if it be the fact that we can save more on the commercial petrol, that I cannot regard that as being a substitute for a cut in the basic ration. I should ask for that to be cumulative, having regard to our difficulties. The Minister of Transport was most reluctant to go as far as the 10 per cent. cut. I think we all know that there has in the past beer a black market arising from commercial

519
petrol, and it will be very carefully watched in the future. If there is anything more to be got from there, please do not regard it as an alternative. If, as I frankly conceded, the abolition of the basic ration is lamentable, I think a cut over and above the 10 per cent. on commercial petrol would be likely to do more harm to our productivity. It is from that point of view that we have to select our cut: Which is less likely to harm productivity?
The latest suggestion made by the motoring organizations, as recently as October, was that we should retain half the basic ration with the restriction of users to a radius of twenty miles. The restriction was really put on to enable the police by stopping cars to stop the black market. The plan was not intended to affect any user in itself but to enable the authorities to keep control of the situation. The reason why we are bound to reject such a plan is that it effects only half the saving we want. Quite frankly, we want not only the full £7,500,000 but if we can get any more from anywhere else, we want that too. There are those who think that the abolition of the basic ration will lead to an increase in black market activities. I do not myself think so, but we shall have to see. After all, the cut of 10 per cent. on commercial vehicles, which can if necessary be increased if we find we can do it without interfering with productivity, may seriously interfere with the source of the black market.
I believe the greatest asset that we have in getting through these very troublous times—and I said this in America—is that we are a law-abiding people. Of course, there is a danger that when you multiply, as, I confess, you must multiply, these rules and regulations, you increase the temptation to break the law, and if we do not remain a law-abiding people we shall never get through our difficulties. That is my belief. Therefore, your Lordships will see that I am fully alive to the difficulty. I wish very much indeed that we had not to do this thing, but having given your Lordships facts and figures and shown you what we are doing about housing and steel and food, though it hurts devilishly much, I think we have got to make up our minds that we must do without the basic ration. Of course the matter will
520
be kept under review, because no one wants to go on with restrictions a day longer than necessary. I should be prophesying smooth things and not prophesying honestly, however, if I led your Lordships to believe there is any hope, so far as I can see, in the near future of our financial position so far improving that we can restore that which we should all very much like to restore.
There are one or two other questions I was asked. So far as tankers are concerned, the Government have provided oil companies with dollars to buy tankers allocated to the United Kingdom by the United States Building Commission. I do not regard this problem as being in any sense a tanker problem, or as being alleviated by tankers. With regard to the Petroleum Board, I may tell your Lordships that the Board were not consulted, nor are they in any way concerned with the administration of the rationing scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, wanted to know why we had an increase in August, 1946, and had to announce this decision in 1947. The answer is, because the economic situation has deteriorated. It is no good denying it; prices have risen enormously. For our dollars we are getting fewer and fewer goods, and people are now being brought face to face with the crisis.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I thought the noble and learned Viscount said that there was a reduction in August, 1946, and abolition in 1947. In fact, the reduction began in August, 1947, and abolition later, so it was in the same month.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought the noble Lord referred to the increase in August, 1946. I have given a sketch of the position and have tried to give the facts as I see them, impartially. I believe it is the right thing to give the people of this country the facts. If they are brought face to face with the facts they will rise to them and get through the difficulties. Do not think the Government do this lightheartedly, and do not think the Government do not realize that hardships will be imposed by all these cuts. This cut certainly increases them more than any other, except perhaps the cut in food. I confess that the cut I would want to restore before any other, if I had my way, would be the cut in food.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Would the noble and learned Viscount touch on one point, with which he said he might not have time to deal? When the rural user feels that the urban official deals with him unfairly, is there any appeal machinery?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, there will be appeal machinery.
5.48 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, I wonder how many of your Lordships would like to change places with me, in following the noble and learned Viscount. His statement has been clear, and has knocked the bottom out of most of my speech because he has replied to many of the questions I was going to ask. He said his speech would give us time to prepare our own, but I am the unlucky one who has not had time to prepare my speech. However, there is one point on which I wish to be quite clear; that is, that the increase in, and the supplementary, petrol ration exactly equals, on the figures I have worked out, the drop in the basic. The noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong. I would ask especially, on behalf of the rural users, what exactly would be the position if the whole of the E and S coupons were withdrawn and the basic ration, less the 50 per cent. suggested the other day, allowed for it."
Frankly, I remain a supporter of Lord Balfour's speech. I am certain, even after the Lord Chancellor's statistics, that the people of this country are not convinced that this cut is fair or, indeed, necessary. The noble and learned Viscount mentioned that the various clubs took a deputation to the Minister. Actually, the deputation consisted of all societies interested directly in the motor car. and included, amongst others, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. I do not think that any member of the deputation was satisfied with the reply of the Minister, nor were many Members in another place satisfied with the reply of the Minister there. To-day we have the advantage of having had further statistics. The Minister promised a constant review of the position, and I would like to ask today that that review should be constant, that it should be almost immediate, and that it should take place at Cabinet level.
522
It has been stated frequently that this decision was taken without asking the advice of the motoring societies, the Petroleum Board, or even the Minister himself, he not being a member of the Cabinet. I believe that our Prime Minister is a reasonable, understanding and kind-hearted man, and if further action could be taken on the basis that I suggest, the severe cutting of the E and S ration in favour of some form of basic, it would be fairer. We have been given the figures of the loss on taxation, and the saving. I do not think we have yet laid enough stress on the loss in time and fatigue, find the loss in public voluntary and unpaid work. We have all received many letters on this particular subject. I have one here (I will not read it, because I think I can state it) which shows that a Justice of the Peace is not allowed petrol. He has been to the only court of appeal so far, the Petroleum Board, and he is not allowed petrol. The barristers and lawyers attending courts are allowed petrol, but he, as a voluntary worker, is not. Not only has he had to give up his job on the Bench, but he is also giving up several other voluntary undertakings.
