Sitting of 13 April 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  POSTAL SERVICE, NEWBURY—LONDON
  Mr. Hurdasked the Postmaster-General if he will ensure that letters sent by the afternoon collection in the Newbury rural area reach addresses in central London by the first delivery on the following morning.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): Letters for London posted in time for the afternoon collections in the Newbury rural area are due to be delivered by first post next week-day. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars and, if possible, the envelopes of any letters which appear to have been delayed, I shall be glad to have full inquiry made.
  Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister keep a particular watch upon this matter, as I have had a good number of complaints from constituents? I will gladly do what he suggests.
  Mr. Hobson: Certainly.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Ex-Service Personnel (Private Addresses)
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give instructions that wives shall be informed of the whereabouts of their ex-Service husbands when this is known in order that proceedings for maintenance or divorce may be instituted.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): No, Sir, but the last recorded private address is disclosed to solicitors or officers of the court when it is required in connection with divorce or maintenance proceedings.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the situation which arose in a case which I drew to his notice recently where a warrant officer who has deserted his wife and is receiving a pension from the Air Ministry, cannot be reached by his wife owing to the attitude of the hon. Gentleman's Ministry?
    Mr. de Freitas: We will always forward any letters to the addresses that we have for ex-airmen or ex-officers. It would be quite wrong to disclose to anybody facts which come to our knowledge through their service.

    Bombing Range, Perranporth
    Commander Agnewasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will reconsider the proposal to use the beach at Perranporth and Penhale Sands as a bombing and gunnery range in view of the representations which have been made as to the crippling effect upon the holiday resorts of Newquay and Perranporth.
    Mr. de Freitas: My right hon. Friend is in consultation with other Ministers about this proposal. Full attention is being paid to these representations.

    Building, South Ruislip
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Air to what use does he intend putting the building of 110,000 square feet in Victoria Road, South Ruislip; and what is the cost.
    Mr. de Freitas: It will be used by the United States Air Force instead of the accomodation they now occupy in Bushy Park. The rent is being negotiated and it will be paid by the United States Air Force.
    Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say what specific use will be made of the building; will it be used to house United States airmen? If that is the case, may I suggest that there are plenty of British citizens in Ruislip who are in need of rehousing.
    Mr. de Freitas: So far as I know, the building will not be used to house or to rehouse airmen but to replace office accommodation in Bushy Park.

    61 Maintenance Unit (Thefts)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for Air the recorded loss through pilferage since the end of the

    2807
    war at No. 61 Maintenance Unit; and, in view of the recent criticism at the Chester Quarter Sessions, what special steps he is taking to improve security.
    Mr. de Freitas: The loss is £3,760. The unit is guarded by Air Ministry constabulary and Service police with police dogs. All locks at the unit have been changed and in future they will be changed at frequent but irregular intervals.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is not the Minister aware that the area concerned there is enormous and that obviously, as it is at present arranged, security is impossible? Does he intend to reduce the area, which he would agree is somewhat scattered?
    Mr. de Freitas: I agree that it is a large area. I regret that there has been any pilfering at all, but I do not think the security is bad because £3,700 out of about £40 million worth of stores and equipment is not such a great loss.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister aware that an officer giving evidence at Chester Quarter Sessions said he did not know what was there for the last 12 months and therefore did not know what the pilfering had been?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am not surprised at that at all. The officer at the quarter sessions was an adjutant who went to give evidence of the character of three airmen. He was not in a position to know the value of the stores in question.
    Mr. Drayson: If there is £40 million worth of equipment which is inadequately protected, would the Minister take every precaution against sabotage of this Government property?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am sorry if I misled the House. The figure of approximately £40 million is the rough total value of the stores there now and the stores handled since the war, which is the period covered by this Question. There would be about £20 million of stores there now, and on the whole I consider that the protection is good.

  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, SHOREHAM
  Mr. William Teelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
  2808
  Civil Aviation whether his attention has been called to the inquest on two private aeroplane flyers killed while flying the Brookside Flying Group's only aeroplane from Shoreham aerodrome last February; and whether he proposes to hold a public inquiry.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Yes, Sir. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."
  Mr. Teeling: Does the Minister realise that this aircraft might easily have come down over Brighton instead of into the sea, and that the matter is causing a lot of local concern because of the fact that the group now have another aircraft? Can no supervision be provided? Furthermore, is it not always the custom where there is an air accident that some inquiry is made and afterwards the results of the inquiry are made public?
  Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. If I may work backwards I would tell the House that there was an inquiry carried out by the Chief Inspector of Accidents. The report can be had by anyone who is interested in it. I am not quite certain whether it was published in the same way as other reports are published. So far as regulations are concerned, flying is difficult enough at the present time. We do not want to make it more difficult and to regulate it completely out of the sky.
  Mr. Teeling: Does the Minister feel that there should be further supervision? There are quite enough rules and regulations already, but there ought to be provision for the safety of the public.
  Mr. Lindgren: The regulations are made under the Air Navigation Order, 1949, which came into force on 1st April this year. Responsibility is jointly on the operator of the aircraft and on the person in command of it. There is a regulation for the certificate of airworthiness, while the person who flies it must have a pilot's licence.

  TRANSJORDAN (BRITISH TROOPS)
  Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how long it is proposed that British troops should remain at Aqaba.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): At the request of the Transjordan Government the British Force at Aqaba is being left there at its present strength for the present. It will remain there as long as the situation requires it.
  Dr. Segal: Since the State of Israel has already established itself on the Gulf of Aqaba and proposes to build a proper modern port there, can my hon. Friend explain how we are helping the State of Transjordan or the interests of this country by keeping British troops in this muddy little village?
  Mr. Mayhew: I think their presence there has been helpful and I do not think that the present situation calls for any change.
  Mr. Warbey: Will the hon. Gentleman make a contribution towards a general peace settlement in the Middle East by withdrawing the British troops in accordance with the terms of the recent Israeli-Transjordan armistice?
  Mr. Mayhew: I cannot agree that their withdrawal would be such a contribution at the present time.

  GERMANY

    War Plants (Dismantling)
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what agreement has been reached on the German war plants scheduled for dismantling.
    Mr. Mayhew: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the result of the discussions on the Humphrey Committee's report, about which an announcement was made on 31st March. The dismantling of war plants was not under discussion and no new agreement was reached on this subject.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: Does my hon. Friend remember that his right hon. Friend at Potsdam, and on a number of occasions in this House, gave the most solemn assurances that the countries which were ravaged by the Nazis would be assisted in their restoration and reconstruction by reparations from German capital equipment, and can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the change
    2810
    in attitude which is now shown by keeping this heavy capital equipment in Western Germany is due to pressure from Wall Street or the Conservative Central Office or from both?
    Mr. Mayhew: I think the hon. Gentleman is confused. The recent agreement does not refer to war plants at all.

    Milk Supply (Children)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is now possible for children in the British zone of Berlin to be given fresh liquid milk instead of the dried hitherto supplied.
    Mr. Mayhew: The three Western sectors of Berlin are fed as one unit. Children up to one year of age in all three sectors receive fresh milk which is produced locally. Considerations of space in the airlift and of hygiene have prevented the supply of fresh milk to older children.
    Mr. Lipson: Have the Russians been asked whether they would be willing to relax the blockade for the provision of fresh milk for children, and if they have refused, can we do what the Americans are doing and bring fresh milk every day from Sweden in the interests of the health of the children?
    Mr. Mayhew: I cannot recall if a formal request has been made to the Soviet Government, but the need for this has been made plain by us before.
    Mr. Lipson: May a formal request be made?
    Mr. H. Hynd: In regard to considerations of air lift space, would it not be just as economical to take the same bulk of fresh milk powder rather than the skimmed milk powder?
    Mr. Mayhew: I should like to look into that point.
    Mr. Piratin: In so far as fresh milk is obtained from the Russian zone, is it not the case that Berliners in Western Berlin can obtain fresh milk without hindrance in the Eastern sector of Berlin?
    Mr. Mayhew: I know that we are prevented by the blockade from obtaining sufficient milk for children in the Western zone of Berlin.
    Mr. Lipson: Will the hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend and see if representations can now be made to the Russians to relax the blockade to allow the entry of fresh milk for children only?

  ERITREA (BRIGANDAGE)
  Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the interruption by local inhabitants of a senior military officer's journey in the Massawa district of Eritrea during the latter part of March, 1949.
  Mr. Mayhew: Brigadier H. E. Creedon, the Commander Eritrea district, was travelling from Asmara to Massawa on the 23rd March when his car was held up by three brigands armed with rifles and hand grenades. Brigadier Creedon, who was robbed but uninjured, was travelling without escort and was not in uniform. These brigands, locally known as Shifta, are professional robbers, but Brigadier Creedon's assailants have not yet been identified.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these Shiftas have been making a habit of raiding and marauding, and, if so, what action is being taken to prevent this continuing?
  Mr. Mayhew: I understand that this problem is not a new one in this rather remote district. I should like notice of the question about suppression.
  General Sir George Jeffreys: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether adequate police arrangements have been made in Eritrea for dealing with cases of this kind and others?
  Mr. Mayhew: We are doing what we can, but I do not think I can undertake that this will be suppressed altogether with the resources which we have available.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Is it known where the arms which these people had came from?
  Mr. Mayhew: I should need notice of that question.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE (IMPORTED GOODS)
  Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secre-of State for the Colonies to what extent manufactured goods from Russian-controlled countries are being dumped in the British colonial territories.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): My right hon. Friend is not aware that any such goods are being dumped in the Colonies.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Under-Secretary make further inquiries and see to what extent Bata shoes from Czechoslovakia are being dumped in West Africa below the cost of production?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I will look into that matter.

  TANGANYIKA

    Corporal Punishment
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what offences corporal punishment may be inflicted in Tanganyika.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: As the reply is necessarily somewhat long I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Skinnard: Can the Minister tell the House whether the reply is long because of the number of offences or for other reasons?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It is long because I am giving my hon. Friend the information for which he asked.
    Following is the reply:
    Corporal punishment in Tanganyika is inflicted under the Penal Code for certain offences against morality, persons, animals and property. Offences against the persons include robbery with violence and aggravated assaults. Offences against property include burglary, house-breaking and similar offences where previous conviction exists in a similar offence. In addition corporal punishment is authorised for juveniles convicted of offences punishable under the Penal Code and other laws.
    Prisons legislation permits corporal punishment of convicted criminal prisoners for

    (a) Mutiny

    (b) Incitement to mutiny

    (c) Personal violence to Prison Officers.

    Native courts may only inflict corporal punishment on adults for

    (a) Indecent assaults

    (b) Assaults aggravated by the age, sex or condition of the victim or particular savagery on the part of the offender.

    (c) Stock theft.

    and on juveniles convicted of offences punishable under any Laws which Native courts are empowered to enforce. All sentences of corporal punishment imposed by Native Courts whether on adults or juveniles are subject to confirmation by an administrative officer.

    Ex-German Estates (Allocation)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what area of the ex-German estates in Tanganyika has been allocated to Europeans; and how much of this land is still unallocated.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Eighty-seven thousand seven hundred and ninety acres have been allocated to Europeans and 264,230 acres remain unallocated.

  MALAYA

    Police Action (Shooting)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now give details of the shooting of two Chinese women by the police in Malaya on 23rd February.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I have already written to my hon. Friend, giving him all the available details of this incident.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in his reply to me he says that he admits that two women were shot down and that they were shot down after a half-mile chase? What kind of police were they that could not catch a woman in less than half-a-mile? Will the hon. Gentleman give instructions that unarmed women are not to be followed and shot by police in future?
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Before trying to catch your eye to ask a question of the Minister
    2814
    with regard to this affair and in view of a former Ruling of yours, I would like to ask you whether it would be in Order for me to refer to the shooting of these two women as a shocking case of foul and bloody murder? Would that be in order?
    Mr. Speaker: I should have thought not.
    Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Minister if in view of the statement that has been made by his own Department on the deliberate shooting of these two women, one of whom was killed and the other seriously injured, he will condemn this action in a statement to the authorities there and condemn it as an act of murder? Will he also bring the police to trial?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Surely the Under-Secretary is not going to sit there quietly and let such an accusation be levelled without comment against an Administration for which his Department is responsible?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: These women were chased for half-a-mile, as has been stated. The police called upon them to halt and they refused to halt—
    Mr. Platts-Mills: And they were murdered.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: In the very enclosed situation that we have in Malaya, they were getting away. The police then fired—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and as a result one woman was killed and the other died later in hospital.
    Hon. Members: Murder.
    Mr. Benn Levy: As what we have received is a bare record of facts which to many of us are rather shocking on the face of it, can my hon. Friend say whether he condemns this happening or whether there are any other facts which would enable him to justify it?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I always regret the death of any person, whether it is a policeman or a member of the public, but hon. Members must realise the intensely difficult situation in Malaya with which the police have to grapple. In these circumstances, the women dashed out of a house which was being searched and refused to stop, and in accordance

    2815
    with the police promulgation previously made, they were liable to be fired on, and were in fact fired on.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: Does the hon. Gentleman deny the half-mile chase that preceded the shooting?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: No, Sir. I have said so.

    British Government Policy
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the representations received by His Majesty's Government from the Government of Malaya, he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government have no intention of relinquishing their responsibilities there.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have no intention of relinquishing their responsibilities in Malaya until their task is completed. The purpose of our policy is simple. We are working, in co-operation with the citizens of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, to guide them to responsible self-government within the Commonwealth. We have no intention of jeopardising the security, well-being and liberty of these peoples, for whom Britain has responsibilities, by a premature withdrawal.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the satisfaction that will be felt, not only by the whole House, but in Malaya and in this country, at the nature of his answer?
    Mr. Gallacher: Shooting down women—is that his responsibility?

  CYPRUS (SUPPRESSED NEWSPAPER)
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what report he has had from Cyprus regarding the suppression of the newspaper "Demokratis," and the imprisonment of the editor; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Charges against this paper arose out of an article in it alleging that the Cyprus Government was attempting through its local officials and in collusion with a local Right Wing
  2816
  party, to falsify the municipal electoral rolls. The newspaper was suspended for three months and the managing director sentenced to imprisonment for the same period.
  Mr. Gallacher: I would like to ask the Minister how he justifies this action on the part of the authorities in the suppression of this paper for three months and in the imprisonment of the editor? Will he not take steps to put a stop to this sort of thing and provide ordinary opportunities for political expression on the part of the Press?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: It is not for me to comment upon the action of a court of law. This man and the newspaper have an appeal open to them if they so desire. I may point out that the managing director had four previous convictions, the last of which was for contempt of court.
  Major Tufton Beamish: Will the Minister at least give an assurance that he will give the same freedom to this paper "Demokratis" as is given to the Opposition Press in Russia?

  WEST AFRICA

    X-ray Apparatus
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the supply of X-ray apparatus for all the hospitals of West African Colonies has been or will be included in welfare and development plans; and how many hospitals now possess this apparatus.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Governors concerned have been asked to supply the information required and I shall communicate with my hon. Friend when this is received.
    Mr. Sorensen: Meanwhile, would the hon. Gentleman please take such steps as are possible to see that X-ray apparatus is supplied to all the hospitals in West Africa?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: A number of X-ray apparatuses have been sent out to West Africa in the last three years.
    Colonel Dower: Will the hon. Gentleman, when making his inquiries, also go into the hospital position in the territories in East Africa?
    Dr. Segal: Is my hon. Friend aware that until recently there was in the Gold Coast at least one hospital 350 miles away from the nearest X-ray apparatus? Can he explain what is the use of keeping a hospital open in these circumstances?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Six X-ray apparatuses have been sent to the Gold Coast in the last three years. I hope in time all will be covered.

    Goldmining Industry
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when and how was the invitation made to the West African goldmining industry to give the Government a review of the economic situation of the industry, accompanied by any suggestions which they might have to make; and if the invitation was given orally or in writing.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The request was made orally by the Colonial Secretary of the Gold Coast at a meeting with representatives of the local Chamber of Mines in January.
    Mr. Teeling: Why was not this invitation given officially and in writing to the London representatives of the industry? After all, they have invariably been consulted in the past by the Government in these matters, and in view of the fact that the London representatives are now getting out a scheme as a result of the discussion the other night in this House, will the hon. Gentleman make sure that that scheme, which will be ready by the end of this month, will be discussed immediately with the Colonial Office?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: It is assumed, and it is the fact, that the local representatives are closely in touch with the head offices in London.
    Mr. Teeling: But why on this occasion, for the first time, is it that the Colonial Office have not consulted the London representatives first? They have always done that before and so have the Treasury.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I take it that this is a new and not necessarily a bad innovation.

  NIGERIA

    Oba Follulu of Lagos
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what annual amount from Government sources is paid to the Oba Follulu of Lagos and for what purpose; and to what extent the Nigerian Government are responsible for the repair and maintenance of the Oba's palace.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Oba is paid £500 a year in recognition of his position as head of the House of Docemo. So far as my right hon. Friend is aware the Nigerian Government accept no responsibility for the upkeep of his house.
    Mr. Sorensen: But will the hon. Gentleman see whether this building, which is in a bad state of repair, cannot be recognised as an ancient monument of Nigeria and be, therefore, the responsibility of the Nigerian Government?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Nigerian Government lent this gentleman some money to renovate the house. He renovated it and repaid the money but, apart from that, we have no responsibility.