LORD CALVERLEY: May I interrupt the noble Marquess for one moment? A Justice of the Peace can get a supplementary ration if he will only go to the local appeals committee, which exists in every region. At any rate, there is one; in Yorkshire.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: This particular letter is from Lancashire.
LORD CALVERLEY: Then they are just slow.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: This letter says:
"It is fantastic and directly contrary to the principles of justice we are asked to administer that the attendance of solicitors and barristers at our Courts should be considered essential by the Petroleum Board, and petrol granted for this purpose, and yet he attendance of the Magistrates, the 'great unpaid,' is apparently of No 1mportance at all to these paid public servants."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I suggest that this magistrate lives on a bus route? If you have a bus passing your door you will not be allowed petrol.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: To return to the saving that could possibly be made—in fact, I am sure

523
could be made—members of the Control Commission in Germany still have petrol for 500 miles pleasure motoring. The figures of the colossal orders for cars, which have already been quoted to-day and which I think horrified the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself when he gave them in another place, could surely be cut down. These figures, I am given to understand, do not include orders for cars for the Coal Board, for British civil aviation, or for the police. And of course they exclude the Services. If we could be given a figure for new cars ordered for Government-controlled Departments I think we would see how the renewal of the small basic ration could be assisted.
Finally, I believe there is a great deal in the system which has already been tried in Norway. It has been touched on to-day. It is the use of the basic ration for certain hours, within a certain radius. It has shown a tremendous saving in what we might call police snooping which, from rumours I hear, is going to be of an exceptionally unpleasant nature under this new Order. It would also have a tremendous saving in the number of civil servants who will have to deal with these applications. How can any one, however fair-minded or however highly paid, sitting in an office, judge as to who shall be allowed three gallons in a rural area or who should not? We already have cases of supplementary petrol required for the month of November being applied for as soon as the Order came out. There are people with medical certificates who are denied any petrol whatever, yet people living in the same neighbourhood are getting petrol without certificates. I again plead for an immediate review, at Cabinet level, of the position, and the saving to be made out of the reduction of E and S coupons, and the use of cars for Government and semi-Government work.
5.59 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I intervene in this debate to support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. Unlike the noble Marquess who has just sat down, I welcome the intervention of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, because I agree with him one hundred per cent. that there is nothing the British public want more than the truth and the facts. It is not that the British public object to
524
hardship, but they do object to injustice; and the British public to-day are seriously disturbed, not because they do not accept that we have to cut these things to the bone, but because they are certain that the abolition of the basic petrol ration offends against their sense of justice and fair play, and violates the first principle to be observed in all hardship of fair shares and equality of sacrifice.
All the cuts which the British public have had to contend with during the war, and after, have, at least, more or less honoured that principle. But this offends against their sense of justice, because they believe, quite sincerely, that these savings, necessitous as they are, could have been obtained in a fairer manner. I know the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will forgive me if I use words which I expect he has used times out of number in the course of his career, which were uttered by a very great figure in his profession: that it is not only necessary for justice to be done, but it is equally necessary for it to be apparent that justice is being done. The British public are satisfied that the manner in which the basic petrol ration has been abolished does not conform to this high level. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the electorate expressed its opinion in no uncertain way in the polling booths on Saturday last.
I do not intend to recount in any detail the case as it could be stated for the individual unit of transport and the place it occupies in the industrial and social structure of this country; nor do I think it necessary to emphasize the dangerous position of our public transport system and the transport crisis which is facing us during this coming winter, stressed only two or three days ago by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who uttered a timely warning. I recapitulated all these facts and set them out in the speech I made upon the occasion of the debate on the Address in reply to the King's Speech, and I will not weary your Lordships with repetition. I believe they are relevant facts. I would contend that they have been accepted by official quarters in the admission that a ration of petrol will have to be given to the private motor car owner when an essential or semi-essential case has been made out. I am given to understand that it is estimated that there will be about 1,300,000 cars which will come into that category.

525
Again, is it not significant that at the first sign of difficulty and trouble that we have with public transport, aid is called from the private motor car? Birmingham transport system has broken down, and the first thing that happens is that the Ministry of Fuel and Power go to the R.A.C. and the A.A., and ask them to act as the issuing petrol coupon house to enable the private motorist to transport the people of Birmingham. That must be a telling reminder of the value of the unit of transport. I know that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will not mind my reminding him that the amount of petrol which is going to be given to the motorists of Birmingham to perform a national and public service has to come out of the saving estimate. I hope we shall not have too many like occurrences, but if we do have public transport breaking down from one cause or another, and in the end we have to call in—as we had to call in last winter and as we had to call in before—the private motor car owner to transport people to and from their work, I am afraid this saving, which looks so attractive, and which is a very strong debating figure on paper, will melt like snow before twelve months are out.