    Groundnut Production
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consultations have taken place with the Emirs of the Northern region of Nigeria and other authorities in respect of improvements in the production of groundnuts in that area; and to what extent more modern methods have been successfully introduced.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: The Governor of Nigeria has been asked for information on this subject but has not yet replied. As soon as his reply is received a communication will be sent to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Sorensen: But meanwhile, would the hon. Gentleman say whether any kind of consultations have taken place at any time with the authorities in Northern Nigeria in regard to this matter?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, I am sure they have. I had some myself, and I am sure the Governor has had some.
    Captain Crookshank: Yes, but is not the question here not so much a matter

    2819
    of improving the production of groundnuts but of moving the groundnuts which have been produced already?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: That is another question.
    Captain Crookshank: Yes, it is an important one.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Navy List (Publication)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what information will be given in the editions of the Navy List which are to be published for public use.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The edition of the Navy List which is to be placed on sale to the public will contain lists of officers of the Royal Navy and its Reserves, showing their seniority, and where they are serving, together with a list of His. Majesty's ships and the officers serving in them. Corresponding information on the Commonwealth Navies will also be given.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any information at present given in the Navy List is to be excluded from the general edition?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes; naturally, as I said last time, this will not contain quite as much information as has been contained in the restricted edition available for hon. Members.

    North Atlantic Treaty
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what degree of co-operation there is now to be between the navies of the countries signing the North Atlantic Treaty; and what effect he anticipates that the treaty will have on the naval expenditure of this country.
    Mr. Dugdale: Co-operation between the Royal Navy and the navies of other signatory powers, which is already close and friendly, will, of course, be further stimulated. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him on 7th April by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the strength of the American Navy and the co-operation that my hon. Friend has mentioned are we not entitled to look forward to a decrease in naval expenditure?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is an entirely hypothetical question.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the great majority in this country are fully in favour of this increasing co-operation, and surely it is a fact that this co-operation means that expenditure will be less than if we were operating alone?
    Mr. Dugdale: It is quite impossible to say until the plan has been worked out.

    Compassionate Leave (Application)
    Mr. Mackasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a further effort to secure compassionate leave for Leading Patrolman T. Ikin of 54, Silverdale Road, Newcastle-under Lyme, now stationed in Malta to visit his dying mother.
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. I am afraid the circumstances do not justify this rating being brought home specially.
    Mr. Mack: Would it not be a more appropriate gesture for my hon. Friend to extend these regulations in this and similar cases, especially in peace-time, and does he not think that if his Department showed a little more compassion and imagination in matters of this kind it would encourage recruitment and discourage discontent in the Services?
    Mr. Dugdale: We are looking into this question to see whether it is possible for the regulations to be modified in any way, but I cannot say definitely yet what the decision will be.
    Mr. John Lewis: Is my hon. Friend telling the House that in a case where it is established to the satisfaction of his Department that a mother is dying, there are regulations which prohibit him from making arrangements for this man to be sent home immediately?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, the usual regulations are that if the mother has another son or a daughter present in the country,

    2821
    the rating will not be brought back if he is required for duty. If there is no other son or daughter present, he will be brought back in any circumstances.
    Mr. Mack: But in view of the fact that my hon. Friend is prepared to look into this matter, and that the mother is dying at the moment and may not last out that time, will he not take steps to try to help in this case?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Dugdale: No, I said I was looking into the general question. If this rating were given special treatment before the general review takes place, it would be unfair to other ratings who have not had it up till now.
    Mr. Mack: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Ratings (Civilian Clothes)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why, in the Navy, only petty officers and above are allowed to wear civilian clothes when off duty; and why the lower ranks cannot have the same privileges as the Army and the Air Force.
    Mr. Dugdale: All ratings on short leave except those under training and all ratings on leave over 24 hours may wear plain clothes outside the naval establishment in which they are employed. It is mainly in the wearing of civilian clothes inside naval establishments or when passing in and out of such establishments that a distinction is made between petty officers and above on the one hand, and the lower ratings, on the other hand. One reason for this is that naval ratings are always liable to be sent at short notice to sea-going appointments or to ships such as the Reserve Fleet where there are no facilities for keeping civilian clothing. A second reason is that in the barracks there is a quickly changing population which in general is not known to the guards at the entrances and, unless restrictions were placed on the freedom of passage of liberty men or extra security precautions were introduced, there would be difficulties if naval ratings in plain clothes were leaving and entering the barracks at different times,
    2822
    especially in the evening when the numbers are large.
    Mr. Teeling: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the very strong feeling on this matter amongst ratings in the Navy, and why should they be in a different position from the equivalent ranks in the Army and the Air Force? This attitude is not helping recruitment, and does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that his answer is an extremely feeble one?
    Mr. Dugdale: I am not aware that there is any strong feeling. In any case, these regulations have existed for a considerable time under previous Governments, of which the hon. Member was a supporter.
    Mr. Teeling: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that although these regulations may have lasted for a very long time, so also did those for the Army and the Air Force, but those have been changed?
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that lower ratings find it very difficult to buy civilian clothes, and is not this a further reason for supplying them with the necessary clothing?
    Commander Noble: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I have corresponded with him on this subject in the past he has said that the matter was still under consideration, and is the answer he has given now the final one, or is the matter still under consideration?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. It is the final one. My noble Friend considered the matter earlier this year and has made his decision.

  ANALGESIA (RESEARCH)
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroftasked the Lord President of the Council what research is at present being carried on by the Medical Research Council on the subject of the administration of analgesia in childbirth; whether research is going on upon the use of trilene for this object; how many types of trilene apparatus are at present being investigated; in which hospitals tests are being carried out; and what are the approximate numbers of research workers and amounts of money involved.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The special committee on the subject has only just been set up, and its first task will be to survey the problem before deciding what new investigations are required. The question remitted to the committee is on the possibility of devising improved or new methods of analgesia, whether with trilene or some other substance, and any examination of types of apparatus already available will be incidental.

  B.B.C. INQUIRY (CHAIRMAN)
  Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Lord President of the Council why an independent person having no previous connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation was not appointed to act as chairman of the forthcoming committee of inquiry.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Sir Cyril Radcliffe was chosen as being particularly well fitted for the chairmanship of this committee. Far from being a drawback, the knowledge of the British Broadcasting Corporation which he obtained as Director-General of the Ministry of Information and later as deputy-Chairman of the Corporation's General Advisory Council should be of great assistance to him in conducting the inquiry. Any suggestion that Sir Cyril is not independent of the Corporation is quite unfounded.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does not the Lord President think that a completely neutral person would have brought greater confidence to the public?
  Mr. Morrison: Any suggestion that Sir Cyril Radcliffe is not neutral is unfounded and unkind. He is a perfectly neutral person and I have the utmost confidence in his impartiality as chairman of this committee.
  Mr. Marlowe: If the right hon. Gentleman believes in the impartiality of chairmen, why does that not apply to the London County Council?

  ARMED FORCES

    North Atlantic Treaty
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence what release of manpower from the Services and of arma-
    2824
    ments industries for productive work he anticipates as a result of the measures to be taken under Articles 3 and 9 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): It would be premature to attempt now to assess the effect of these Articles on the manpower requirements of the Services.
    Mr. Hughes: Has not the Minister seen the circular from his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer urging upon him the need for economy and reduced expenditure, and cannot we expect some release of manpower as a result?
    Mr. Alexander: I have most certainly had that circular, but I still get requests from hon. Members to increase my expenditure in certain respects. If it were not for the signing of the Pact this country might well be faced with heavily increased expenditure. We cannot assess any economies until we have considered the matter further.
    Mr. Gallacher: That is nonsense.

    Officers (Transfer Allowance)
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware that better allowances are payable to civil servants than to officers of the Fighting Forces on permanent change of station; and whether he will now introduce better allowances for officers of the Fighting Forces.
    Mr. Alexander: The regulations governing the payment of expenses on transfer for Service officers have only recently been revised after full consideration by the Service Departments. The regulations are different from those for civil servants, since the general conditions of service for officers and civil servants are dissimilar.
    Mr. Low: Is it not true that these allowances for civil servants are better than the allowances given to officers in the Fighting Forces, and, in view of the fact that officers in the Fighting Forces are more frequently called upon to change their station, should not the Minister have another look at this matter in the light of the facts, and particularly in the light of present-day costs of moving?
    Mr. Alexander: This has all been taken into consideration in the previous review of the conditions attaching to the Services. The conditions for civil servants are, in fact, very different. They are not displaced so often. The general level of their rates of pay is lower compared with that of corresponding officer ranks, and all this has been taken into consideration. I have nothing to add, therefore, to my answer.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Do the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman cover also the employees of British Overseas Airways, and, if not, will he look into that matter also, because it is certainly a case of discrepancy?
    Mr. Alexander: I will certainly have a look at it, but I do not regard them as being in quite the same category.
    Commander Noble: Does the Minister's answer mean that he has abandoned the idea of what I think he once referred to as a "disturbance allowance"?
    Mr. Alexander: The general question of officers' expenses was taken into account when we fixed the increased marriage allowance.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Potatoes (Resale)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Food how many tons of home-grown potatoes have been bought by his Department and resold to the producer at a cheaper price.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): Up to 26th March, 78,952 tons of potatoes bought from growers under the guarantee had been sold back to them at the cheaper stockfeed price.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the financial outcome of this transaction?
    Mr. Strachey: We can hardly separate that from the general sale of surplus potatoes for stockfeed, of which I have already given the House the figures.
    Mr. Dye: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is part of the guarantee given to the growers that the Ministry will purchase all their potatoes and leave none on their hands?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes. Of course, it would be the most outrageous breach of the guarantee if we did not fulfil it by purchasing these potatoes.
    Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the tonnage is less than 1 per cent. of the total crop?
    Mr. Strachey: If my arithmetic serves me aright, that is the case.

    Investigation Methods
    Mr. Greyasked the Minister of Food if he is now prepared to make a statement about the investigations carried out by his Department into black market operations in the Northern Region and on the kind of methods used in "operation Octopus" of which he did not approve.
    Mr. Strachey: I would prefer to make this statement after the Easter Recess as I shall then be in a position to announce the measures which I am taking to prevent the recurrence of the methods of investigation of which I could not approve. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that this will be more satisfactory than making one statement now and then a further statement later.

    Allocations (Co-operative Societies)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Food to what extent a bigger share of pointed and rationed goods are allocated to the Co-operative Wholesale Society's factories and co-operative retail shops.
    Mr. Strachey: Rationed foods, dried fruit and imported canned foods directly controlled by my Department are allocated to co-operative and private traders on precisely the same basis. When last Autumn we were able to give some extra sugar to all manufacturers we departed from the previous method of distribution according to pre-war usage because this basis had become more and more unfair with each year that went by, since it made no allowance for the transfer of customers from one type of shop to another. For example, the number of customers dealing with Co-operative Societies had grown very markedly since the datum year of 1938. If we had reallotted the sugar in proportion to present registrations, as there is a strong case for doing, the Co-operatives would

    2827
    have got far more. The adjustment which we made still left the Co-operative Societies at a distinct disadvantage as compared with private traders.
    Mr. Turton: In view of that reply, may I ask if the Minister's attention has been drawn to the advertisement inserted in the popular Press by the Co-operative Wholesale Society in these terms:
    "Register all your ration books at the Co-op—you'll get a bigger share of scarcer goods that way!"
    [Interruption.]—and in view of the Minister's previous statement on policy will he stop this cruel deception for attracting the consuming public?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I see no element of deception in the Co-operative Society's advertisements. They claim to distribute their products more equitably between customers. It is not for me either to endorse or to comment upon that claim.
    Mr. James Hudson: As there was a total increase of the membership of Co-operative Societies and the Minister admits that there was a case for an even further increase of sugar, which is not denied by anyone on the benches opposite, will the Minister take into account the necessity for that further increase?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly my only doubt in the steps we took at that time was whether they were adequate or not.
    Captain Crookshank: Is it not a fact that private retailers have also increased the number of their customers in view of the great increase of the whole population?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but not in proportion.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is not the greater opportunity for getting a larger share in a Co-operative shop due to the fact that all the goods in those shops are above the counter?

    Imports from Yugoslavia
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Minister of Food what items of foodstuffs specified in Schedule I of the Anglo-Yugoslav Trade Agreement have so far been purchased by his Department; and when delivery of these is expected.
    Mr. Strachey: My Department has so far bought 560 tons of canned fish and 750 tons of white beans. The canned fish has already arrived in this country and the beans are due for shipment this month. We have also bought 75,000 tons of maize, but this is outside Schedule A.

    Fried Fish Licence (Application)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Food, why he has refused to grant an allocation of fats to an applicant for permission to open a fried-fish shop in Appleton-le-Moors; whether he is aware that this village and the surrounding area are seriously penalised by the absence of fish-frying facilities; and whether he will review his decision.
    Mr. Strachey: Unfortunately, this application was received too late for the open season for new fried-fish licences which lasted from 1st October to 1st November. Therefore it had to be considered on strict grounds of consumer needs and the local food committee could not agree to it. After looking into the circumstances, I really cannot see good grounds for overruling their decision.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that in this area one has to walk more than six miles to get any fried fish? Will he look into the matter again?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, my information is that Appleton-le-Moors is already served by a mobile fish and chips van, which visits it once a week.

    Imported Fruit (Allocations)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that retailers allocations of imported fruits under the control of his Department were last reviewed in October, 1947, and if he will arrange for an early re-assessment.
    Mr. Strachey: I am taking measures necessary for such a review at once.

    Overseas Food Corporation (Projects)
    Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the projects now in hand, or under consideration, by the British Food Corporation.
    Mr. Strachey: The Overseas Food Corporation, to which I take it the hon. Member refers, has in hand the East African Scheme for producing oilseeds and, in association with the Queensland Government, the Queensland Scheme for the production of sorghum and pigs. If the hon. Member wishes for information about projects under consideration, he should communicate with the Corporation direct.

    Herring (Landings, Lerwick)
    Sir David Robertsonasked the Minister of Food what arrangements he has made to ensure that herring landed at Lerwick during the forthcoming season will be distributed throughout Great Britain in preference to sending them to Germany.
    Mr. Strachey: Landings of herring during the Summer at the mainland ports are more than enough to meet the needs of the home market, and it would be uneconomic to use Lerwick herring for that purpose. I shall do all I can to encourage consumption of herring at home, but for the disposal of a part of the catch, especially the Lerwick catch, we must continue to rely on our traditional export market.
    Sir D. Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there will be a much bigger demand for herring this year because of the great shortage of meat? Will he consider adopting a similar plan to that used by the original Ministry of Food when they put on a small cargo vessel service between Stornoway, Kyle, Oban and Mallaig?
    Mr. Strachey: We will certainly consider that, if the home market shows signs of being able to absorb such quantities.

    Meat Ration (Butchers' Rebate)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. DAVID RENTON:
    43. To ask the Minister of Food whether he is aware that, now that the total meat ration has been reduced to 10d. per person per week, butchers serving rural areas are unable to distribute the ration without financial loss in spite of the rebate of 4½ per cent. of the wholesale price; and whether he will increase that rebate and, if necessary, make differential rates of rebate as between butchers serving urban and rural areas.
    Mr. Renton: Since I put down this Question the rebate has been reduced, I understand, to 3¾ per cent.
    Mr. Strachey: I am advised that the rebate on the wholesale price of meat has been calculated to give an adequate profit to the retail butchery trade. I cannot agree that the costs of rural butchers are on balance higher than those of butchers serving urban areas.
    Mr. Renton: Is the Minister quite ignorant of the fact that rural butchers endeavour to supply meat to their customers by means of a delivery service? Has that delivery service been borne in mind when fixing these so-called profit margins, or was there merely an average struck between town and country? Will he look into the matter further?
    Mr. Strachey: I should not have thought that the delivery services were confined to rural butchers, nor that that was the only element in costs and that such costs as rent, would be smaller in the rural areas.

    Eire Cattle (Prices)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that it is impossible for private enterprise buyers to obtain the 90 per cent. of Eire cattle to which this country is entitled in our agreement with Eire unless they are put in a position to pay prices which are competitive with those offered by Continental buyers; and whether he will amend his regulations so as to enable them to do so.
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the price agreement which has now been reached is such that the Eire Government will have no difficulty in ensuring that we get the 90 per cent. of their cattle exports, which they have agreed to send us from next July onwards. In fact, the import of fat and store cattle from Eire into Great Britain during the last three months for which figures are available, namely, January, February and March, were 75,217 as compared to 61,698 in the corresponding months a year ago, an increase of 22 per cent.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is not the controlled price in this country 113s. a cwt. and has not the private buyer to calculate at what price he must buy in order to be able to sell at a small profit in this country after

    2831
    paying expenses? In view of the fact that there is not a controlled price for meat on the Continent, is it not too easy for Continental buyers to outbid the price which our buyers can afford to bid?
    Mr. Strachey: That is why we made the recent agreement with the Eire Government. For this year their exports to other countries were restricted to 50,000 and for the future to 10 per cent. of their total exports. The Eire Government are adhering to this agreement most scrupulously.
    Sir. G. Jeffreys: But do the Eire Government assist British private buyers in this matter? Are they not very much handicapped by the present arrangement?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. In this case I should be loath to take the matter out of private hands. I get a great deal of pressure from hon. Members opposite, but I think that would be carrying the principle of bulk buying too far.