I would also join with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and other noble Lords who have commented upon the impossibility of an official—more often than not a very junior official—in a Divisional Petroleum Office miles away from the applicant, to adjudicate fairly between the rival claims of one who is an expert letter writer and another who is a poor pleader of his own case. Compare the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack writing a letter to a D.P.O., asking for a petrol ration, with all his forensic skill—and myself! Already very many anomalies are arising. If your Lordships would forgive a humorous digression, this story is told as being absolutely true. Within this last week or ten days the manager of one of London's leading football clubs, which I understand holds a very prominent position in what is known as the First Division, has received an allowance of petrol because, quite rightly, his job is looked upon as in some way essential. But the manager of his rival First Division club did not receive any answer to his application or any ration at all, but a blank refusal. Upon inquiries
526
being made a very junior official said: "Oh, the rule is that we do not issue petrol to amateur football clubs." The scene in the board room of that club can better be imagined than described. But there are to-day, and there always must be, these anomalies.
It is fair to say that the decision these officials must make is far more serious to-day than it was when it. was a case of a supplementary ration. They are the arbiters as to whether a car shall be used or not. If you are going to employ people with the necessary qualifications who can adjudicate with knowledge and fairness in such a matter, the cost is going to mount even more than it is mounting now. Not only have extra staff to be employed, but overtime has to be paid to the existing staff, which I read in perhaps not the best informed London evening newspaper amounts now to £50,000 a month. When you put those factors into the scale I think your Lordships have every right to be disturbed.
I accept the necessity for these cuts. I am not going to contest anything which the noble and learned Viscount said about their necessity, and therefore the argument: of petrol versus food—always an over-simplification in my opinion—does not arise. I am going to seek to prove that the major part of the cut and the economy can be obtained by spreading the Lord in a far more equitable manner over all classes of user, so that the hardship would not fall upon one section of the community which has been singled out for a 100 per cent. cut but would be borne more or less equally by the whole. I know that in expressing this opinion the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will appreciate my point. What will affect the industrial efficiency of this country must always be a matter of opinion.
Comment has been made upon, and great publicity given to, the black market. I am not going to waste your Lordships' time by saying whether in my opinion it has been exaggerated or not; but I am satisfied that it is substantially of such a figure as to be alarming, and I would invite your Lordships to consider where it comes from. Bear in mind that, unlike a lot of other rationed commodities seeping into a black market, not one gallon of petrol leaves the distributing company without the surrender of a

527
coupon, so if there is a black market in either coupons or petrol, it is proof that there is an over-generous allocation of coupons to users. And the amount of that black market is the measure of the surplus which is given to users over and above their requirements.
There is a widely-held view, which has been expressed by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that the chief source of this black market is to be found among the commercial users. I will content myself with saying that there are very good grounds for that suspicion. I invite your Lordships to refresh your minds as to how the commercial user obtains his petrol. He does not get that petrol from the Divisional Petroleum Officers of the Ministry of Fuel and Power; it is distributed by the organization of the Ministry of War Transport, by group organizers, voluntary workers, who are at the same time transport operators themselves. There is no check on usage whatsoever. I am informed that the log which the commercial user had to keep was done away with at the end of the war. Thus the only basis for the decision of these officials as to whether or not the amount applied for is necessary is the statement of the case made by the operator himself. I would not hold free from blame, either, the private motorist who has a supplementary ration. I would not hold free from blame the agricultural user. But I am very certain that removing the basic ration from the private motorist will not cure the black market. Admittedly, it will reduce the number of participants; but there is only one way to cure the black market and that is to prevent it at its source. And I would argue that it is far better ruthlessly to cut all issues and allow a case to be made for more petrol for essential use than to give over-generous issues and see the balance seep into a black market.
I have said that the British public today are seriously disturbed because they are not satisfied that there is any equity in this matter. What is going to be the position if this black market goes on? I defy the wit of even the cleverest officials of the Ministry of Fuel and Power to stop it by present methods. You cannot stop this thing unless you prevent the issue. The people forced to give up their little motor car, their little jaunts out with their
528
wives on Sundays, who see the owner of a couple of lorries riding about in a high-powered motor car on the petrol which is surplus to his requirements as a lorry-owner, will become even more annoyed.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has given a lot of figures; but he will appreciate that figures are very difficult to assimilate. I deduce from what he said that the saving desired is about 1,000,000 tons a year. I am going to suggest that if the basic ration were restored at the rate of 50 per cent. of what it was—that is three quarters of a gallon per unit instead of a gallon and a half—and if all supplementary petrol to private owners were cut by a minimum of 15 per cent., or perhaps 20 per cent., it would mean that to achieve a saving of 1,000,000 tons, all other users would have approximately to share a cut of 12½ per cent., which is only 2½ per cent. more than it is proposed to cut now. I am not going to say that that should be spread equally. I quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that passenger transport perhaps should not receive a cut; but at the same time I am not satisfied that our passenger transport is carried on with that degree of economy which the situation demands.
There is one other point which calls for an answer. It is stated that while a basic ration is in existence it is impossible to check the use of petrol for non-essential purposes which has been issued for essential purposes. In other words, the basic ration is an umbrella under which all crimes have been committed! That is perfectly true; but I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to consider this. Is it seriously suggested that in an effort to find out whether 1,300,000 motorists who it is stated would remain on the road are absolutely conforming to what they have written on the piece of paper, a sample of which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, read to your Lordships, we are going to have the police of this country checking the goings and comings of these 1,300,000 to see whether they divert 25 yards from the highway to their favourite pub on one side of the road or their golf course on the other; whether they are committing a breach of conditions; whether in fact they are going to see their maiden aunt who is an invalid, or whether they are going to church? Is it conceivable that, at a time such as this,

529
we should waste the man-power of the police force and of the Civil Service to check these things? Would it not be a lot better to admit the necessity of a motor car in our present economy but to cut down issues so that the car is only really being used for essential purposes? Cut the other users as I have suggested, and have some kind of spirit of "trust the people."
I am alarmed by what the noble Lord, Lord Dukeston, said in the very fine speech he made in the debate on the Address. What he was disturbed about was that we should have restriction after restriction, restriction after restriction, until the people of this country got into a descending spiral where the will to work or the will to do anything else evaporated. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack quite rightly said, from his great knowledge, that we are, in effect, in this country a law-abiding nation, and the reason why we are a law-abiding nation is that we are never foolish enough in this country to pass laws which can be easily brought into contempt. The laws which we do pass have the support of the vast majority of the citizens. I am going to suggest that this law has the support of hardly any of the citizens, because they are not satisfied with its equity. When you think of starting prohibition, you could perhaps sensibly learn a lesson from America. What happened there, where they bred law-breakers through trying to prohibit the American public from having something which the American public had quite made up their minds they were going to have?
So I do join with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in appealing to His Majesty's Government, on the grounds of the industrial efficiency of this country, to restore a basic petrol ration. I know that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will not mind my saying that I do not agree that perhaps a ten per cent. cut in the commercial vehicle services of this country will affect the industrial efficiency of this country more than workers standing in bus queues frozen and wet through seeing buses go by. That is not the way to get those workers to produce more per production-hour. I believe that the public services system of this country will not be able to stand the load. The unit of individual transport has worked itself and ingrained
530
itself into so much of our industrial system that when you take it out you are doing something which I know in the end will be against the national interest.
6.23 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has, of course, based the case for the abolition of the basic petrol ration principally upon our dollar position. That was also the case with the Minister of Fuel and Power in another place, who used almost exactly the same arguments. We all agree that we have got to save dollars; everybody agrees about that. The noble and learned Viscount in his speech this afternoon referred to the hardship caused by the abolition of the basic petrol ration and the lack of pleasure and things that went with it. But the thing to which he did not allude is a thing which has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in that brilliant speech—namely, the unfairness of the working out of the present abolition of the basic petrol ration.
The noble and learned Viscount gave us this afternoon a history of the matter. But what nobody can quite understand is why the Prime Minister in another place—and this was confirmed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I am right—on August 6 announced that the basic petrol ration was to be continued on the basis of one gallon a unit. Parliament rose. Then we witnessed the spectacle of Ministers flying about in aeroplanes all over the place: I think one came from Inverness, another from Tenby and another from the Channel Islands. I have the figures of the cost of that; it was given in answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place. It cost £803 and expended 693 gallons of fuel. As a result of all that, the B.B.C. were employed to tell us that the Government had decided to do away with pleasure motoring. I object to that most extraordinary expression "pleasure motoring." What is one man's pleasure is another man's necessity, and at least the B.B.C. might be aware of that; but let it pass. The basic petrol ration was to be done away with.
That is not all. Motor coaches are still allowed to career up and down the country. They are merely cut by 10 per cent. in their fuel. Only yesterday I happened to notice a paragraph in one paper about the Royal Wedding. It said that motor

531
coach companies were making arrangements to run motor coaches from all over the country to Romsey in Hampshire in order to try to see our beloved Princess and her Consort during their honeymoon. Is that the way to save this hard-earned petrol about which we have heard so much this afternoon? Then what about these "mystery" tours? They still go on. You can see motor coaches standing by waiting to go off on a "mystery" tour. What is the difference between pleasure motoring and pleasure coaching? I do not know. The long-distance coaches still run. Why is it necessary, if petrol is so very short, for long-distance motor coaches to run all the way between Edinburgh and London, or between Newcastle and London, or the like, and compete with our nationalized railways? I should have thought that the Government would not welcome it very much.
Then again, take the co-operative societies. I do not know how many of your Lordships have had the bad luck to meet one of these co-operative society tours on the way to Southend or Blackpool or Brighton. I have. I have met them going to all three places. If you are in a humble private motor car, heaven help you; you have to look out. That is the sort of thing which causes extreme exasperation, rather than annoyance, to the private motorist to-day. But, of course, there are many other sides to it. I want to appeal to the Lord Chancellor. He wants to see a saving in dollar expenditure; so do I; so do we all. We also want to see that there is a reasonable opportunity for an owner of a motor car to use it. I suggest that it should be possible to cut existing commercial vehicle allowances by thirty per cent. and allow a very small basic ration to continue.
The noble and learned Viscount this afternoon has given us many figures. Everybody knows how difficult it is to digest figures, and no one more so than myself. I understood the noble and learned Viscount to say that the total amount of Shell, Anglo-Iranian and Trinidad Leaseholds production of petrol per annum was 8,000,000 tons. I am not sure if I am really correct in that, because it seems to me an astonishingly small amount compared with what is generally understood to be the production of those firms. Anyhow, I am sure that we have got to accept it. On the other
532
hand, if the ration had been continued on the basis of the Prime Minister's announcement on 6th August, then from what I can make out the expenditure of fuel for the basic ration would have been 640,000 tons, less 160,000 tons for E and S coupons, which would have left a figure of 480,000 tons. It has been stated in another place that 60 per cent. of our petrol and motor spirit imports come from dollar areas. If that is so, then the amount concerned from the dollar areas, as I work it out, would be 288,000 tons per annum. I may be wrong in those calculations, but that is the figure as I work it out.