  RAILWAY LAND (ALLOTMENTS)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to arrange for the utilisation of the verges of railways for the production of food, especially for fruit and allotments for vegetables.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): At 1st April, 1948, there were 75,306 allotments on 4,321 acres of railway land. The railways have willingly co-operated with local authorities in the provision of additional allotments, subject of course to fencing the land from the railway where necessary in the interests of safety, and to reservation of the right to re-enter the land at short notice for railway purposes.
  Mr. Freeman: In view of this large and extensive area of land now under the control of the Government, will my hon. Friend consult the Ministry of Transport as to what further use could be made of the land for the production of food, particularly for allotments?
  Mr. Brown: We do not think there is need for that, but if a local authority
  2832
  thinks there is land which can be made available they should get into touch with the estate manager and rating agent of the railway region concerned.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the immense amounts of forage grass that goes to waste every year in this respect?
  Mr. Chetwynd: Would it not be a bad thing to grow fruit trees by the side of railways, as that might prove a danger by attracting boys to the trees and so on to the railway lines?

  STRIKE, LONDON DOCKS
  Mr. Eden(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make on the London Docks strike.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Yes, Sir. The information this morning showed the total number of stevedores and dockers on strike as 15,030. The majority of the lightermen have accepted work in loyal observance of the decision which was taken last night but an unknown number absented themselves. At a meeting of the Transport and General Workers' Union this morning, a general decision was reached to resume work tomorrow at the normal starting time. Following agreement with the port employers, the Transport and General Workers' Union have also instructed their docks officers to assist in the building up of the gangs that are at present broken. The continuity rule will then apply to the newly constituted gangs of men available in the port for work. I should like to express my appreciation of the public spirited action of the union in these matters.
  Mr. Eden: I take it from the much better complexion of the news which the right hon. Gentleman has given us, and which we all welcome, that there still remains the position of the stevedores' union. Can the Minister assure us that meanwhile, in view of this development, he is satisfied about the position of perishable foodstuffs?
  Mr. Isaacs: The resumption of work by the workers of the Transport and General Workers' Union makes the situation much easier. We shall still be losing the services of the stevedores but the

  2833
  Government have every intention of taking every step open to them to ensure the proper flow of the necessary food supplies and other things.
  Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Minister, as a trade unionist, whether this is not a somewhat mean and contemptible method of strike breaking?
  Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member asks me that question "as a trade unionist." I would say that if one examines the motives in this matter one will find a good example of a mean and contemptible attempt to take advantage of other people.

  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (RECEPTION)
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has been able to make arrangements for Members of Parliament to meet the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in an informal manner during the period of the forthcoming Conference.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to announce to the House that you, Mr. Speaker, have been kind enough to agree to act as host with the Lord Chancellor at a reception in your house from 5.0 p.m. to 7.0 p.m. on Tuesday, 26th April, to which all Members of both Houses of Parliament are invited and at which I very much hope that all the Prime Ministers and their principal Ministerial advisers attending the Conference will be present. Individual invitations will not be issued, but you, Sir, have asked me to say that you hope that as many hon. Members as possible will accept this general invitation.
  Mr. Nicholson: I hope that I shall not be thought to be presuming if, on behalf of all parties, I venture to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your impending hospitality; and I should like to thank the Prime Minister for acceding to the suggestion made to him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: Will the Lord President of the Council tell us what the Business is to be for the first week after the Easter Recess?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for the first week after the Easter Recess will be as follows:
Tuesday, 26th April—Supply (11th Allotted Day). It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, 1949-50. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) is calling attention to war pensions and allowances.
Wednesday and Thursday, 27th and 28th April—Iron and Steel Bill. First and 2nd allotted days, respectively, of the Report stage.
Friday, 29th April—Committee and remaining stages of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Bill;
Report and Third Reading of the War Damage (Public Utility Undertakings, &c.) Bill, and of the Milk (Special Designations) Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'Clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'Clock; and at Five o'Clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]
ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)
House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 26th April.—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  REPORT [6th April]
  Resolutions reported.
  [For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; c. 2109–2119.]
  First Resolution agreed to.
  Second Resolution [Beer (Excise)] read a Second time.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).
  The House divided: Ayes. 369; Noes, 13.

  Division No. 100.]

  AYES

  [3.25 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Cove, W. G.

  Grierson, E.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Crawley, A.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Albu, A. H.

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

  Grimston, R. V.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Gunter, R. J

  Alpass, J. H.

  Cullen, Mrs.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Daggar, G.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Daines, P.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Harrison, J.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Haughton, S G

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Haworth, J.

  Awbery, S. S.

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

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

  Ayles, W. H.

  Deer, G.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Baird, J.

  De la Bare, R.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Balfour, A.

  Diamond, J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Dobbie, W.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Dodds, N. N

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Barton, C.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Battley, J. R.

  Donner, P. W

  Horabin, T L.

  Baxter, A B.

  Donovan, T.

  Houghton, A. L. N. D

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Drewe, C.

  Hurd, A.

  Benson, G.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Binns, J.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Birch, Nigel

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Dye, S.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Boardman, H.

  Eccles, D. M.

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

  Bossom, A. C.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Bower, N.

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

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Jager, G. (Winchester)

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

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly

  Jager, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Jennings, R.

  Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Johnston, Douglas

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Ewart, R.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

  Keenan, W.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Follick, M.

  Kenyon, C.

  Burden, T. W.

  Foot, M. M.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Forman, J. C.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Kinley, J.

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

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

  Callaghan, James

  Fraser, T (Hamilton)

  Lancaster, Col. C G

  Carson, E.

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  Langford-Holt, J

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Lavers, S.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

  Chater, D.

  Gaitskell Rt. Hon. H. T. N

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollck)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon W. S.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Levy, B. W.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Cluse, W S.

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Gibbins, J.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Coldrick, W.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Collindridge, F.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Lipton., Lt.-Col. M.

  Collins V. J.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Logan, D. G.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Grey, C. F.

  Longden, F.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Pearson, A.

  Swingler, S.

  Lucas-Tooth, S. H.

  Peart, T. F.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Perrins, W.

  Symonds, A. L.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'E'n, S.)

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Poole, O. B. S (Osweslry)

  Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Popplewell, E.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  McFarlane, C. S.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  McGovern, J.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Teeling, William

  Mack, J. D.

  Price, M. Philips

  Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  McKie, J H. (Galloway)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Randall, H. E

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Ranger, J.

  Tolley, L

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Touche, G. C

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Reeves, J.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Raid, T. (Swindon)

  Turton, R. H.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Renton, D.

  Vane. W. M. F.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Rhodes, H.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Walker, G. H.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Robens, A.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Mellish R. J.

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Mellor, Sir J

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Messer, F.

  Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

  Watkins, T. E

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Rogers, C. H. R.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Weitzman, D.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr, E. R.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Manslow, W.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  West, D. G.

  Morley, R.

  Shackleton, E. A A.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Sharp, Granville

  Wheatley, Colonel M J. (Dorset, E.)

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

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Shurmer, P.

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

  Mort, D. L.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Mart-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Moyle, A.

  Skeffington, A M.

  Wigg, George

  Murray, J. D

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Wilkes, L.

  Nally, W.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

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

  Smith, Ellis (Stake)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

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

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Nicholson, G.

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

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Snadden, W. M.

  Williams, Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Snow, J. W.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

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

  Salley, L. J.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

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

  Sorensen, R. W

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Odey, G. W.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Spence, H. R.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Steele, T.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Orbach, M.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Woods, G. S.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  York, C.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

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

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Strom, Dr. B.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Studholme, H. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

  Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

  NOES

  Davies, Rt. Kn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Kendall, W. D

  Wadsworth, G.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Gruflydd, Prof. W. J.

  Medlicott, Brigadier F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Frank Byers and

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

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Mr. Wilfrid Roberts.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Scollen, T.

  Third and Fourth Resolutions agreed to.

  Fifth Resolution [Wines (Customs)] read a Second time.
  Question "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said
  Resolution" put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).
  The House divided: Ayes, 380; Noes, 20.

  Division No. 101.]

  AYES

  [3.39 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Awbery, S. S.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Albu, A. H.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Baird, J.

  Alexander, Rt Hon. A. V.

  Attewall, H. C.

  Baldwin, A. E

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Balfour, A.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N (Caerphilly

  Kinley, J.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)

  Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

  Barton, C.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Battley, J. R.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Lang, G.

  Baxter, A. B.

  Ewart, R.

  Langford-Holt, J

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Lavers, S.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon J. J

  Benson, G.

  Field, Capt W. J.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Binns, J.

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

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Birch, Nigel

  Foot, M. M.

  Levy, B. W.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Forman, J. C.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Boardman, H.

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Lewis, T (Southampton)

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

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)

  Lindgren, G S

  Bossom, A. C.

  Fraser, T (Hamilton)

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Freeman, J (Watford)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Bower, N.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew E.)

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

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Galbraith, Cmdr T D. (Pollok)

  Logan, D. G.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Longden, F

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Low, A. R. W.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Lucas-Tooth, S. H

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Gibbins, J

  Lyne, A. W.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consell)

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Gooch, E. G.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C

  McFarlane, C. S.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  McGovern, J.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mack, J. D.

  Burden, T. W.

  Grierson, E.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Burke, W. A.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llonelly)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

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

  Grimston R. V.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Callaghan, James

  Guest, Of L. Haden

  MacLeod, J.

  Carson, E

  Gumer, R J

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hale, Leslie

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Chater, D

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Cluse, W. S

  Hardman, D R.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hardy, E. A

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Coldrick, W.

  Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Cellindridge, F.

  Harrison, J.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Collins, V. J.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Haughton, S G

  Messer, F.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Haworth, J

  Middleton, Mrs L

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E

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

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Cove, W. G.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Wilson, A. H. E.

  Crawley, A.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Winslow, W.

  Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Morley, R.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H F C.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Crosthwaite-Ere, Col. O. E

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

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

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Hollis, M. C.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'ne'ster)

  Cthbert, W. N.

  Holman, P.

  Mort, D. L.

  Daggar, G.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Molt-Radclyfle, C E.

  Daines, P.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Moyle, A.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon H.

  Horabin, T L

  Murray, J. D.

  Darling, Sir W Y.

  Houghton, A. L N D

  Nally, W.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Hay, J.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hudson, Rt. Hon R S. (Southport)

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

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

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton W)

  Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

  Deer, G.

  Hurd, A.

  Nicholson, G.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  De la Bore, R.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Noble, Comdr A. H. P.

  Delargy, H. J.

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

  Noel-Baker, Capt F E. (Brantford)

  Diamond, J.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

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

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Odey, G. W.

  Dobbie, W.

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

  Oldfield, W H.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Oliver, G H

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Orbach, M

  Donner, P. W.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Donovan, T

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Palmer, A. M. F

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

  Jager, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Drewe, C.

  Jenkins, R H.

  Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Johnston, Douglas

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Pearson, A.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Pearl, T. F

  Dye, S.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Perrins, W.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Ponsonby, Col. C E

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Keenan, W.

  Poole, O. B S (Oswestry)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Kenyon, C.

  Popplewell, E

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

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Porter. G. (Leeds)

  2840

  2841

  Price, M. Philips

  Salley, L. J.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Pursey, Comdr. H

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Spence, H. R.

  Weitzman, D.

  Randall, H. E.

  Steele, T.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Ranger, J.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Rankin, J.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  West, D. G.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. G R. (Lamoeth)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T.(Edinb'gh, E.)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Stress, Dr. B.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorsel, E.)

  Reeves, J.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Studholme, H. G.

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

  Rhodes, H.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Swingler, S.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Robens, A.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Wigg, George

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Wilkes, L.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

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

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Tooling, William

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Scott, Lord W.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

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

  Segal, Dr. S

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Sharp, Granville

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Tolley, L.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Shurmer, P.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Touche, G. C.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Woods, G. S.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  York, C.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Walker, G. H.

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

  Walker-Smith, D

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Snadden, W. M

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

  Snow, J. W.

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

  NOES

  Bowen, R.

  Kendall, W. D.

  Scollan, T.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

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

  Gallacher, W.

  Medlicott, Brigadier F.

  Wadsworth, G.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

  Piratin, P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

  Renton, D.

  Mr. Frank Byers and

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Mr. Wilfrid Roberts.

  Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Resolutions agreed to.

  Ninth Resolution [Matches (Customs)] read a Second time.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolu-
  tion," put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).
  The House divided: Ayes. 277 Noes, 137.

  Division No. 102.]

  AYES

  [3.54 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

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

  Comyns, Dr. L

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Cooper, G.

  Albu, A. H.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Cove, W. G.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Crawley, A.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Cullen, Mrs.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Dagger, G.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Daines, P.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Burden, T. W.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Burke, W. A.

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

  Bacon, Miss A.

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

  Deer, G.

  Baird, J

  Callaghan, James

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Balfour, A.

  Carmichael, James

  Delargy, H. J.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Diamond, J.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Debbie, W.

  Barton, C.

  Chafer, D.

  Dodds, N. N

  Battley, J. R.

  Clsetwynd, G. R.

  Donovan, T.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Cluse, W S

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Benson, G.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Binns, J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Blackburn, A. R

  Collindridge, F.

  Dye, S.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Collins, V. J.

  Ede, Rt. Hen. J. C.

  Bottomley, A G.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Edelman, M.

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

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Segal, Dr S.

  Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)

  Levy, B. W.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Sharp, Granville

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Shurmer, P.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Ewart, R.

  Logan, D. G.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Longden, F.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T C.

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

  McAllister, G.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Foot, M. M.

  McGovern,J.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Forman, J C.

  Mack, J. D.

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

  Fraser, T (Hamilton)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Snow, J. W

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Sorensen, R. W

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Steele, T.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Gibbins, J

  Mann, Mrs. J.

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

  Gilzean, A.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Swingler, S.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood)

  Messer, F.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Grey, C. F.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Grierson, E.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Taylor, H B (Mansfield)

  Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)

  Monslow, W.

  Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanolly)

  Moody, A. S.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Morley, R.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Gunter, R. J

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

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Hale, Leslie

  Mort, D. L.

  Timmons, J.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Moyle, A.

  Telley, L.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Murray, J. D.

  Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G

  Hardman, D R.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hardy, E. A

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

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Harris, M. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Harrison, J

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

  Walker, G. H.

  Haworth, J

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

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

  Oldfield, W. H.

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

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Watkins, T. E

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Orbach, M.

  Webb, M (Bradford, C.)

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Paget, R. T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Hebson, C. R.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Holman, P

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  West, D G.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T (Edinb'gh, E.)

  Houghton, A. L N. D

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

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

  Hoy, J.

  Pearson, A.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

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

  Peart, T. F.

  Wigg, George

  Hughes, H D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)

  Perrins, W.

  Wilkes, L.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Popplewell, E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Willey, F T (Sunderland)

  Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

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

  Price, M. Philips

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Williams, Fit Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Randall, H. E.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Jeger, Dr S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Ranger, J

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Johnston, Douglas

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Willis, E

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Reeves, J.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Wise, Major F J.

  Kenyon, C.

  Rhodes, H.

  Woodburn, Rt Hon. A.

  Key, Rt Hon. C. W.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Woods, G. S

  King, E M.

  Roberts, A.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Kenley, J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

  Robertson, J.J. (Berwick)

  Lang, G.

  Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lavers, S.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Carson, E

  Amory, D Heathcoat

  Bowen, R.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Bower, N.

  Cooper-Key, E. M

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Baldwin, A. E

  Brown, W J. (Rugby)

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Bullock. Capt. M

  Darling, Sir W Y.

  Birch, Nigel

  Butcher, H. W.

  Davidson, Viscountess

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

  Byers, Frank

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  2844

  2845

  De la Bere, R.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Donner, P. W

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Renton, D.

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

  Lipson, D. L.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Drewe, C.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberlan, N.)

  Dugdale, Mai. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Eccles, D. M.

  Lucas-Tooth, S. H.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Follick, M.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham S.)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  McFarlane, C. S.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Fyle, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pottok)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Spence, H. R.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Mactay, Hon. J. S.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Gallacher, W.

  MaoLeod, J.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Gates, Maj. E E.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

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

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Teeling, William

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Marlowe, A A. H.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford)

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Touche, G. C

  Haughton, S. G.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Tinton, R. H.

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

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Wadsworth, G.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  White, Sir D (Fareham)

  Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

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

  Nally, W.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Hurd, A

  Nicholson, G.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  York, C.

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

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Odey, G. W.

  Joynson-Micks, Hon. L. W.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Keeling, E. H.

  Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

  Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley.

  Kendall, W. D.

  Piratin, P.

  Tenth to Twenty-third agreed to.
  Twenty-fourth Resolution 9Eatate Duty (Rates)] read a Second time
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Committee in the said Resolu-
  tion," put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).
  The House divided: Ayes, 309; Noes, 121.

  Division No. 103.]

  AYES

  [3.54 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Adams, Richard (Batham)

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Diamond, J.

  Albu, A. H.

  Burden, T. W.

  Dobbie, W.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V

  Burke, W. A.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Alien, A. C. (Bosworth)

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

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Byers, Frank

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Callaghan, James

  Dumplelon, C. W.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Carmichael, James

  Dye, S.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Chamberlain R. A.

  Edelman, M.

  Awbery, S S.

  Chater, D.

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

  Ryles, W. H.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon N. (Caerphilly)

  Baird, J.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whilechapel)

  Balfour, A.

  Coldrick, W.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Collindridge, F.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Barstow, P. G.

  Collins V. J.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Barton, C.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Battley, J. R.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Ewarl, R.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Cooper, G.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Benson, G.

  Cove, W. G.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Binns, J.

  Crawley, A.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Cullen, Mrs.

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

  Blyton, W. R.

  Daggar, G.

  Follick, M.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Daises, P.

  Foot., M. M.

  Bowen, R.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Forman, J C.

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

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  Braman, E. A.

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

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Gallacher, W.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Deer, G.

  Conley, Mrs. C. S.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Gibbins, J.

  McGovern, J.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Gilzean, A.

  Mack, J. D.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Glanville, J. E. (Conse)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Gooch, E. G.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Skinnard; F. W.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, C. (Calchester)

  Grey, C. F.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Grierson, E.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

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

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

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

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Snow, J. W.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Solley, L. J.

  Guest, Dr L. Haden.

  Mellish, R. J

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Messer, F.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Hale, Leslie

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Mikardo, Ian

  Steele, T.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Mitchison., G. R.

  Strachey, Rt. Mon. J.

  Hardman, D. R.

  Monslow, W.

  Strauss. Rt. Hon. G R. (Lambeth)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Moody, A. S.

  Stress, Dr. B.

  Harrison, J.

  Morley, R.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Haworth, J

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

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

  Swingler, S.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Mort, D. L.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Moyle, A.

  Symonds, A.L.

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Murray, J. D.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Nally, W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Holman, P.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

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

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Horabin, T L.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Houghton, A. L. N. D

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

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Hoy, J.

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

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

  Oldfield., W. H.

  Timmons, J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Tolley, L.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, M.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Hughes, H D. (Wlverh'pton, W)

  Paget, R. T.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hutchinson H. L. (Rusholme)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wadsworth, G.

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

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Walker, G. H.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Pearson, A.

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

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Pearl, T. F.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E)

  Perrins, W.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Piratin, P.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Johnston, Douglas

  Popplewell, E.

  Weitzman, D.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Price, M. Philips

  West, D. G.

  Keenan, W.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)

  Kendall, W. D.

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

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

  Kenyon, C.

  Randall, H. E.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Ranger, J.

  Wigg, George

  King, E. M.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Wilkes, L.

  Kinley, J.

  Reeves, J.

  Wilkins, W A.

  Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Lang, G.

  Rhodes, H.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Lavers, S.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Lawson, Rt. Hon J. J.

  Robens, A.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

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

  Lever, N. H.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Levy, B. W.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Willis, E.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Scollan, T.

  Woods, G. S.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Sco.Elliot, W.

  Yates, V. F.

  Logan, D. G.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Longden, F.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Sharp, Granville

  McAllister, G.

  Shurmer, P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McGhee, H. G.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Cooper-Key, E. M

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Bower, N.

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

  Assheton, RI. Hon. R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Baldwin, A. E

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Cothbert, W. N.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Darling, Sir W Y.

  Baxter, A. B

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Beamish, Maj. A V. H

  Butcher, H. W.

  Do la Bere, R.

  Birch, Nigel

  Carson, E.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Boles Lt.-Col. D. C. (Welts)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  2848

  2849

  Donner, P. W

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Pentith)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Drewe, C.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Renton, D.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Eccles, D. M.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lucas-Tooth, S. H.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  MacAndrew, Sir C.

  Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Fyfe, Rt Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  MoCoreuodate, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T D. (Pollok)

  MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)

  McFarlane, C. S.

  Spence, H. R.

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Maclay, Hoc. J. S.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'tn, S.)

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  MaoLeod, J.

  Teeling, William

  Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

  Marlowe, A. A H.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Haughton, S G.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

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

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Touche, G. C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Turton, R. H.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Walker-Smith, D.

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

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Hurd, A.

  Nicholson, G.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Nield, B (Chester)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

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

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Odey, G. W.

  York, C.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Pertick)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Lancaster, Col C. G

  Ponsonby, Col. C E

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley.

  Resolution agreed to.

  FINANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund—

  (a) of the sum of four hundred and eighty-five million pounds for the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for the current financial year, instead of the sum of three hundred and fifty-five million pounds; and

  (b) of sums required in connection with the redemption, by the transfer of Government stock or otherwise, of the annuities now payable in respect of land tax redeemed but not exonerated."

  WAYS AND MEANS
  [12th April]
  Resolution reported.
  "That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue (other than purchase tax), and to make further provision in connection with finance."
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Money], and agreed to this day, by the
  2850
  Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. Jay.

  FINANCE BILL
  "to grant certain duties, to alter other duties and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue (other than Purchase Tax), and to make further provision in connection with Finance," presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

  IRON AND STEEL BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
  Report [7th April] of the Business Committee considered.— [Mr. H. Morrison.]
  4.18 p.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: Mr. Speaker, before you put the next Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report," which under Standing Order No. 41 (3) is not debatable, I wish to raise a point of Order to the effect that the Business Committee have acted ultra vires in reporting to this House that the Guillotine Motion for the Report stage of the Iron and Steel Bill should sub-divide the four allotted days and that the Guillotine should fall twice daily and not merely at the end of each day's proceedings. This point is, of course, novel since this

  2851
  is the first occasion on which the machinery in which the Business Committee established by the new Standing Order 41 in July last year, has been used. It is also, I think, important because your Ruling upon this matter, Mr. Speaker, will set a precedent which will, no doubt, be followed in the future.
  The point I wish to raise turns upon the construction of Standing Order 41 (1). But before I read the terms of the Standing Order may I just remind you, Sir, that this Standing Order was adopted nine months ago on the Motion of the Government and in the face of opposition from these benches. The Government are responsible for its form and, in my submission to you, Sir, if there is any doubt as to its meaning it should therefore be construed strictly against the Government rather than strictly against the Opposition. The Report from the Business Committee provides, as I have just stated, that the Guillotine shall fall at varying hours upon the four allocated days. The Standing Order under which the Business Committee have to proceed reads as follows:
  "There shall be a committee, to be designated the business committee, consisting of the members of the chairmen's panel together with not more than five other members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker. The quorum of the Committee shall be seven."
  That provides, of course, that supporters of the Government are bound to be in a permanent majority upon the Business Committee and, of course, we make no complaint about that, for it is the fact with all Select Committees appointed by this House. The Standing Order goes on to provide:
  "The committee (1) shall, in the case of any bill in respect of which an order has been made by the House, allotting a specified number of days or portions of days to the consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House or on report, divide the bill into such parts as they may see fit and allot to each part so many days or portions of a day so allotted as they may consider appropriate;"
  The first point I would make is that paragraph (1) of Standing Order 41 can only be operated where the House has made an Order allotting a specified number of days or portions of days to consideration of a Bill, and on 25th November last this House did pass such an Order, which, as regards the Report stage, states merely:
  2852
  "Four allotted days shall be given to the Report stage (including any proceedings on the re-committal of the Bill)."
  The Order does not provide that any portions of a day or portions of days shall be allotted to the Report stage. No 'doubt, of course, those words are included in the Standing Order because it is common practice in this House for, let us say, 2½ days to be allotted to the Report stage of a Bill and for half a day to be allotted to the Third Reading, but in the case which we are here discussing the allocation of time by the House was four days to the Report stage of the Bill.
  I think it should also be noted that the Standing Order does not lay down that the Business Committee shall allot time to each part of the Bill; what the Standing Order lays down is that they shall allot a part of the Bill to a specified time. If I may read the words once more, they say that the duty of the Business Committee is to,
  "divide the bill into such parts as they may see fit—"
  —that is, not into such number of parts as they may see fit—
  "and allot to each part so many days or portions of a day so allotted as they may consider appropriate."
  The words "so allotted" in that sentence refer back to the Order of the House allotting a specified number of days to the consideration of the Bill on Report, but I would point out to you, Sir, that the duty of the Business Committee is to allot parts of the Bill to the available time and not to allot the available time to parts of the Bill. This is a distinction with a great deal of difference.
  I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in considering what is their duty the first thing the Business Committee have to do is to see what is the time allotted for the consideration of the Bill upon Report by the Order of the House. That is their first duty. In order to ascertain that they look at the Order of the House of 25th November last year and they see there that four days shall be allotted to the Report stage of the Bill. Passing from that point, in my submission the Business Committee should then proceed to divide the Bill into parts and allot those parts to the days or portions of a day so allotted as they may consider appropriate.
  The House allotted four days and in the Order of the House of 25th November

  2853
  last there is no mention whatever of a portion of a day. It is, therefore, my submission that it is the duty of the Business Committee to look at the Order of the House, to see how many days are allotted for the Report stage, to divide the Bill into either that number of parts or a smaller number of parts, and then to proceed to allocate those parts to the time which has been fixed by the House.
  This is a matter of very great importance because the Report of the Business Committee, or rather the Motion to approve the Report of the Business Committee, is not debatable in this House. What is debatable in this House is the Order allocating time for the stages of the Bill and, in my submission, it would be quite wrong if the House, having allotted let us say four days to the Report stage of the Bill, the Business Committee were then to proceed to divide the Bill into 16, 32 or maybe 64 parts and allocate those parts, hour by hour, on the proceedings upon the Report stage. In my submission the effect of that would be completely to destroy the powers remitted to you, Sir, under Standing Order 31. Under that Standing Order,
  "Mr. Speaker…shall have power to select the new clauses or amendments to be proposed,"
  That gives you, Mr. Speaker, the power to select Amendments upon the Report stage and, in my submission, that is a very valuable power and a very great protection for minorities in this House when we are working under a Timetable upon the Report stage of a Bill. It is a very great protection for the minority because, without power of selection, it would be perfectly possible for Government supporters to move Amendments so as to take up the whole of the available time.
  I suggest that if it is open to the Business Committee, established for the first time under Standing Order 41, to divide the Bill into innumerable parts and to provide for a Guillotine which might fall every hour or even more frequently, then your power of selection under Standing Order 31 and your responsibility to protect minorities in this House would, in effect, be completely destroyed. I, therefore, suggest that it is the duty of the Business Committee to divide the Bill only into the days allocated for Report stage by the Order of the House. If the Leader of the House wished the Business
  2854
  Committee to act in a different way and to divide the Bill into more parts than the number of days allotted for Report stage, then in my submission the Order of the House fixing the time for the Report stage ought to state clearly in terms that the Business Committee may provide that the Guillotine may fall more frequently than once daily.
  I think that this is a matter of very great importance. This is the first occasion upon which it has arisen. I do respectfully suggest that if there is any doubt about the construction of these words—and I submit that the construction I have put upon them is the correct one—you, Mr. Speaker, should take time to consider this matter and give a considered Ruling upon it. This is a very important precedent which is being set today. It may govern the Proceedings of this House and it may operate either to limit or to extend the powers of hon. Members to speak and debate upon Report stage for many years to come. I suggest that if, in your view, there is any reasonable doubt whatever as to the proper construction of these words in Standing Order 41 you should consider a Ruling upon it, after having taken whatever advice you think desirable.
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for putting his case so clearly. He has suggested that I should give a considered Ruling and that I should take time, if necessary, to consider it. I can assure him that I did spend on this matter almost the whole of one day when the House was in Committee on the Budget, for I knew that it was coming up. I read the Debate on this Order, and I have given the matter my earnest and careful consideration, because I realise it is an important point. However, I am afraid I have come to this conclusion, that I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of our Standing Orders.
  We must apply our minds to the obvious intention of this Order. In my opinion, Standing Order No. 41 lays it down that if the House has passed an Allocation of Time Order in respect of the proceedings on consideration of a Bill, it is the duty of the Business Committee (1) to divide the Bill into parts of such number and size as they may think fit, and (2) to decide, as they may consider appropriate, at what hour and on which of the days

  2855
  allotted to the proceedings each of the parts is to be concluded. This appears to me to be the quite clear intention of the Standing Order, and the Time Table of the Business Committee's Report is, therefore, in accord with that intention.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
  The House divided: Ayes 304; Noes, 133.

  Division No. 104.]

  AYES

  [4.33 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Ede., Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

  Adams, Richard (Batham)

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

  King, E. M.

  Alba, A. H.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Kinley, J.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

  Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

  Allen, A. C (Bosworth)

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Lang, G.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W)

  Lavers, S.

  Anderson., A. (Motherwell)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Ewart, R.

  Lever, N. H.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Farthing, W. J.

  Levy, B. W.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Fernybough, E

  Lewis, J (Bolton)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Bacon, Miss A.

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

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Baird, J.

  Follick, M.

  Lipton, LL-Col. M

  Balfour, A

  Foot, M. M.

  Logan, D. G.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Forman, J. C.

  Longden, F.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Barton, C.

  Freeman, J (Watford)

  McAllister, G.

  Battley, J. R.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  McGhee, H. G

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Gaitskell, Rt Hon. H. T N

  McGovern, J.

  Benson, G.

  Gallacher, W.

  Mack, J. D.

  Binns, J.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Gibbins, J

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Gilzean, A.

  McLeavy, F.

  Boardman, H.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consent)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Bottomley, A. G

  Gooch, E. G.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

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

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Macpherson, T (Romford)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Maitland, Comdr J W.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Grierson, E.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)

  Broughton, Dr, A. D. D.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon H A

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Melfish, R. J

  Burden, T. W.

  Hale, Leslie

  Messer, F.

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

  Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Callaghan, James

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col, R.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Carmichael, James

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Castle, Mrs, B. A.

  Hardman, D. R.

  Monslow, W.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Moody, A. S.

  Chater, D.

  Harrison, J.

  Morley, R.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Haworth, J.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

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

  Coldrick, W.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Mort, D. L.

  Collick, P.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Moyle, A.

  Collindridge, F.

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Murray, J. D

  Collins, V. J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Nally, W.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Holman, P.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Comyns, Dr, L.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

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

  Cooper, G

  Horabin, T. L.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Cove, W. G.

  Houghton, A. L N. D

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

  Crawley, A.

  Hoy, J

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

  Grossman, R. H. S.

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

  Oldfield, W H

  Cullen, Miss

  Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Dagger, G.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, M.

  Daines, P.

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Paling, Rt Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Davies, Edward (Burstem)

  Hynd., H. (Hackney, C.)

  Paling, W T. (Dewsbury)

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

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

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

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Deer, G.

  Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Pearl, T. F.

  Delargy, H. J

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Perrins, W

  Diamond, J.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

  Piratin, P

  Debbie, W.

  Jenkins, R H.

  Popplewell, E.

  Dodds, N. N

  Johnston, Douglas

  Porter, E (Warrington)

  Donovan, T.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Porter, G (Leeds)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Jones,,Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Price, M. Philips

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)

  Proctor, W T.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Keenan, W

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Dye S.

  Kenyon, C.

  Randall. H. E

  Ranger, J.

  Snow, J. W

  Weitzman, D.

  Rankin, J.

  Solley, L. J.

  Wells, P. L (Faversham)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Sorensen, R. W

  Wells, W. T (Walsall)

  Reeves, J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  West, D. G.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E)

  Rhodes, H.

  Steele, T.

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

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

  Robens, A.

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

  Wigg, George

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonskire)

  Stress, Dr. B.

  Wilkes, L.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Robinson, K (St. Pancras)

  Summerskill, Rt Hon. Edith

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Rogers, G. H R

  Swingler, S

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Sylvester, G. O

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Scollan, T.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Sharp, Granville

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Willis, E.

  Shurmer, P

  Timmons, J.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Tolley, L.

  Wise, Major F. J

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon A

  Simmons, C. J

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Woods, G. S.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Yates, V. F.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Walker, G. H.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Warbey, W. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Watkins, T E.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bowden.

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

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Assheton, Rt Hon. R

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Nicholson, G.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

  Noble, Comdr A. H. P

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Odey, G. W.

  Baxter, A. B.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Houghton, S. G.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Birch, Nigel

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

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

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

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hogg, Hen. Q.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Bowen, R.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Bower, N.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Renton, D.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

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

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Byers, Frank

  Jennings, R.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Carson, E.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Chanson, H.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Kendall, W. D.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Spence, H R.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Stoddart-Scots, Col. M

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

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Studholme, H G

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H

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

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Teeling, William

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keignley)

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Touche, G. C.

  Davies, Rt Hn Clement (Montgomery)

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Turton, R H.

  De la Bète, R.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Vane, W. M F

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

  Wadsworth, G.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Walker-Smith, D

  Donner, P. W.

  McFarlane, C. S.

  Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)

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

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Brews, C.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir (Richmond)

  MacLeod, J.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Eccles, D. M.

  Marlowe, A. A H.

  York, C.

  Eden, Rt Hon. A.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Young, Sir A. S L (Partick)

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Medlicott, Brigadier F.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale.)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  Molson, A H. E.