The Lord Chancellor has told us about the expenditure of the Services, but, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and possibly by the noble Marquess, Lord Willingdon, as well, nothing has been said about the expenditure of motor spirit by other Government Departments. We know that vast numbers of new cars are being ordered by the various Government Departments, and I should like to ask whether we could be given some figures to show what savings the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Health and the Office of Works have been able to show in their expenditure of motor spirit. Moreover the whole matter has been handled in a muddled way. Soon after these cuts in the basic ration were announced it was also announced by the Government that the F.I.D.O. installations at Manston and at Blackbushe near Camberley were in operation, or were going to be in operation, and that the pilots of aircraft who wanted the advantage of using one of those installations could ask for it but would probably have to pay the cost. Heaven help them if they do, because the expenditure of fuel at Manston, I understand, working at full pressure is 470,000 gallons an hour. And that, my Lords, is petrol. That seems to be an expensive business.
My next point is that the Government have been busily engaged in disposing of surplus aero engines, and they have, so I am told, been selling these 450 h.p. petrol engines for generating sets. These engines consume 20 gallons of petrol an hour. What is the private motorist to do when he sees all these figures, and when he is not allowed to have his few gallons, or whatever it is, for essential purposes? Do not imagine that you have merely to take advantage of the Prime

533
Minister's declaration and prove an essential purpose to get your E coupons. If you happen to live anywhere within reach of a tram route or a bus route, no matter where that tram route or bus route goes—it may go in absolutely the opposite direction, or it may go completely hay-wire as far as you are concerned—you will still be refused your E coupons.
Now let us take the garage question. Of course it is necessary to save petrol, but by doing away with the basic ration you are really going to knock the garage business endways. It seems to me, and it has always seemed to me, that a prosperous garage industry is essential to the welfare of the motor industry of this country, and to destroy it when so many ex-Service men and others have just put their capital into it on the strength of Ministers' declarations in August last year and the beginning of August of this year, is to create an extraordinary position.
There have been some interesting questions and answers in another place regarding this matter. The Minister of Labour was asked how many garage workers he estimated would have to seek other employment as a result of the abolition of the basic petrol ration, and the reply given was: "I am unable to make such an estimate." Then another Member asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the estimated loss in trade in a full year which was likely to result from the termination of the basic ration. The answer to that was:
"I presume that the honourable and gallant Member has in mind garages and catering establishments which rely on the pleasure motorist for much of their trade. These concerns will inevitably suffer some loss of business, but no official statistics are available from which the extent of such loss in trade can be estimated."
Why? Do they not matter? I should have thought that probably many of them would have come within the "Tinker's cuss." class. It does seem to me that the Government have not given adequate consideration to all these points.
Now I come to the question of the location of one's house in relation to one's work. Many people up and down the country have bought houses or invested in property, and they live, geographically, within a certain distance of their work. The figures of workers who use cars in order to go to work are rather
534
striking, and I have got together a few of them. In the Morris organization 4,000 workers use their cars to go to work and I am informed that in the Vauxhall organization over 1,000 workers use them. It is the same with every factory up and down the country, great and small, to a greater or ess extent. I myself am connected with a firm at Southall where quite a number of workers are accustomed to turn up in their small cars, and some of them incidentally have to come all the way from Walthamstow, which is quite a long way. It is not their fault that they have to come from Walthamstow; the housing conditions are such that they cannot possibly get accommodation any nearer the factory. What incentive have the workers in these businesses really got? You cut their food you stagger their hours, you are going to direct them from one place to another and push them around, you levy P.A.Y.E. on their overtime, they have to join in the queues, and now you have cut off all their petrol. It seems to me that the workers are getting a very raw deal in all these ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the question of the police. I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor what is going to happen about the police. Have the police made any representation about the position that is likely to arise, and the new duties which are likely to be thrust upon them as a result of this decision? It seems to me that the police will have the duty every few days of carrying out a sort of roundup of all the cars on the roads, to find out whether or not they are in fact being used according to the conditions under which the E or S coupons have been issued. There appears to be no other way of carrying out the Government's decision, and I would like to know whether the police have been consulted at all.
We have been told this afternoon—and it was stated in another place in answer to a question—that the Petroleum Board have not been consulted about this business. I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether the Petroleum Board have at any time within the last two years made any special representations to the Government about their petrol policy, their fuel policy, their fuel oil policy, and so on. I understand that representations have been made, and, if

535
they have, I would like to know whether we can be told what they were.
A further point I wish to raise is in connexion with the strikes to which Lord Lucas has referred. We know perfectly well that our transport system is not getting any better—the railways are getting into a terrible state. These unofficial strikes break out at intervals all over the London Passenger Transport Board area, and we have had them also in the Provinces. There has been a strike in Birmingham. Many of these strikes are unofficial and are not recognized by the unions. Is the population to be left without any means of getting about? It certainly will be, if you have a large-scale strike in the London area. Unless there are plenty of motorists, I do not see what the general mass of the population is going to do.
From a purely Party point of view, I could wish nothing better than that the Government should persist in this abolition of the basic petrol ration for as long as possible, for I am certain that few things the Government have done have been a greater psychological mistake. But I do not want to regard the matter from that point of view. I wish to make an appeal to His Majesty's Government. I think that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, was a little sympathetic in the earlier part of his argument, and I want to appeal to the Government to keep this question, as Lord Balfour of Inchrye has suggested, continuously under review. Do give us a little hope. Do try to find us a bit of blue sky somewhere, so that we can look up at it and feel encouraged. At present, all we have to look forward to is the prospect that, however hard we work, however diligently the country puts its back into it at the behest of the Government, we are still going to be £270,000,000 on the wrong side next year. I believe that if you can give the people a little incentive it will be worth millions to you—millions which will never show on any balance sheet.