  Brigadier Mackeson and

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I beg to move,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means on 5th April, 1949, in refusing to order the hon. Member for Norwich to withdraw a charge or accusation, publicly confirmed by the hon. Member, that an hon. Member of the Opposition had been guilty of a lying accusation was wanting in the impartiality required for the discharge of his office."
  I should like to begin by repeating my sense of acknowledgment to the Leader of the House both for the restraint and courtesy with which he treated my Business question last Thursday and for having accorded time for the discussion of this Motion, which, I think, was well in accordance with principle, and for which I thank him. I hope that he will allow me also to thank him for the courtesy with which he received me personally. It cannot often be the case that a Private Member of the House approaches the Leader of the House as such in the ordinary working of the party system, and it was indeed a pleasant experience to do so and to find that one was received with courtesy and magnanimity, which was very much in the highest tradition of this place.
  The right hon. Gentleman last Thursday invited me to take the Motion which stood in my name off the Order Paper without further discussion, and I should very much have liked to accede to that request because, if I may say so, I both understood and in some measure agreed with the ideas which I am sure animated the right hon. Gentleman in making that request. I very carefully thought the matter over, and the conclusion I came to without doubt was this: That a Motion of this kind ought neither to be put upon the Order Paper nor withdrawn from it without some public explanation to the House. I think that, whatever the dangers may be, I owe it to the House to make an explanation of this kind and that if any other course had been pursued it would have been a very dangerous and vicious precedent indeed. I must add that I do not myself feel that the withdrawal by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) of the expression which gave rise to the incident referred to in the Motion, made any difference one way or the other to that decision.
  2860
  The Motion is not directed to the hon. Member for Norwich, but is directed to the conduct of the Chair, which remains unaltered whatever the decision of the hon. Member for Norwich may have been. I must add that whether hon. Members agree or disagree with the terms of the Motion which I have put down, the decision of the Chair on the occasion to which the Motion refers was a serious precedent, and I myself feel that it ought not to go forth without public protest. Therefore, on the merits of the Motion, I should have been wrong to withdraw it without making that protest.
  The Motion itself charges the Chair on the occassion referred to, with a want of impartiality. I think that the House is entitled to know exactly what I mean by that phrase and what I do not mean by it. My allegation means this: that, not as a matter of error of judgment, but as a matter of deliberate choice, when what I submit was a clear.defiance of the well-established Rules of Order in this House was drawn specifically to the attention of the Chair, the Chair deliberately refused to enforce the Rules of Order but chose instead to apply some purely subjective and unascertainable criteria of its own to the Orders of the House and exercised its authority only in order to suppress those who sought to invoke the Rules of Order and not as a means of ordering those who had broken the Rules of Order to abide by them for the future or to withdraw their breach. That, so far as I can see it, is a want of impartiality.
  It will be noted that I make no allegation in the Motion of party bias. I wish expressly to say here and now that that omission from the Motion was not unintentional. I meant to imply nothing of the kind, but I think that in a Motion of this sort everything one means should be said plainly and that there should be nothing whatever by way of innuendo or insinuation underlying it. Not only had I no intention of making an allegation of that sort, but I do not wish anyone to be under any misapprehension that any such intention was in my mind. The right of substantive Motion has, I think, been well-established for many years in cases of this kind. So far as I can ascertain, it was exercised as recently as a few years ago by Mr. Wedgwood Benn, as he then was, when he brought no fewer than 27 Members

  2861
  into the Lobby against the Speaker of his day. On the whole, I think that it is well that from time to time it should be established that substantive Motions of this kind can be put down by Private Members who have questions of principle which they seek to apply.
  My charge, therefore, is this: that there was a deliberate refusal by the Chair to apply well-ascertained Rules of Order when an open breach of them had been established and specifically brought to its notice, and that the Chair used its authority for the purpose of suppressing those who had invoked them, and not for the purpose of enforcing the Rules. The existence of such a duty on the Chair has been established from the very earliest times. This is not a question of discretion; it is a question of duty, and that duty is laid down—I do not wish to quote the words because the passage is a little long—in page 438 of the current edition of Erskine May. Side by side with that duty there has been established the right of a Member to draw the attention of the Chair to breaches of Order, once well established, in order that the Chair may perform its duty, and perform it directly.
  As regards unparliamentary expressions and personal allusions, I also submit that the Rules of this House are very well known and established beyond doubt. I wish to read one sentence from page 431 of Erskine May—a sentence which I think we all need to take to heart, not least myself—and then to come to certain examples. The sentence I wish to read is this:
  "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate."
  The learned editor of Erskine May then goes on to give examples of what he calls "expressions which are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference"—that is by the Chair. The examples he gives include the following:
  "1. The imputation of false or unavowed motives."
  I do not think I need read 2.
  "3. Charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood."
  Then it goes on to cite a number of precedents of that. I have read every one of the precedents under the head of charges of making a deliberate falsehood
  2862
  cited by Erskine May at that point—every one, that is, since 1867—and I have also read two which have taken place since that edition of Erskine May was published. I think I am correctly summarising them when I say that, whatever particular form of words is used, once it has become unmistakably plain that one Member is insinuating of another or saying of another in open terms, that he said that which he knew to be false, either in the House or outside it, then the Chair must and should intervene at once to direct the offender to withdraw—and that without any particular form of words.
  But the precedents establish, I think, something more than that. They establish that there are certain words in the English language which so plainly or so usually carry with them that imputation that, whatever may have been the inner meaning of the person speaking, the Chair should intervene to direct the person using them to withdraw those words whenever they are applied to another Member of this House. The Chair has even gone so far in two instances as to apply that Rule to the word "falsehood" unaccompanied by any descriptive epithet, and I should have thought, and I believed it to be true, a fortiori, that the word "lie" or "liar," or the verbs and adjectives compounded of or derived from it, have always been so regarded, and that whenever that word, or any part of it, has ever been used by a Member of this House and the Chair has had its attention drawn to it, the Chair has always insisted upon the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the expression.
  There are only two qualifications, I think, to be made about that Rule. You, Mr. Speaker—certainly in the speech which you made when you were inaugurated at the beginning of this Parliament, and I remember on one other occasion in a very happy speech—have referred more than once to the possibility of the Chair being what I might describe as judicially deaf; that is to say; not hearing as Mr. Speaker things which actually fall with an impact upon your human ears. I hope to persuade the House that certainly this is not a case where there can be any such pretence. Secondly, I think it is true to say that the Chair will very often put a charitable construction on words when they are capable of two alternative con-

  2863
  structions. But where the words are plain the Chair will not quibble; where the words in their ordinary and actual meaning convey an offensive imputation, then the Chair will direct the offender to withdraw.
  I must say this, too, in all sincerity. These Rules are not meant for the protection of the reputations of hon. Members; they are not meant to prevent things being said which we do not want said in public; they bear no relation to whether the things that are said are true or false, or whether the charges are justified or unjustified. These Rules are meant to keep order, and the disregard of these Rules, and particularly the refusal by the Chair to enforce them, leads, as surely as the tides follow the moon, to the outbreak of disorder. That is absolutely certain. I must also add this, because I think it only right to do so. These Rules were worked out by our forebears in days when House of Commons life was much rougher than it is now. I hope I shall be forgiven if I say that this has been a very well behaved Parliament on both sides. I think it is due to us to say that it has been well behaved compared with Parliaments of the past, all of them I think, and it may prove to be very well behaved compared with Parliaments of the future.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is anxious to tell us the whole facts in stating his case. Does he think that the behaviour which led up to the remark in question being made was consistent with the case he is now making out? Does he not agree that some very provocative remarks were made prior to the making of the statement of which he speaks?
  Mr. Hogg: I want to be perfectly fair, but I am equally anxious to couch my remarks in a wholly unprovocative way. Although, of course, there are things I shall say with which hon. Members will not agree, I want to say them in such a manner that hon. Members will not feel in any way offended when I do say them. Perhaps it would be better if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to deal with these matters with which I propose to deal in the way in which I had planned.
  That brings me very clearly to the incident, or series of events leading up to the incident to which the Motion refers.
  2864
  It began in the latter part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, at the point at which he had been criticising the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson). I have looked at the precedents and I do not think I should be in Order in discussing in any way matters other than those which are strictly relevant to this Motion; indeed, I think I should be unwise to do so, even if I were in Order.
  The point arose in the course of the Minister's speech at which he desired to say, and did say, that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham was inspired by hatred of the Government and not by motives of patriotism. I feel myself that that might have been considered an imputation of an unavowed motive, but I make no complaint about the fact that the Chair did not intervene at that stage. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that this was only an example of Members of my party allowing their hatred of the Government to overcome their patriotism. Again, that is something upon which I do not think I need comment on this Motion; I simply narrate it as an event which led up to the incident upon which I am not only entitled but bound to comment. The effect of that was that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay)—I read from HANSARD, which, in parenthesis, may I say, has an almost miraculously accurate account of what took place in a matter of a few minutes or seconds; one would scarcely have thought it possible for shorthand writers to be quite as skilful as these have been—said:
  "On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an ex-member of the Fascist Party to cast aspersions on"—
  Then comes "interruption" in brackets. I do not wish to comment on that remark. It was withdrawn, and in my opinion it was rightly withdrawn by my hon. Friend who made it. It certainly was not a remark I should have made, because my state of knowledge about the right hon. Gentleman is greater than my hon. Friend's. It is not a remark I should have made about him in any circumstances. However, that remark was made, and I reserve the only comment I want to make about it.
  That in its turn led the hon. Member for Norwich to rise immediately, except

  2865
  for one absolutely irrelevant observation from the Chair. The hon. Member for Norwich said this:
  "On a point of Order. Is it in Order for hon. Members of the Opposition to make a lying accusation against my right hon. Friend?"
  Those were the words he used and which he has subsequently withdrawn, and in my opinion has quite properly withdrawn. I draw the attention of the House firstly to the point that he did not say it, as it were, in heat. He rose and obtained a lull for himself by saying "On a point of Order," thereby making it quite certain that what he said should be heard clearly, and it was heard clearly.
  The Chairman then replied with this observation, and this is the first note of direct criticism I want to strike. Having said,
  "We can only have one point of Order at a time,"
  the Chairman's reply to the hon. Member for Norwich was:
  "I am not in a position to say whether the accusation was a lying accusation or not."
  That means that the Chair had heard the words clearly uttered, as everyone in the House heard them, thereby debarring him from alleging official deafness, and secondly that he understood them in exactly the same sense as any Member in the House understood them, as meaning that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull was deliberately saying what was not true about the Minister of Food. At any rate, that was understood by the Chair, and it was understood by every Member of the House.
  In my respectful submission, the words are incapable, subject to any legal quibbles any ingenious man may think of, of having any other construction whatsoever. I raised this point of Order therefore, and said, as I have said on other occasions when I have heard that word used:
  "On a point of Order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) insinuate that something was a lying accusation. Do you, Major Milner, think that the word 'lying' should be used towards Members of the Opposition? I would ask you to ask him to repeat those words in order that they may be taken down, and I would ask you to ask him to withdraw the words 'lying accusation.' Can we not have the protection of the Chair?"
  2866
  The Chairman then said:
  "If one Member accuses another of telling a lie or being a liar it would be proper for me to ask him to withdraw. I did not gather that that was the imputation in this case. I do not, therefore, propose to ask the hon. Member to withdraw."
  I submit from the facts as I have stated them, firstly, that it was absolutely plain that the Chairman heard exactly what the hon. Member had said, and secondly that the hon. Member had used an expression to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, clearly coming within the repeated Rulings of the Chair that that word and all compounds of it are out of Order, and that the Chairman had clearly understood the sense in which it was used. Instead of directing the hon. Member for Norwich to withdraw, the Chairman replied, firstly, by what I can only describe as a feeble joke, and, secondly, as a matter of arbitrary decision, that he did not propose to order him to withdraw. That is not impartial conduct on the part of the Chair; at any rate that is what I submit in these matters.
  Mr. Driberg: Is it not clear to the hon. Member that the Chair might possibly have observed, as the hon. Member has just read out, that the hon. Member for Norwich used the plural and was not referring to one specific Member of the Opposition?
  Mr. Hogg: It did occur to me, and the hon. Member has evidently not been paying attention to the HANSARD record which shows, although the plural was used originally by the hon. Member for Norwich, the Chairman's reply was:
  "I am not in a position to say whether the accusation was a lying accusation or not."
  The Chairman deliberately used the singular quite clearly, showing that the lying accusation was in respect of the accusation by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull. To do the hon. Member for Norwich credit, he has never denied that at any stage, because he is a man of honour. That is what he sought to impute. I raised therefore a second point of order, and said:
  "Further to that point of Order, Major Milner. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Norwich use the words lying accusation.' I believe I am in Order is asking him in your presence to confirm or deny what I have asserted."
  In doing that I was not simply repeating myself, but was following your express directions, Mr. Speaker, made on 14th

  2867
  March, 1945, when you expressly laid down that that was the true course to follow if there was any question of the Chair having not caught the proper imputation of the words. In spite of your express Ruling as recently as March, 1945, the Chairman refused to do that, and in fact said:
  "If the hon. Member for Norwich did make any accusation that a Member of this House, whether on one side or the other, was telling a lie or was a liar, then, of course, he should withdraw. If that was not the case, perhaps the hon. Member will indicate so to me."
  The hon. Member for Norwich was perfectly candid about it. He never concealed the words he used, or the intention he intended to convey. Any ingenious interpretation that others have sought to put on them is wholly foreign to the honest nature of the hon. Member for Norwich, whose only part in these proceedings after this episode was in a manly fashion to withdraw what he said. He said:
  "With the greatest respect to the Chair, Major Milner, I made my observation after a wholly false accusation that a Minister of the Crown was a Fascist had been made from the other side."
  If there had been up to that point any doubt whatsoever, as there seems to be in the mind of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), as to what the hon. Member for Norwich meant, or the particular accusation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, that doubt is removed by that intervention.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Hogg: On the whole, I would rather not. I think it is important that this Debate should not degenerate into recriminations. The House will give me credit, I think, for trying to put my point of view in a wholly unprovocative way. I am afraid that if I constantly gave way I should be drawn into a Debate which the House would probably regret. The hon. Member's questions are not always as simple as he claims, and they are not always questions. The Chairman then said:
  "Order. We cannot continue on these lines"—
  the only observation he made with which I agreed;
  "Having regard to what the hon. Member for Norwich has said, I do not propose to direct him to withdraw."
  2868
  I rose to make my third appeal to the Chairman, in an attempt to ask him whether he could not, in the circumstances, order the words to be taken down in accordance with Section 160 of the Manual of Procedure. At that stage, the Chairman said:
  "…I must decline to hear the hon. Member for Oxford again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 1993–5.]
  It is no part of my case to harp upon any feeling of resentment I may have felt personally at that time. I only say this to the Chairman now: he has, like myself, been trained in the study of the law, and he must know how far down in the judicial scale one must sink before one deliberately refuses to listen to a person who is seeking to invoke the protection of authority to enforce the Rules of Order which it is their duty to enforce.
  Therein lies the charge I make. I deliberately say that if the Chairman, in answer to the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Norwich had only said, "It is not in Order to call a Member a Fascist, and it is not in Order to accuse an hon. Member of a lying accusation, and both hon. Members will withdraw," I believe that both hon. Members would have done so, and that the conclusion of that Debate would not have been one which most of us, for whatever reasons, now regard with feelings of regret. I believe that the refusal by the Chair to enforce the Rules of Order always leads to disorder, and I believe that the responsibility for the disorder on that occasion rests with the conduct of the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is why I have put down this Motion.
  I wish to say three things in conclusion. First, if this had been an isolated decision I should not have adverted to it, but it is not an isolated decision. On the contrary, I believe that for over a period of months there has been a tendency—
  Mr. Logan: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has raised the case of what was said on 5th April. Has he any right, Mr. Speaker, to bring any other matter forward for consideration now?
  Mr. Speaker: I was listening carefully. I do not think the hon. Member ought to go too wide.
  Mr. Hogg: I did not mean to, Sir, but I think I am entitled to say—and I do

  2869
  not think that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) is being as helpful as I know he intends to be—that over a period of months now—
  Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order, I think it is a well-recognised rule, Mr. Speaker, that no innuendo or attack whatever on the conduct of the Chair can be made except by a substantive Motion placed on the Order Paper. There is a substantive Motion on the Order Paper relating to an incident in which the conduct of the Chair is impugned. If there is any imputation on the conduct of the Chair other than that referred to in the Motion, I submit that that is wholly out of Order.
  Mr. Speaker: I quite agree, and I gave a warning that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) should not go very far into this matter.
  Mr. Hogg: I am certainly taking note of that warning, Mr. Speaker. I was not raising any case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—other than the construction which I deliberately place on this incident. It is this: that the Chair, instead of enforcing the Rules of Order, which are perfectly plain and applicable to this case, deliberately chose as a matter of policy to substitute for those Rules of Order in this case a private and unascertainable criterion of its own in place of those ascertained Rules of Order. That is what I meant, and I deliberately accuse the Chair of a want of impartiality on this occasion.
  I will say no more about the Chair on this matter except this. My own view—and I wonder whether the House agrees or disagrees—is that this House will take from the Chair almost any degree of exercise of authority. It is not afraid of a strong Chairman; indeed, it loves a strong Chairman; but it will tolerate that only in so far as authority is used to enforce the objective criteria imposed by the Rules of this House. But when the rebuke, the decision, the authority, is replaced by the subjective criterion of the feeble joke or the sneer, then I submit that the House is going down the slippery slope.
  In putting down this Motion I want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whom I have criticised in plain terms to
  2870
  believe that I was not actuated by any feelings of personal malice or spite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] On the contrary, my feeling of conscience on this matter has been absolutely imperative. I believe I could have obtained many signatures to this Motion had I tried, but I have deliberately not tried to get any, or to enlist support from this side of the House or from anywhere else. I felt it my duty, as a servant of the public in this House, to make a solemn protest about what I regarded as a deliberate and vicious precedent.
  I have discharged my duty and I am, therefore, free to say that I do not desire to embitter things further by pushing this Motion to a Division. It would be a tragedy, in a matter of this kind, to do more than make the solemn protest I have made. The Motion had to go on the Order Paper so that I could do what I conceived to be my duty. I withdraw nothing, either from the Motion on the Order Paper or from what I have said.
  Mr. Driberg Mr. Driberg rose—
  Mr. Hogg: I earnestly say to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I sincerely wish him well in the conduct of the Chair. I desire to do nothing which may cause future bitterness. This matter is one for the House to decide as to the proper course to take. I apprehend that the Prime Minister may have something to say on this Motion, and I therefore propose to give way, without more ado, to enable the right hon. Gentleman to give such advice as he may think suitable.
  Mr. Speaker: The Motion must be seconded before it can be put to the House.
  Mr. Hogg: I was proposing to give way to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot have an irregular Debate. Does any hon. Member second the Motion?
  Mr. Hogg: I think the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) had a question which he wished to put to me. I think he rose, and I would have given way. I shall answer him if I am allowed to do so.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I beg to second the Motion.
  5.20 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The conduct of the Chair in this House is supported by a great and honourable tradition and one has always to take the greatest care before one makes any aspersions on the conduct of the Chair and particularly a charge of partiality. I listened to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) with great care and his charge really came not to a charge of lack of impartiality but a mistake of judgment. The hon. Gentleman has been conducting this post mortem in the calm of this afternoon, but we have to look at what the Chair did in a very different atmosphere at the end of a hot Debate, with a crowded House, and with a great deal of noise and with accusations being flung across the Floor.
  It is a fact that at times like this a Member who wants to get in above noise very often uses the words "On a point of Order." It is quite often not a point of Order at all, and if the Chair took strictly every single point of Order it would play not into the hands of the Debate but perhaps into those of obstructionists. I was present on this occasion. I came in when the House was already a little noisy. It was getting still noisier. There was shouting across the Floor and a number of Members shouted out the word "Mosleyite," which was objected to. A more specific statement on a point of Order was made by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay). There was subsequently a statement made by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton). I do not think it was so absolutely clear as the hon. Member for Oxford says. It would take a great deal of argument to show exactly the reaction of the House to those particular words "lying accusation." It is a question of whether it was an accusation against a particular Member or a number of Members. That makes a difference.
  I am not proposing to argue the case one way or the other, except to say that the hon. Gentleman is very clear on it. He has had a long time to study authorities, but it is another matter when one of these things is thrown to the Chair when there is great heat in Debate. The Chairman has to make up his mind. The suggestion is that in every case the Chairman's duty is simple and that he has to take a certain action. However, I do not
  2872
  think it is always quite that. The position of one occupying the Chair in this House is something like a referee in a football match. He often has to interpret the rules a bit in order to see that the play goes on in the best possible way. In my experience of the House I have seen Debates conducted where the Debate would have been brought entirely to a futile end if there had not been, as we say sometimes, a certain deafness or a certain action on the part of the Chair.
  My point is that if we judge this from the position of the Chairman, we know that he has to act in a heated House when there are a great number of accusations flying about one way or another. Therefore, I do not think it is fair in a case of this kind to charge the Chairman with partiality. He might presumably have called to Order the hon. Member for Solihull. He did not do that. There might have been a great deal going on in the House and he let the thing go on. In difficult circumstances, the Chairman was trying to do his best to get that Debate through in an orderly way.
  It is a pity to put a Motion of this kind on the Order Paper and to hold a post mortem and dissect the whole thing with precedents afterwards. If there is an accusation against anyone in the Chair for acting from improper motives that is one thing. I do not think the hon. Member for Oxford intended that. What it boils down to is that he has suggested that there had been a lack of judgment. Everybody who has been in the chair at a meeting has been conscious at some time or another of the difficulty of coming to a right decision. I have seen wrong ones and right ones.
  While we must insist on the Rules of Order, there is a danger of being over sensitive in this House. As a matter of fact, there has been over a period of years, I am told on the good authority of old Members, a considerable softening of manners in this House. When I read some of the Debates in the past I am surprised at what people got away with. That softening of manners in a good thing, but we must not be too meticulous. The Chair has a right always to see that it does not interrupt the actual Debate but keeps the effect of the Debate going. The occupant of the Chair has to exercise his judgment. I am sure that that is what

  2873
  the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did on this occasion under very difficult circumstances.
  5.26 p.m.
  Mr. Proctor: We have listened to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and we have heard of his investigations. It would have been proper on his part if, when he came to the portion of Erskine May where it referred to good temper and moderation, he had closed the book and left the incident at that, because I am going to submit, as one who sat through the whole of the Debate, that it was want of good temper and moderation on the part of the hon. Member for Oxford that led to many difficulties that happened that evening. I believe the Chair acted impartially and quite properly. It is well within the discretion of the Chair to interpret the whole of the matters in the manner in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did that evening.
  The second point I wish to make is that no one can be sure that the report in HANSARD is exactly what happened on that occasion. I myself have a little experience of writing shorthand, and I know the facility with which a circle can be left out to turn a plural into a singular. It is not at all certain that every syllable and every word of what took place is actually contained in HANSARD. In the first case the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) intervened on a point of Order with a question to the Chair, which was:
  "Is it in Order for an ex-member of the Fascist Party to cast aspersions on"
  The Chairman treated that question by saying that it was not a point of Order. I see nothing improper in that. I would remind the House that today we had a similar question put to the Chair, when Mr. Speaker was asked,
  "Is it in Order to refer to this incident as a foul and bloody murder?"
  Mr. Speaker's answer to that was:
  "It is not in Order."
  I submit that the cases and the decisions are similar. In both cases they were absolutely proper.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to be as accurate as he can.
  Mr. Proctor: I want to be absolutely accurate.
  Major Legge-Bourke: What Mr. Speaker said this afternoon was
  "I should think probably not."
  Mr. Proctor: I should think probably there is so little difference in that, that it is not worth bothering about.
  The next point I want to refer to is the point of Order made by hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton). He said:
  "On a point of Order. Is it in Order for hon. Members of the Opposition to make a lying accusation against my right hon. Friend?"
  The answer to that was:
  "I am not in a position to say whether the accusation was a lying accusation or not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1949; Vol 463, c. 1993–4.]
  That might easily mean that the Chair did not hear any of the things which were being referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich. In the first place, it is a reference to a number of accusations and not to a single accusation at all. I say that the Chair on that occasion dealt with the matter in a perfectly impartial way and is deserving of the full support of this House.
  5.31 p.m.
  Sir Ian Fraser: I much regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has put down this Motion, the operative words of which are "wanting in impartiality." I do not think that to ordinary, plain people that can mean anything but a suggestion that the Chair was either seeking to be, or was in fact being, partial. I heard the whole of that affair and I thought that the occupant of the Chair was trying to be fair to both sides. I thought he was seeking to further the progress of the business of the Committee. I therefore regret this Motion and I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Driberg: I wish to make only two very brief points. For the first, I will revert to my interruption of the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), which I am sure he misunderstood. It was not the word "accusation" which I suggested should be plural, but the word "Members."

  2875
  The point at issue is that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) made a general accusation against a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite. This may sound a small, trivial point, but it is not so trivial as it sounds on first hearing, for the reason that although it is out of Order to make imputations against, or to accuse of lying, a specific hon. Member of this House, the custom has been that it is not strictly out of Order, however undesirable it may be, to make imputations against groups of Members. This is the point I wanted to make and which the hon. Member for Oxford misunderstood when I interrupted him.
  I say not only that the Chair was not guilty of the partiality of which he has been accused. Let us make no mistake about it; the hon. Member for Oxford was not accusing the Chair of error of judgment or of anything like that. His speech rubbed it in and made it clear that he was accusing the Chair of a deliberate policy of partiality. I say that not only was the Chair not guilty of that charge but that he was not even guilty of an error of judgment. I suggest that it would be most unfair to the Chair that this Motion should be withdrawn, that there should be no Division and that he should be left under this very grave imputation. I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford will not withdraw the Motion, and that if he seeks to do so the House will refuse him permission, so that there may be an overwhelming majority of hon. Members from both sides of this House in the Lobby to defeat it.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I intervene for just a few moments to speak in support of what has just been said by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). No more serious charge can be brought against you, Sir, or the Chairman of Ways and Means as Deputy-Speaker, than an accusation of want of impartiality. Such a charge ought never to be brought unless it can be supported by the clearest possible evidence. Like all hon. Members I have read through the HANSARD report. I fail to see a single instance there where a charge of partiality can be brought against the Chair. In my view, which I think is the view of all
  2876
  hon. Members of this House, this Motion ought not to have been put on the Paper at all. Still worse, the hon. Member for Oxford has not only made the charge that on that occasion the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was guilty of partiality, but that his behaviour was a culmination of a whole series of incidents. If the hon. Member intended to mean that, he ought to have included it in the Motion.
  I deeply regret that this Motion remained on the Paper for so long. No charge ought to be made against you or either of your two deputies unless it is debated immediately. You are here to protect the interests of individual Members and to see that the business of the House is conducted properly. In addition, there is a duty upon us, which is that you and your deputies are entitled to the full protection of the House on all these occasions.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I desire to detain the House for not more than two or three minutes. There is no doubt that the proceedings that night had become a little heated. There was a good deal of temper on all sides and I am sure that a good many things were said that were afterwards regretted. That is why it is such a great pity that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) should be the only Member of this House who allowed his bad temper to survive the occasion. Everybody else next morning had forgotten it, but not the hon. Member. He had to put his Motion upon the Paper. Not merely that, but after several days he thought it fair to make the kind of speech that he made this afternoon, and then not even to move his Motion at all until he was compelled to do so from this side of the House.
  I cannot imagine how any Member of the House could possibly act more unfairly than to make the kind of speech that the hon. Member made, then first to seek not to move his Motion at all so that he could never be answered, and then after it is moved to seek to withdraw it so that it could never be defeated. It shows quite clearly how ill-advised the hon. Member was, when we think of the kind of accusation that he made. In the end, he said, at one point the position went beyond doubt. The point that he chose, in order to illustrate that his

  2877
  charge was proved beyond doubt, was that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) said that something was a wholly false accusation. I submit that there is nothing either unparliamentary or out of Order in saying that an accusation is false if it is false. It may be out of Order to say that it is a lie but it is not out of Order to say that it is false. The particular accusation that was made that night was not only admittedly false, but the hon. Member who made it withdrew it later that night and accepted an assurance that it was false. Therefore the point which the hon. Member for Oxford uses in order to prove his case, seems to me to disprove it beyond further argument. I hope that the House will retain possession of this Motion, not allow it to be withdrawn, and defeat it unanimously.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: I was not present on the occasion of the Debate which gave rise to the contretemps which has been discussed today, but I have read the pages of HANSARD, and the view that I formed is that although there was in my opinion an error of judgment on the part of the Chair, there was nothing that occurred then or has occurred since which justifies the imputation of want of impartiality on the part of the Chair. All of us are capable of making mistakes, and in the Chair at a time of high dispute and sometimes high temper a Chairman who was never wrong would be something more than human; but that is not the issue here. The charge is not that an error of judgment was made; the charge is of a want of impartiality on the part of the Chair, and that is the issue with which we have to deal.
  The second point I want to make is that this is not an accusation made in the heat of the moment. In the same way as all of us can make mistakes in the heat of the moment, all of us can make wrong imputations in the heat of the moment, but this is not so made. It is made subsequently, and it is persisted in after the opportunity of a graceful withdrawal has been provided. That seems to me to be a fact of some importance. The Lord President of the Council invites the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) to come into discussion, and though I was not present, I can pretty well guess that the Lord President would
  2878
  have urged the hon. Member for Oxford not to persist in this Motion. However, he persists in it, and it my view that as he has persisted in it, a vote must be taken upon the Motion.
  There must be a vote because otherwise things would be intolerable in this House. Every one of us has a right to put down a Motion attacking the Chair, and if we feel that the Chair has been wrong, that is not only our right; it may conceivably be our duty. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the late Member for Caernarvon Boroughs putting down on the Order Paper a straight Motion of censure on the Speaker. We all have that right, but the one thing we must do if we exercise it is to come to the House, state our case for attacking the lack of impartiality of the Chair and stand by the decision of the House of Commons. That is the situation with which we are faced. Withdrawal before today would have been possible and proper; withdrawal today would be quite improper and we ought to make it impossible. Therefore, in agreement with other colleagues, I suggest that we should retain this Motion on the Paper and insist upon a vote on it.
  5.43 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): We have now had a fair Debate on this matter. It is perhaps a pity that it was not handled with greater brevity in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) because there is some feeling, I gather, among my hon. Friends that the House ought to come to a decision. I am not resisting the idea that the House should come to a decision. I think that in all the circumstances, having got as far as we have, we had better come to a decision; but there are two ways of coming to a decision. One' is to try to get a Division somehow so that there is a majority and a minority, and the other is, if the House is virtually unanimous, to decide about it by the question being put and by its being negatived without a Division.
  If I may say so, the course of the Motion being negatived without a Division would be the best way because even if a limited number of Members voted, it is not nice for the Chair and we want to keep the Chair in good relationship with the House. Therefore, my advice to the hon. Member for Oxford would

  2879
  be to take the course whereby the Motion can be negatived, and my advice to the House as a whole would be that there is no point in taking a Division merely for the sake of having one, if the House can virtually decide unanimously that the Motion should not be carried. I hope that the course I have suggested will commend itself now to the House.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Eden: I want to associate myself with what the Leader of the House has said. In these matters we have to think not only of the present but even beyond the present, and it would be most unhappy to have a Division if the House can take its decision without a vote and having a minority on an issue which affects the authority of the Chair. I feel sure that for the future guardianship of this House that will be the right course to take. I hope that it is a course which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) will be able to take.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. Hogg: I certainly propose to accept the advice given from the two Front Benches. I think I have the right to say this, and I propose to say it if I have the right. One point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) made was a good one, but as a matter of fact it was unjust. He said that this Motion had remained on the Order Paper too long. I agree with him, but the Leader of the House will agree with me that there were circumstances beyond my control and beyond his control which caused the delay which were not my fault at any rate. I should have preferred to have it dealt with at a much earlier date, but I think it was thought that it would be convenient that the Leader of the House should be present at this discussion, and certainly I fell in with that decision, which I think was right.
  It is also quite unfair and wrong to say, as did the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), that I sought not to move the Motion. I sought to give way to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister who, I apprehended, had something to say. It was not in
  2880
  order—as I thought the hon. Member rather wrongly suggested—to avoid any further discussion that I gave way to him; I thought it might be too late for him to say that which I thought he had it in his mind to say if I did not formally give way. I have not sought in any way to run away from the things I have put down.
  It has been put by the Prime Minister that this was a heated Debate, and I certainly take that fully into account. I have also taken into account the other things which the Lord President said. My own view is exactly that put forward by the Leader of the House. I had to put this Motion on the Order Paper in order to make what I regarded as a protest which it was my duty to make, and now, having made it, I am quite free and quite willing to see it negatived in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
  Question put, and negatived.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
5.49 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. J. Robertson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is the first occasion I have had to speak from the Government Front Bench on a Measure of major importance to Scotland, and I feel sure that many right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those who have served a period in local government, will be able to appreciate and, I hope, share my feelings of pleasure in rising to move the Second Reading of this important Bill. Certainly no one who has been a member of a Scottish local authority at any time during the past 30 years can have failed to realise the vitally important part which housing plays in the lives of our people.
Prior to being elected to Parliament I had the useful experience of representing a working-class area for about nine years on the Council of the City of Edinburgh. The shocking housing conditions prevailing in that predominantly working-class ward had its reflection in the high infantile mortality rate of 112 deaths per thousand children born in that dockland area of the capital of Scotland. I cannot

2881
easily forget the courageous and often heartbreaking daily struggle of decent working-class people to cope with the difficulties of rearing their families to become good citizens in these dreary, dark vennels of the slums of the Scottish cities and towns. Nor do I forget that the health, working efficiency, habits and social conduct of a community have their roots in family life.
It is against this background of personal experience and intimate knowledge of just how much a good home means to the wellbeing and happiness of a working-class family, particularly the housewife—I emphasise the housewife—that I have found so much interest in the furtherance of Scottish housing during the last 18 months when my right hon. Friend has asked me to devote my main activity to speeding up the Scottish housing programme. While that work continues, I feel some satisfaction in the introduction of this far-reaching piece of legislation. The considerable progress made during the past year, and the gratifying figures of the first three months of this year, for the completion of permanent houses, leads us to the conclusion that the time is now ripe for the introduction of this important Bill.
The Bill is important because it makes certain fundamental changes in the Scottish Housing Acts. Scotland is now in an era of industrial expansion. The population is, to some extent, on the move. Housing accommodation is needed in new places and for different classes. We must, therefore, have a comprehensive and flexible housing policy. This involves the removal of certain restrictions and the filling of certain gaps in Scottish housing legislation. There are, in addition, other social and economic considerations to be taken into account. Scotland has a heritage of solidly built stone houses which are worth conserving as a national asset. The improvement of these houses would give tolerable living conditions to thousands of our people at present indifferently housed.
The Bill accordingly seeks to do four things: first, to extend the powers of local authorities to deal with the housing not merely of the working classes but of all classes and of all members of the community; secondly, to make financial assistance available for the improvement of existing houses thirdly, to provide certain new special subsidies for other
2882
housing purposes, and finally, to make certain amendments to the Scottish Housing Acts so that they will form a more comprehensive and flexible instrument of housing policy.
I should like to say something about the background of Part I. For nearly 100 years the powers and duties of local authorities have been restricted to dealing with the housing conditions of what were termed the working classes. The first Housing Act was called the Dwelling Houses (Scotland) Act, 1855, and was an Act to facilitate the erection of dwelling houses of the working classes in Scotland. Since then the powers and duties of local authorities have been progressively widened, but their powers and duties continued to relate to working class housing.
In 1919, after the famous Royal Commission Report of 1917, a definite statutory obligation was placed upon local authorities to provide housing accommodation required for the working classes in their districts. These new powers and duties were supplemented by financial incentives. The 1919 Act started a system of housing subsidies from the Exchequer and the rates. The 1919 and the 1923 Acts together produced 76,000 houses in Scotland, but the biggest single contribution between the two wars was made by the 1924 and the 1930 Acts passed by Labour Governments. The 1924 Act—which became known throughout Scotland as the Wheatley Act—and the 1930 Act together produced 133,000 houses in Scotland, 125,000 of them by local authorities. In other words, one half of all the houses produced by local authorities in Scotland between 1919 and 1939 resulted from former Labour Government Acts.
Sir William Darling: What was the subsidy?
Mr. Robertson: The subsidy was so generous in the case of the Wheatley Act that succeeding Conservative Governments took the Act from the Statute Book.
Mr. Willis: And stopped housing.
Mr. Robertson: Part I of the Bill makes a definite break with the past. It places a duty on local authorities to have regard to the housing needs of all members of the community. It does this by