Finally, to quote William Pitt on April 11, 1840:
"The experience of the last summer and the discussions of this Session confirm me in the opinion that while the Government remains in its present shape and under its present leader, nothing efficient can be
536
expected either to originate with them or to be fairly adopted and efficiently executed."
I wonder what he would say to-day.
6.42 p.m.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, rising at this rather late moment to address your Lordships, after listening to so many very brilliant speeches on the subject of the abolition of the basic petrol ration, I really feel rather incompetent. I would like, however, to make sure about one point before I go any further. In common with other noble Lords who have spoken, I fully accept the necessity for some cut in regard to dollar-consuming petrol, but, quite obviously, I do not agree with the 100 per cent. cut. It is not on the principle of the thing that I am in any way at variance with His Majesty's Government, but I do differ from them with regard to the extent of the cut and the way in which it has been carried out. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that they have not tried very hard. Let us consider, for a moment, events which have taken place since the matter was first mooted, right up to the present moment of this debate in your Lordships' House.
We were told in July that this terrible crisis was fast falling upon us, and towards the end of the month the word "crisis" had become part and parcel of our daily speech. Then the Prime Minister went to the microphone and an apprehensive nation sat around its Lord speakers to hear, if I may so describe them, a lot of none too clear statements and exhortations. But about one thing there was a definite statement and that was that basic petrol was to be cut by one-third. Well, we understood what was going to happen, and the idea of this cut was, of course, accepted. However, three weeks later—I think I am correct in saying that it was three weeks later—we had this other announcement, and there has been no explanation of it. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has remarked, Ministers flew about all over the place in aeroplanes, but we still have not heard what happened during those three weeks. Because we have not heard what happened during those three weeks, not unnaturally the country has lost a great deal of confidence in its leaders.
Your Lordships, I am certain, need no reminders from me as to the many fine attributes of the British citizen, but I am

537
sure it will be generally acknowledged that, above all, he is patriotic, that he is far from being a fool and is endowed with plenty of good sound common sense. I think that nothing in the world is more likely to lead to the loss of his good will than if he is made to think that he is being treated like a fool. And that is what a great number of the citizens of this country do think, because of the way in which this matter has been handled. To my mind, they have great justification for so thinking. So far as the abolition of the basic petrol ration and its immediate effect are concerned, is not the picture really rather the simple one of a nation the wheels of whose transport are already creaking, deliberately throwing away one of its facilities in the realm of transportation, and sitting down to listen to the other wheels creaking even more loudly? This sort of thing is regarded by the citizens as being crazy.
Now the attitude of the citizen towards this comes of a firm belief that when a Government do anything and when they make a curious statement they must explain it. I contend that right up to this moment we have not had a proper explanation. The first attempt at any explanation was made some time ago by the then Minister of Fuel and Power, who said the matter was quite simple; it was just a question of whether you bought food or petrol. In so doing he was picturing, for the benefit of his hearers, pleasure-seeking, greedy motorists roaring about in their cars in the face of a hungry proletariat struggling for existence. Some of his hearers may have thought it a very nice speech, regarded as a piece of oratory; but if I may say so, it does not bear very close scrutiny. I searched Hansard after the debate which took place in the other place in the hope of finding an explanation, but I am sorry to say I failed to find one there. The Minister seems to have spent quite a while and to have been at great pains to prove that a cut in petrol was necessary. But we all know that. I consider that he gave further proof in support of one's contention that experts had not been consulted—neither the Petroleum Board, of which other noble Lords have spoken to-day, nor, at that time, any of the motoring organizations. I am very glad, however, having been at pains to help with the amassing of about the greatest petition Parliament has seen
538
for years, that those organizations have now been granted some slight hearing.
Now I would like to touch for a moment on the question of the black market. It is not a savoury subject and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has already referred to it in a brilliant speech. The manner in which Lord Lucas referred to it made a deeper impression on my mind than, I think, any other matter that I have listened to during this debate. I see that in another place, in the debate last week, the Minister of Fuel and Power rather denied that the existence of the black market had had any effect upon this measure. About that there are two points. I strongly suspect that the Ministers when considering a petrol cut, even if they did not admit it to one another, had in their minds the idea that this was a good way of cleaning up the black market. I would not blame them if that were so. On the other hand. I wonder why they never thought that that was the first thing to do, because then they would not have had to make a cut. I felt I should mention that having heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, say in his speech that the leakage from the commercial issue of petrol into petrol tins which, shall we say, are not commercial, is enormous. I have no doubt it would be exceedingly difficult to get any figures, because one presumes that statisticians employed in that dark industry do not render their weekly returns to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, but if we could even guess the figures of that leakage they would have a profound effect on the Ministers.
I see that other methods of controlling the issue of fuel were discussed in another place and perhaps it is worth my while mentioning the question of dyeing petrol. I have often wondered why that was not possible. It seems so simple to dye one blend of petrol and not another, thus instantly disclosing the "spiv" or whoever it may be who has obtained the petrol in the wrong manner; but I am assured by one who is competent to speak that it is not a practical solution. I mention that in passing because a great number of people think that use of dye in petrol is a solution.
One's feeling in general is that the methods of dealing with this situation have been crude and the matter has been rushed. The reaction has been rather like that of a man who throws a line

539
overboard to a drowning pal and forgets to hold on to the other end himself. I wonder if it would be possible for the Cabinet, instead of keeping this error in front of them, as has been expressed as a fervent wish to-day, to reconsider the matter? I wonder if they have completely shut the door, because if so I fear that chaos in transportation is on us and, worse than that, a complete breakdown in morale.