2883
wiping out the restrictive reference to the working classes in all the Scottish Housing Acts. This recognises an evolutionary process at work in our society during the last generation. The common dangers of the two wars, especially of the last war, and the advent of a Labour Government have broken down a multitude of artificial distinctions between different social classes and between different income groups. Many class barriers have gone and, where they have not already gone, I can see them disappearing. I feel, therefore, that I need offer no apology for asking the House to bring the Scottish Housing Acts abreast of the times. There are positive reasons for this change which we are proposing. Here, for example, is what the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee said in 1944—
Commander Galbraith: To which report is the hon. Gentleman referring?
Mr. Robertson: The Report on the Distribution of Houses. I quote from the report:
"A local community must essentially be well-balanced. It is not a well-balanced community if it is confined to one income group or to one trade or calling, or does not include enough people to form groups covering a variety of social and intellectual interests. Life in a varied community can stimulate that tolerance and mutual respect which are essential in the world today."
I want, however, to add a word of caution. Part I of the Bill does not mean that local authorities are going to build large numbers of bigger houses for the middle classes at high rents. It does not mean that we are forgetting that Scotland has still far too many unfit and overcrowded houses. Apart from the deletion of the expression "working class," the statutory duty to deal with the slums and overcrowding remains unaltered. What it does mean is that in future authorities will look at the local circumstances of each particular scheme, and if a sufficiently balanced community does not already exist in the neighbourhood, they will be encouraged to consider what steps they should take to provide for the growth of such a community.
I come now to Part II of the Bill which provides for financial assistance for the improvement of existing houses. Many committees have made recom-
2884
mendations on the improvement of the older stone houses in Scotland, but the most important step, perhaps, was taken in 1944, when Mr. Tom Johnston, the then Secretary of State, asked the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee to report on the matter. The Committee set up a sub-committee under the chairmanship of the late Mr. Archibald McTaggart to make inquiries. The Committee's Report was published in 1947 under the title "Modernising Our Homes" and contains a detailed survey of what can be done—and what must be done—to deal with this peculiarly Scottish problem. The Report points out that Scotland has about 900,000 houses which were built before 1919. Of these 900,000 houses, about 400,000—or nearly one-third of all the houses in Scotland—have w.c.s that are used in common by two, three, four or five families. Of these houses nearly 300,000 are situated in the cities and burghs.
Commander Galbraith: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to get the picture clear. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the figure in the Report. That refers, does it not, to the 1931 census? So that we shall not confuse the position today with that in 1931, can the hon. Gentleman say whether that is the 1931 or 1944 figure, or whenever it was that the Report was made?
Mr. Robertson: I am referring to the pre-1919 houses. The Report was published in 1947.
As I was saying, a large proportion of these houses have w.c.s used in common by two, three, four and five families. Of these houses nearly 300,000 are situated in the cities and burghs. Large numbers of these houses are without baths, without separate kitchens, and without modern cooking and heating appliances. While some of these defective houses were built only shortly before the First World War, many of them are very much older. Last century many working class families inherited these somewhat battered relics of a past age, originally built for the wealthier classes and made down in a rough and ready manner for their new tenants. The Report emphasised, however, that not all of these defective houses were suitable for improvement. About 100,000 of them have probably gone too far to be worth modernising and others will fall out on planning grounds—for

2885
example, to make way for new roads, etc. It is not possible to say exactly just how many of these old houses are suitable for improvement.
Broadly speaking, there are three main types of houses ripe for improvement. First, there are big houses, either unoccupied or under-occupied, which can be sub-divided into flats. Second, there are modest houses or flats of three to five rooms in town and country which do not have proper sanitary arrangements and lack other modern conveniences. Many of these houses are in small burghs and villages. Many of them are owner-occupied: I am thinking, for example, of thrifty railwaymen and other workers who bought houses for their families in Abbey-hill and other districts in Edinburgh and of the fishermen round our coasts who take such a pride in the homes which they own in our picturesque fishing villages.
Sir W. Darling: East Edinburgh and Berwickshire.
Mr. Robertson: The third group consists of the many small houses, especially in tenements, which when the new housing programme is further advanced, will have to be combined with others if they are to make reasonable homes for ordinary families. The Report warns us, however, that, unless we adopt an improvement policy, large numbers of families will have to go on living for many years, as in the past, in houses that are already unsatisfactory and are almost certain to deteriorate. The majority Report then recommends financial assistance to local authorities, to private persons and to housing associations.
I have dwelt on the Report at some length because we have lifted the broad framework of the majority recommendations on Scottish housing and have embodied them, with only a very few alterations, in this Bill. I should, therefore, like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the valuable contributions made by the Committee and by the late Mr. Archibald McTaggart in supplying us with material which has been so readily adaptable for purposes of legislation.
The financial assistance proposed is briefly as follows: First, local authorities may receive from the Exchequer three-quarters of their estimated expenses in giving effect to improvement proposals. The proportion in the Highlands and
2886
Islands, however, will be seven-eighths. Secondly, private persons may receive from local authorities grants up to 50 per cent. of the duly accredited estimated expenses in carrying out their improvement proposals. That is the scheme of financial assistance in outline. There are one or two points of policy, however, which I ought to mention,
The first is that work of improvement must not prejudice the building of new houses. I am afraid we shall have to be rather selective, to start with, and shall have to concentrate on houses of sound construction, but with, perhaps, defective sanitary arrangements, which are capable of improvement without loss of accommodation and without too heavy expenditure on scarce materials. Next, we shall gradually be able to bring in improvement involving combination of houses. When that stage is reached, the improvement programme will have to be linked very closely with the programme of new building, in order to ensure that families displaced as the result of the combination of existing houses may be offered other accommodation.
I hope that building labour not usually engaged on new housing, but on jobbing and maintenance work, will be absorbed in improvement operations. There are in many districts in Scotland pools of building labour—mainly among small firms—which could, and should, be employed on the improvement of selected existing houses. At the moment, about 30,000 men are engaged on new housing construction, and about 23,000 on conversions, adaptations and maintenance. Some of these 23,000 men are doing work on the sub-division of residential property for sale to people who are prepared to pay high prices. Some of them are on work of improvement to property which is already reasonably good. We hope that the financial inducements offered by the Bill will have the effect of attracting much of this jobbing labour to essential improvement work. We must, however, watch costs. I regard it as most important in improvement work—as in new building—to encourage competition in the industry to safeguard public funds.
Hon. Members will have observed that grants to private persons are limited to dwellings occupied by the owner or a tenant. If, therefore, the owner of a farm cottage for example, wishes to apply

2887
for a grant, he must first arrange to let the cottage on a tenancy basis. We regard it as a fundamental principle that when public money has been used to improve a house, the relationship between owner and occupier should be one that is defined by Statute and not one in which the owner has the sole right to dispossess the tenant arbitrarily.
A high standard of improvement will normally be expected—a standard as near as possible to that of a new house—a house worth paying a good rent for. The Bill, however, provides for some relaxation of the full standard in exceptional cases.
Mr. Willis: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about altering the relationship in the case of cottages on agricultural land, may I ask if that gives the tenant full protection under the Rent Restrictions Acts?
Mr. Robertson: Under the new proposals the tenant will be protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts. He will be subject to the provisions of the Acts.
Commander Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the matter further? He is dealing with a situation which arises where a private person makes an improvement in a property, not in any other case?
Mr. Robertson: I took the example of a farmer or landowner who wanted to improve his farm worker's cottage, which would be a tied cottage. He would have to make it a tenancy before he would be eligible for the grant.
I should like to invite the help of all interested in this improvement programme. It is important that our skilled architects and surveyors should be brought in to advise on effective and economical means of carrying out the work. It is often a more intricate and protracted task to convert an old house than to plan and build a new one. I should like to make an appeal to the technicians and to all the skilled craftsmen in the building trade to make use of the latest building methods and the latest fittings and appliances that have come successfully out of the building experiments of the last few years. I shall say something about these building experiments in a moment or two.
2888
I now come to Part III of the Bill, which contains some special subsidy provisions for new housing. I should make it clear that Part III does not deal with the ordinary subsidies for new houses. These will be reviewed in the ordinary course, later in the year. In any case, the machinery for the review is in the 1946 Act, and this Bill would not be the place for such a revision. What Part III does is to provide three new special subsidies to meet special circumstances, namely, an additional subsidy for houses built of special materials to preserve the character of the surroundings; a subsidy for hostels; and an additional subsidy for building experiments. I should like to say a word or two, by way of explanation, about these new subsidy proposals.
The subsidy for houses built of special materials will be additional to the ordinary subsidy payable under the 1946 Act. The additional subsidy is not intended for general stone building. It would not, for example, be available for houses to be built on a virgin site merely because the local authority had already built in stone, or because there were stone houses near at hand. It is intended only for special cases where the cost of providing a house is enhanced because of the use of special materials, for example, the use of stone, for small groups of houses in national park areas: in other areas of outstanding natural beauty; and in gap sites in streets of historic interest, or containing notable examples of Scottish domestic architecture. We have such streets in some of the older Scottish Royal Burghs, like Stirling, Haddington and St. Andrews, and in the famous Royal Mile of Edinburgh.
The subsidy for hostels is part of the policy of making the provisions of the Scottish Housing Acts comprehensive and flexible. The National Assistance Act, 1948, provides subsidy for hostels for old people and others in need of care and attention. What this Bill does is to fill a gap and provide a subsidy for a hostel intended for single people who are not in need of such care and attention, for example, young men and women working away from home, or elderly men who have no homes of their own.
The third subsidy, as I have said, is an additional subsidy for building experiments. Scotland has played a big part in the experimental building work which

2889
has been carried out on an extensive scale since the end of the war. The many types of non-traditional houses which we now see in Scotland are a tribute to the pioneer work which has been carried out by professional builders and other public-spirited and enterprising people. The special subsidy which was made available for the development of non-traditional types has now come to an end and these types are now generally expected to compete with traditional houses and with each other in the open market. The proposed new experimental subsidy has a different object in view. It is intended to encourage individual research projects designed to improve the convenience of the houses to save labour and materials and so reduce costs.
Let me give some examples of research projects which have already been undertaken and are now in progress. The Falkirk area has established a new reputation by its initiative in the development and production of modern solid fuel burning fireplaces and kitchen cookers. I can testify from personal experience to the efficiency of one of the new type convection grates. Think of the convenience of a living room fire heating two or more rooms, when the housewife has to lift out the ash container only about once a week.
Next there are two developments which, if they ultimately prove to be quicker and cheaper than ordinary methods of construction, will be especially useful where there is a scarcity of labour in the finishing trades. Many hon. Members are already aware of the prefabricated interiors which have been developed by the firm of Blackburn, at Dunbarton. The other is a new method of constructing internal load bearing walls, using units, which can be made on the site, manufactured from a mineral in vast deposits in this country, and eliminating altogether the use of plaster and timber. The Scottish Special Housing Association have given valuable help in the past in demonstrating new methods of building and we have arranged with them to try out this latest new method of internal walling in two new houses now started at Sighthill, Edinburgh. We are awaiting the results with hopeful interest.
Part IV of the Bill contains a variety of provisions, intended in the main to make the machinery of the Housing Acts
2890
more flexible. In particular we are giving local authorities wider powers to make advances to private persons, and flexible powers in assisting their tenants, where necessary, to furnish their houses, to obtain meals and to have nearby laundry facilities; and I need touch on only one or two of these miscellaneous provisions. Several questions have been asked by hon. Members this Session about facilities for obtaining loans under the Housing Acts and under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. Since 1919, Scottish local authorities have made advances totalling over £10 million under these Acts to buy, build, convert, improve and repair houses. We recognise that the financial limits placed upon advances under these Acts are no longer applicable to present-day conditions. We have therefore taken this opportunity to give local authorities more discretion, and we have, as in the English Bill, raised from £1,500 to £5,000 the maximum value of a house for which an advance may be made.
Then, hitherto local authorities have had powers to supply furniture and fittings to a house but not to a tenant. A number of them have, however, been selling bedding and essential furniture on hire-purchase terms for many years. It is not the intention of this Government to lag behind the practice of the most progressive local authorities and so we are now giving statutory sanction to this practice.
Sir W. Darling: At what rate of interest is this hire purchase and the lending of money to take place? The hon. Gentleman spoke of £10 million having been advanced for buying, building, etc., small dwellings. What is the rate of interest at present obtaining, and what is it to be in the future? Is it proposed to supply furniture, etc., on the usual hire-purchase terms, which are sometimes considered excessive?
Mr. Robertson: I do not wish to prolong discussion, but the rates of interest are a matter for the local authority in accordance with the terms at which they can borrow money at the present time. Edinburgh Corporation lent at four and a quarter per cent. while building societies lent at four and a half per cent. The rate was always below the building society rate. As I was saying, the proposal is to give statutory sanction to this

2891
practice of local authorities supplying furniture, etc., to the tenants. I think that the House will agree that nothing helps a tenant to set up house so happily as assistance in getting good furniture at reasonable commercial prices.
In conclusion, I think that local authorities and Scottish public opinion generally are strongly in favour of all the main proposals in the Bill. That great Scottish Labour pioneer and advocate of democratic Socialism, the late James Keir Hardie, once said that the real wealth of a nation was not to be found in great imperial possessions or in the vulgar pomp and extravagant pleasures of a privileged class; but rather could the true wealth of a nation be assessed by the degree to which happiness was to be found in the homes of the common people. It is because I believe that this Bill will add in no small measure to the social improvement, well-being and happiness which this Government have sought to bring into the homes of the common people, that I am so glad to have moved the Second Reading.
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I should like to clear up a point on which I think the hon. Gentleman inadvertently gave the facts wrongly. I refer to the question of the financial assistance available to local authorities, which the hon. Gentleman said would be on the basis of three-quarters of the expenditure which they incurred. Surely he meant three-quarters of the annual loss, which is a very different thing.
Mr. Robertson: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for pointing that out. I meant to refer to the annual loss.
6.30 p.m.
Commander Galbraith: I am certain that it is the wish of the House that I should take the earliest opportunity of congratulating the Under-Secretary on the manner in which he has presented this Bill for Second Reading, and that particularly because it is the first occasion on which he has moved such a Motion from that Box. May I add that I much preferred his factual approach to the subject to his political approach; indeed, I found it somewhat difficult to swallow some of the political references which he made.
2892
I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will not take it as any reflection upon the clarity of his exposition if I go over certain of the points which he made in very considerable detail and place my own interpretation on the consequences which may flow from them. Of course, Part I of the Bill is quite simple. All that it does is to remove the words "working classes," and I think here that the hon. Gentleman was surely mistaken. He seemed to think that these words being in previous Statutes conveyed some stigma, when of course they did nothing of the kind. All they did convey was the type of people who required their housing accommodation to be attended to and those who perhaps could not afford to pay an economic rent.
The removal of those words imposes on the local authority the duty of providing houses for the entire community. In recent years we have been told time and again, by the Government that while the present shortage of houses exists, and while there are such strict limitations on the building of houses for owner occupation, it is essential, that houses should be allotted strictly in accordance with the housing need and without reference to any other criteria whatsoever, such as financial circumstances. So that on the short view, what Part I of the Bill does is to recognise and regularise a situation which has already existed for some considerable time.
Were that the only effect, I think we could accept Part I with great equanimity. But before we do accept it, it may well be prudent to consider other implications which undoubtedly arise. The House will agree with the hon. Member when he says it is undesirable that our new housing estates should be occupied merely by one type of citizen, whether that citizen is selected by income or otherwise; that the ideal at which we aim is a mixed population and also a diversity of layout and architectural design. If this part of the Bill could be limited to achieve these things without throwing any additional burden either on the taxpayer or the ratepayer, then it would be worthy of a pæan of praise.
But that would not appear to be the case, because according to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, the operation of Part I will increase the charge to the Exchequer. In other