6.54 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I wish to press the Government to reconsider this problem. I would like to point out that most of our magistrates' courts are to be working overtime in the course of a few months. Our police forces, who are at present under-manned, are going to have the job of doing something they do not like to do—snooping, rounding up people to see if they have not diverted in any way from the narrow pathway they have promised to follow in order to get their coupons. I would much rather that the police were catching thieves than making criminals. I sat on the bench when we were on the supplementary ration in the old days and I remember the case of a doctor who, going home after having a hard time helping to bring a child into the world, suddenly bethought that there was a football match only one hundred and forty yards outside his proper pathway. He had to be fined.
There is no doubt the Government or the Ministry of Fuel and Power or somebody have made a first-class mistake. They did some quick-change thinking during the month of August instead of going on their holidays. They told us to get our basic rations for six months and then soon afterwards said we could only use them for September. Then they told us we could apply for supplementary rations, and the booklet which was going to last us until the end of February was no good and a waste of paper. Altogether it appeared to me as a layman that the Ministry of Fuel and Power could have scientifically readjusted the saving which has to be made in petrol so that, instead of giving us a gallon and a half, they could give us an adjusted amount and let us do as we liked with it when we got it instead of having police running us in. Instead of that they have been most generous with the allowances. It is a
540
miracle how the divisional officers have got through the job. It is true that 251 extra civil servants have had to be used and everybody has had to work overtime, and even civil servants are entitled to be paid if they do a lot of extra work. We have to take this supplementary until February 29: it is Hobson's choice. I appeal to the Government to place us on our honour with the supplementary coupons we have received, instead of leaving us with the fear of being run in. Let us use them, and if we misuse them we shall be short of petrol, that is all.
In any case I would appeal to the Minister of Fuel and Power that, at any rate a week before Christmas, he should tell us that there will be no restrictions on the running of private cars. I have a vested interest in this because I want to bring my family and my babies they are not mine, they are in the third degree—to have the bit of bread and cheese or whatever it is and be cheerful and enjoy Christmas. May I make this personal appeal to Mr. Gaitskell who has to use that old-fashioned tub when he goes down to Winchester. Let Mr. Gaitskell tell us that he will put us on our honour in using that petrol, even if it is going out of his way, in order to see that we shall have a jolly good Christmas. We shall all have a better Christmas if we can do that. I want to tell the Lord Chancellor that we magistrates are going to be working overtime on an unsavoury job; and we do not want to do it. The Minister of Fuel and Power is going to compel the police to do jobs which they do not want to do. At the same time Mr. Gaitskell's own house will be unprotected. I do not wish him any harm but … Seriously, my Lords, I do ask for a reconsideration of this matter. I agree that we cannot have the basic back before the 29th, but let us use it as we like, and if we use it up we shall have to stop driving our cars.
There is one other point, which has reference to the black market business. I wish the Minister of Fuel and Power would consult the Regional Directors, or whatever they call the men in charge of the Ministry of Transport. We have one in Yorkshire and there is another in Lancashire. One of these men told me definitely that that is where the black market is. He said that Pickfords do not allow any of their drivers to touch a coupon. The driver gets what petrol he requires, and signs a chit for it, which

541
Pickfords honour. Certainly the Ministry of Fuel and Power, through the Ministry of Transport, have been inundating the commercial users with petrol coupons. A man told me the other day: "I will get you 100 petrol coupons." He was a reputable man, the head of a big firm of motor car distributors. That is how it goes on. It has got to stop, and the way to stop it is for Transport and Fuel and Power to come together. After all, the incentive we have here is not the pay we receive in this House, and we should have an additional incentive if we could just have for three or four weeks the use of the coupons for our wives and families without the knowledge that we may be run in.
7.6 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye in this Motion. I am also one of those who realize that a cut has to be made, but I do not think it should be a 100 per cent. cut. At this time of the evening I will be very brief, and just touch on two points. If I understood the Lord Chancellor aright, the figures he gave were that the sterling area for the last year got 5,600,000 tons, and Great Britain got 4,550,000 tons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not quite right. The estimated consumption in 1948 in the sterling area is 5,600,000 tons, and the United Kingdom consumption 3,800,000 tons.
LORD WALERAN: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I have that figure here, and I was just going to make that point. My point is a simple one. The sterling area has not been cut at all, and this country has been cut from 4,550,000 to 3,800,000. Is that justice? In all these figures which the Lord Chancellor gave us, he omitted one very important figure. I can see why he had to do that, which was because it would not have helped the Government's case at all. What he did not tell us was the total amount of dollars that would be spent on all petroleum products, including furnace oil, in the coming year as compared with last year. I think he will find that the saving of 900,000 tons in commercial motor fuel will not show much saving in dollars. What has happened is that with that dismal mismanagement of the coal situation last year there was a panic switch from coal to oil for industry, and
542
that has got to be imported. I am certain there will be a great increase in that type of oil, and the actual saving in dollars will not be there. I see the Lord Chancellor looks a bi puzzled. What I am trying to say is this. Up to now we have spent, say, x million dollars on petroleum products. This coming year, although we are saving 900,000 tons, we are still paying x dollars—not x plus y or x minus y.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I can assure him that I do not leave out figures because; they do not fit in with the case. I try to give the House all the relevant figures. If you are using a larger quantity of fuel oil—and I have no knowledge of the fact—what bearing has that on the question of petrol?
LORD WALERAN: The bearing it has on the case is that petrol is a product of that oil in a more refined state. If there had not been mismanagement of the coal situation we should not have been forced into having to get this extra primary oil product. I will not take up more time, but I do wish to support my noble friend in his Motion.
7.9 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I want to take up only a very few minutes. I have been playing my usual game of scratching out what I was going to say as other people mentioned it. There are, however, two serious points which I have not scratched out. The first is in relation to the ultra-conscientious people—and there are plenty of them in this country—who used their basic ration, in the days when it existed, for purposes for which they would have been justified in demanding a supplementary ration. Those people to-day are left high and dry, for they never asked for a supplementary ration. The Petroleum Board people can say to them: "Well, you managed without petrol for this purpose before, so why should you have it now?" These people do deserve, and ought to receive very special consideration.
There is another point rather on the same lines. That concerns the owner of the new car who has paid a very high rate of purchase tax, and has paid recently on the assumption that he was going to pay a very much lower rate of revenue tax next year. That is all very well. You have got the money out of

543
him in advance for taxation on a car which you are not now going to allow him to use. Is that quite playing the game? That, I think, is another very powerful argument for reconsideration of the question, to see whether there is not some alternative to the absolute abolition of the basic ration. There is one final batch of people—and there are a considerable number of them—who are demanding a reconsideration of this matter. They are the people to whom the Government are making an appeal for extra work and extra effort—the farmers' wives. They have not yet been mentioned. The farmer's wife has to "pinch" the farmer's car (when he does not want it for other purposes) to go into the local village or town to do her shopping. If she is on the telephone it is not a bit of good telephoning to the shop and ordering the goods. The shopkeepers pay no attention to telephone orders in the country to-day, and they do not deliver at all in a great many places in the country. She cannot go to the market with the farmer when he goes, because she cannot spend the whole day away from her home and the farmer does not want to come back when she has finished her shopping as he has certainly not finished his job. Those people are demanding reconsideration of this matter.
Every farmer cannot do as I have been able to do, buy a donkey and a cart. I am not going to be tied down to sitting in the house when I cannot produce a legitimate excuse to remove the car from the front door. I want to go and see my friends and go to my club. I found great difficulty in finding a cart to match the donkey. You cannot expect the farmer to use a cow for this purpose. The only alternative is to give the farmer's wife a ration of petrol. I think that a small basic ration is really necessary. I would be prepared to accept even one-third of what we had before, a half-gallon where before one and a half gallons were given. I believe that if you issued that and cut the motor coach business, which might well be cut, it would be more reasonable. Why should enormous numbers of motor coaches go out from Birmingham, Manchester, Rochdale and Bradford every Saturday, miles across the countryside, carrying people to watch their football team play, when the poor wretched person in the country may not
544
go two or three miles in his own car to the cinema? It does not add up; it does not make sense.
A year ago I was given an interesting little booklet entitled: What the Socialist Government has done for the worker. I looked inside and I found four virgin leaves of paper. If anybody had troubled to keep tally since that year they would have been able to put in quite a lot. Bread rationing would have been one of the things, although I think the abolition of the basic petrol ration would have been included in the biggest print.
7.13 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in asking leave to withdraw my Motion there are only a few sentences I would like to say. First of all, I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and other members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in what I hope has been a useful debate. Secondly, I wonder whether, for the sake of record, I may correct a misstatement that I made. The noble and learned Viscount looked somewhat dubious when I mentioned the sterling area production of oil as being 18,000,000 to 20,000,000 tons. I meant 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 tons. I think the debate has been useful because, summarizing it, we have had an assurance that the matter is being kept under constant review and has not been shelved until a positive date when it can come up for consideration. We have heard that there is an appeals machinery—I think, for the first time in this House—which will allow those who feel that their applications have been unjustly turned down to have redress against the local petroleum officer.
I have only one request to make to the noble and learned Viscount, and I shall feel satisfied, although not completely, with the debate, within the compass of regretting the necessity for the abolition. On all sides of the House there have been stressed the difficulties and needs of the rural agricultural community. It has been generally acknowledged that the strict administration of the divisional officer, on the rules that have been laid down, may be harsh for one man as against another. One man may be able to present a better case on paper when he really has less merit than another person. I want to ask the noble

545
and learned Viscount this: Would the Government consider, in the light of this debate and other representations that they have received, having a special instruction issued to divisional officers who are responsible for administering the applications of rural agricultural workers? The purpose of the instruction I suggest would be to draw the attention of the urban official to the problems of agricultural life, and instructing him to look at all these applications in a sympathetic manner, and if possible to give the benefit of the doubt always to the applicant rather than to the official.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord cannot expect me to give a complete answer to his question. All I can say is that I will certainly convey the noble Lord's request to the Minister. I quite understand that there would be a danger if a person who was too urban-minded were to deal with rural questions. May I just add this? We do not contemplate that a new appeals machinery should be set up, because there has always been machinery in existence and that will be the machinery to operate.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for that reply. Frankly, I was not aware of the appeals machinery and neither I think were other noble Lords. Having thanked the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
EARL MANVERS: My Lords, I also want to thank the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for his interesting speech and to apologize to him for having raised such a difficult subject. I think the correct procedure is that I do not proceed with my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  ARMY OFFICERS' SEA-TRAVEL ALLOWANCES.
  ARMY OFFICERS' SEA-TRAVEL ALLOWANCES.
  PERTHSHIRE AMMUNITION DUMPS.
  PERTHSHIRE AMMUNITION DUMPS.