2893
words, if we are to build houses for the entire community, rich and poor alike, these houses are, seemingly, to be provided by subsidy. What in reality we are contemplating, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman said, is that while the majority of the population will have for a very considerable period of time to put up with accommodation which is out of tune with modern needs and modern ideas, they are at the same time to be forced to subscribe to provide others with the best of houses that modern science can devise. In my opinion, that is inequitable and unthinkable under present conditions.
Miss Herbison: Is it not the case that in Scotland at present county councils, or the local authority, allocate houses for people with the greatest need, whether they are miners, teachers, bank clerks, or whatever they are?
Commander Galbraith: Yes, of course. That is exactly the point I have been making. Yet it will be seen that if the whole community is to be catered for, undoubtedly the cost must rise—I shall refer to this time and again during my remarks —and poorer people will undoubtedly be subsidising those who are better off. As I said, to my mind that is highly inequitable and unthinkable under present circumstances.
My personal view is that subsidised housing should be provided only for those who cannot pay an economic rent, as otherwise many will be subsidising those better off than themselves. I would remind the House of the words spoken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during his Budget speech, which I believe are relevant. He said that there is not much further room for the equalisation of incomes by taxation. I take that to mean, in other words, that Government expenditure, of which the housing subsidies form a part, has now to be met out of the pockets of the many instead of out of the bank accounts of the few.
Apart altogether from the unfair burden which will result from providing subsidised houses for the whole population, I think we should observe the opportunities for coercion which this places at the disposal of both local authorities and the Government. Between them they will exercise practically complete con-
2894
trol, both over housing developments and the allocation of houses. The latter applies particularly in the urban areas. In future it may well be that the only houses to be built will be those which the local authorities see fit to build. That seems to me further to narrow the range of choice which the private citizen has at present, and also the possibility, at any rate, of greater variation in architecture and in layout. Indeed, I would have preferred it, if the local authorities had been instructed to lay aside areas of reasonable size for development by private persons. In that way we should probably have achieved what the Government desires, to a greater extent. We should certainly have avoided the payment of large sums by way of subsidy.
From another angle altogether I doubt the wisdom of the step which is here being taken. Under the present system, by which a very great proportion of building is done by the local authority—in Scotland the proportion is ten local authority houses to one built for private persons; in England the proportion is nothing like so great, being 3.75 to one, and I am told that in England they are getting on faster than we are in Scotland—never in my opinion shall we obtain a reduction in the cost of housing, which is such a very serious matter just now, until someone has a personal interest in bringing about that reduction. In other words, the cost will not be reduced until builders are faced with building at a competitive price and in that price securing their own livelihood—whether we call it profit or something else. Until that applies, neither shall we see any improvement, any real reduction, in the time taken to build houses. It may be that we are reducing still further the opportunity of the private builder to show what he can do.
Mr. Willis: What prevents the private builder from showing what he can do when he is building for the local authorities?
Commander Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman try to get a licence to build to start with? That would be a very good exercise, and the hon. Gentleman would find out the difficulties.
Mr. Willis: That is not the point I raised. The private builder is already building houses for local authorities.
Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman will have patience, I shall come to the very subject with which he desires me to deal. I am perfectly aware that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite hold the view that because the local authorities are employing private builders, then they must be obtaining the full economic advantage of free enterprise. But, of course, that is not so at all. The full economic advantage of free enterprise building will only be obtained when builders are able to secure sites, a continuity of work and a supply of materials in the right quantity at the right time and in the right order on the sites. They must he able to arrange these matters for themselves instead of being at the mercy of people outside their own organisation.
There is one other point on which I find myself constantly in disagreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite—particularly do I find myself in disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland. They claim, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has said so in answer to Questions, that private persons can only build for sale, and that to allow houses to be built for sale today, in some way defeats the claim to housing of those in greatest need. That is an argument which I believe to be to a large extent, fallacious. What we want just now are houses. It does not matter a very great deal whether they are for sale or to let. Every house means additional accommodation. If by allowing private builders to build, even for sale only, we were producing the extra 100,000 houses in Great Britain of which I believe the British building industry is capable, that would greatly relieve our waiting lists and would be a great boon and benefit to the community.
Mr. William Ross: What waiting lists?
Commander Galbraith: The waiting lists of the various cities, towns and burghs.
Mr. Ross: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already said that he would not have on these waiting lists people who can afford to house themselves.
Commander Galbraith: That is just the point. If we had been building houses for sale, they would have been off the
2896
waiting lists and out of the way. In the meantime, they are in the queue. In the long run, my impression, which I hold with certainty, is that the housing needs of the country would be cleared far quicker than they are likely to be under the existing system. For the reasons I have given, we on this side of the House will endeavour during the Committee stage, to devise safeguards against the all-embracing extension of the building powers of the local authorities.
I turn to Part II of the Bill, which provides for assistance for the conversion of existing buildings and the reconstruction, alteration or improvement of existing dwellings. The last census was taken in 1931. At that time we had 1,147,000 houses in Scotland. In the following eight years, that is, to the end of 1939, we built 189,638 houses. During the war, we added another 28,270 and since then there have been built 43,325 houses. Of course, I refer to permanent houses only. That gives us a total of 1,408,000 houses. I think that we would be right to exclude from that figure the houses in slum clearance schemes. If we do, in round figures we are probably dealing with about 1,25.0,000 houses in Scotland. We all know, to our cost, that that number is far too few to enable us to provide a house for every family, and that many more are required. Further, we must face the fact that during 1948 we built something short of 20,000 permanent houses in Scotland. From the indications given by the Secretary of State for Scotland, there seems to be little ground for us to hope or to expect that building in the near future will proceed at a higher rate. However, we live in hopes.
Mr. J. J. Robertson: It might be advisable for the record that I should correct the figure given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Actually, slightly over 21,000 permanent houses were built in 1948.
Commander Galbraith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has corrected me. I find difficulty in reconciling the figures given by the present Government. In the Monthly Digest of Statistics for March, the figures appear on page 70. I have added them myself. The total is 19,711, but I am perfectly prepared to accept the figure given by the hon. Gentleman.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): These are local authority houses?
Commander Galbraith: Permanent houses. It may be true that they are local authority houses, but that is the heading on this page. Hon. Members will see that I am correct if they examine the figures.
It is obvious that any sound houses which we have, must be conserved, because they will be required for many long years yet. Any additional houses that we can get by conversion, we must indeed secure. As the Joint Under-Secretary said, these old houses of good construction must be brought up to date. That must be done not only because public opinion demands it, but also because in equity we cannot expect people to live in out-of-date houses while they are helping to pay for the provision of modern conditions for others who may be better off than themselves. Surely, all in this House agree to that principle. We on this side have contended during the whole period of office of the present Government that in the rural areas there were tradesmen capable of doing the work of modernisation and improvement whom one could not incorporate into any team for the building of new houses. I am glad that at last we had confirmation of that view in the speech of the hon. Gentleman this afternoon. Further, I hope that the introduction of this Measure means that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have found that similar men also exist in our towns, cities and burghs. If that is not so, I really cannot see much object in introducing this part of the Bill.
I wish to examine the proposals put forward in this Measure and to see whether they achieve the end it is desired to secure. It may well be that the local authorities will be able to achieve the object which the Government have in view, because they are only called upon to meet one-quarter of the loss; but I doubt very much whether the terms of Part II can possibly encourage any private owner to go ahead with an improvements scheme. Let me say at once that one can make no comparison whatever between the conditions of owners in Scotland and those of owners in England. For England the terms may be perfectly satisfactory, but, as far as I can discover
2898
—and I shall try to put the picture as I see it before the House—in Scotland the terms are anything but satisfactory. One of the reasons for the difference in the situation of owners in the two countries is that ever since the passing of the Rent Restriction Act, 1920, the owner in England has received an increase of 40 per cent. on the 1914 rent, whereas in Scotland, solely as a result of the operation of our owners' rates and the increase which has been incurred in those rates, in Glasgow today the owner is receiving only 161 per cent. above the 1914 rent. We know that the cost of repairs has increased by 300 per cent. since 1939, and I do not think, therefore, that there is any wonder that, during the 12 months ended last October, some 930 houses should have been offered to the Glasgow Corporation free of charge.
I have here a number of statements for which I did not ask but which have been sent to me relating to the results arising from the ownership of property in the City of Glasgow during the year which ended at Whitsuntide, 1948. These properties were held by trustees, some for public bodies and some for private individuals. May I give the House the result of that year's working? On a rental of £227, the loss was £9 10s.; on £349 a loss of £32; on £469 a loss of £33; on £368 a loss of £25; on £322 a loss of £15; on £283 a loss of £13; and on a rental of £602 there was a loss of £16. That kind of thing is happening today not only all over Glasgow but all over Scotland as well, and in my opinion it represents the gravest threat to our housing standards in Scotland. I do not believe that the dilapidations which are taking place are equalled by the replacements.
Mr. Ross: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us some idea of the loss during the war years, when very little repair work was done?
Commander Galbraith: I have not got the figures for the war years. I did not ask for these figures; they were sent to me, but I think they are of very great interest. I believe that this is one of the most serious threats to our housing standards at present, and yet in this Bill, which is called the Housing (Scotland) Bill, there is no cognisance of this serious aspect of the situation. I do not know what is the reason for that.

2899
It may be that the Bill is merely an imitation of the English Bill and, without wishing to give offence, I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I wish he would appear to do somethng on his own initiative. He may be doing it, but be does not appear to be doing it, and I would like to see him doing more on his own, or at least appearing to do it. I am perfectly safe in saying to him that hon. Members on this side of the House, and I think also hon. Members on the other side, are getting somewhat tired of Scottish legislation constantly being tagged on to an English Bill or being an absolutely slavish copy of it, which only results in dealing in an ineffective way with circumstances in Scotland which are quite different from those in England. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing about this serious situation. I am quite certain that he is not going to sit and watch this decay taking place, perhaps from the eminence of St. Andrew's House.
Mr. Woodburn: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been talking about a serious situation and about Scottish legislation being something that is tagged on to an English Bill. Does he never give Scotland any credit for anything? Does he not realise that in this case, the English Bill came in because of Scottish initiative in making this investigation?
Commander Galbraith: I feel all the more sorry that the investigation has not been more fruitful, because it seems to me that it will not help Scotland one little bit. I want to know what the Secretary of State is going to do about this decay that is taking place. Surely, he will not sit and watch it, as I say, from the eminence of St. Andrew's House, but will come down into the street and do something about it before it is too late? If not, we shall have houses all over Scotland that are literally falling down because, as a result of legislation, the owners simply have not got the money to deal with them. It is against that background that we have to consider the provisions of Part II of the Bill so far as it deals with improvements to houses by private persons. We have to ask whether it is likely to be effective, and I submit that, over a great range of property which is capable of reconstruction, the answer is "No."
2900
For the purpose of my argument and as an illustration, I want to consider what happens to an owner who makes an improvement costing £600, of which he has to pay £300. On those amounts he is allowed to increase the rent by 6 per cent. per year, or £18 per annum. What charges are involved in that increase? He has to pay increased rates, which in Glasgow would amount to £5 9s. 6d., and he has to pay Property Tax, which would amount to £3 12s. Then, he has to put aside something for repairs, which, according to the experts who gave evidence before this Committee, should be allowed for to the extent of 25 per cent. of the rent per year, which is £4 10s. The sinking fund at 2 per cent. would mean £6, and the interest on his £300 investment, at the rate which the Government are now going to allow—3¼ per cent.—would call for an additional £9 15s. So he has to put aside a total of £29 6s. 6d., and so, on a property on which he is probably already out of pocket, the improvement which he makes in the interests of his tenant and of the local authorities and the State increases his loss by £11 6s. 6d. With taxation at its present high level and with the cost of living as high as it is, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that anyone is going to be able to indulge their charitable inclinations to that extent?
What I find difficult to believe is that the right hon. Gentleman himself has studied this Report, though the Under-Secretary has referred to it. Both of them should be aware that all these facts are fully set out in paragraphs 110–113 and also on pages 56–59, but with this difference, to which the Under-Secretary referred, that, while the Committe recommended grants of 75 per cent. of the cost, the present Bill suggests only grants of 50 per cent.
Mr. Ross: I think it was up to 75 per cent.
Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman may be right; I do not remember the exact words, although 75 per cent. was the figure that stuck in my mind. If that proposition of 75 per cent. is uneconomic, as the Report shows it to be, how does the right hon. Gentleman expect the proposals in the Bill to be of any use? Is he again merely following—or is it leading?—England on this occa-

2901
sion, or has he fought a battle in the Cabinet and lost it? Has there been a refusal to look at Scottish conditions and make the increased grants which are necessary to meet them, or it is simply that the Government are content that it should remain impossible for private owners to improve their property and so provide an excuse for a local authority stepping in and expropriating the owners? The local authority can proceed to do the work themselves with a much more generous grant given to them and with no limitation on the rents which they can charge. These are serious points, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman is taking them seriously, and that, when he replies, he will state plainly what his intentions are.
One of the strangest things about this Bill is that the one type of property which the owners might consider it worth their while to improve under the conditions which the Bill provides, is that type of property which is excluded altogether from the scheme—the service cottage. Why it is excluded I cannot imagine, not even after listening to the hon. Gentleman's explanation. What did the Minister of Health say during the Debate on the English Bill on 16th March? The right hon. Gentleman said:
"The Government do not see why people should go on living in unconverted houses that are structurally sound when it is perfectly practicable now to bring them up to proper standards."
Again, he said:

"The purpose of the grant is to enable the occupant of the house to enjoy modern amenities…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2138–9.]
Of course, he should have added, "excepting always the key men in the agricultural industry who, by reason of the nature of their employment, have to reside on the farm and in close proximity to their work. These men, so long as the Socialist Government are in power, shall always be excluded from any benefit which might arise under this Bill."
The Government's attitude is so utterly and absolutely ridiculous in reference to this matter that I am going to make an offer which I mean seriously and genuinely. If any hon. Member is prepared to pay a visit of 24 hours' duration, or longer if he likes, to any dairy
2902
farm in Ayrshire, and to accompany the dairyman on his duties during the 24 hours, and then says that it is practicable to run such a farm without the certain knowledge that accommodation will always be available in the immediate vicinity, as required for those who tend the herd, then I am prepared to pay the cost of having that gentleman and myself examined by any mental expert whom he may suggest so that it may be decided with certainty whether he or I should be in Gartnaval or The Crighton, or some similar institution—because it is perfectly clear that, in those circumstances, both of us should not be at large.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman considered whether he is infringing the Gaming Acts in making that offer?
Commander Galbraith: No, I am merely making a straightforward business proposition of which the hon. and learned Gentleman can avail himself if he chooses.
Other observations were made by the Minister of Health on the English Bill and repeated, more or less, in substance by the hon. Gentleman today, observations to the effect that it was repugnant to hon. Members opposite that possession of a man's home should be bound up with his contract of employment. Was greater nonsense than that ever spoken in this House at a time when right hon. Gentlemen are falling over themselves to get service cottages? We have the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary demanding service cottages for the police; we have the Service Ministers demanding service cottages for the men of the Army, Navy and Air Force and their wives and families; and we have the same plea in regard to forestry. Why is it that hon. Members opposite cannot recognise straightforwardly the fact that there are certain occupations where a service cottage is absolutely necessary if essential services are to be maintained? I will leave the matter there because, no doubt, some of my hon. Friends will deal with it fully later on.
Mr. Scollan: Is it not a fact that in the case of Service men, of forestry and of the particular trades which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has quoted, the people concerned are the employees of the Government or

2903
the municipality, who are entitled to provide the houses, whereas the argument he is now putting up is that the Government should erect houses for the employees of private owners?
Commander Galbraith: The argument I am putting up is that where houses are required to maintain an essential service, they should be provided in the interest of the public. There is no difference between the various categories I have mentioned on that point.
I now wish to deal very briefly with Part III, under which assistance is to be given to preserve the character of a locality and to blend the houses in with the surroundings. I am sure that everyone agrees with the provision that is made, but I hope that by the use of local materials we may, in the majority of cases, get a reduction in the cost, and not an increase, as seems to be envisaged in the Bill. Then there is assistance for the provision of hostels to which the hon. Gentleman referred, hostels which are to provide residential accommodation and also board. It would appear that the intention is that these hostels should be subsidised; in fact, that those who use them are going to obtain benefits for less than the economic cost, whether they can afford to pay the economic cost or not. I should like to know whether that is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman. I, personally, do not think that in the present financial position of the country this subsidy is warranted at all. I am all the more inclined to that opinion because this, again, is going to involve payment by poorer people for those better off than themselves. Of course, in regard to experiments in building, of which the hon. Gentleman gave us so many interesting examples, no exception whatsoever is taken.
I come to the extension of the existing powers of local authorities in making advances to private persons or in guaranteeing advances made by building societies to private persons. We on this side believe that the ownership of property by private persons is to the benefit of the entire community, and accordingly we welcome these proposals in principle, provided that, in making the advances, no loss whatsoever falls on the taxpayer, and that all the expenses incurred by a
2904
local authority shall be covered by the charge made on the gentleman receiving the loan. In regard to both that and other matters, we feel that anomalies may be created, and, therefore, we are going to consider amending these provisions in the Committee stage.
Lastly, I wish to refer very briefly to the powers granted to local authorities in the provision of laundry facilities and to the sale of furniture. I am averse to local authorities competing at any time, either in trade or in the provision of services, with their own ratepayers, except where it is proved to the complete satisfaction of some neutral party that private citizens are quite unable or unwilling to provide a reasonable service.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: How would the hon. and gallant Gentleman define a "neutral party"?
Commander Galbraith: I should think the hon. Gentleman might be one; I should certainly be ready to trust him to exercise judgment in these matters.
I entirely agree that the local authority ought to provide communal facilities of the most up-to-date kind, so that the housewife may be relieved to the greatest possible extent of the back-breaking burden of doing the family washing under cramped conditions; but if what the right hon. Gentleman intends is to set up municipal laundries, then, except in the circumstances which I have already mentioned, I entirely disapprove, and the same reasoning defines my attitude with reference to the sale of furniture. This service should not be undertaken by the local authority except where the existing service or facility is inadequate in one respect or another; and, where it is undertaken by the local authority, it should be economic and not subsidised.
From the tenor of my general observations it will be clear to the House that while we on this side accept this Bill in principle, we do so on the condition and on the reasonable expectation that we shall be able to amend it during the Committee and subsequent stages. It is in that expectation, therefore, that we do not intend to oppose its Second Reading.
7.9 p.m.
Mr. McAllister: The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said in the course of

2905
his speech that he finds some difficulty in grasping statistics as presented by His Majesty's Government. We on this side have a somewhat similar difficulty in grasping some of the arguments which he presented in criticising this Bill. He seemed to be making a very important declaration of Tory policy when he said that in his view the building of houses for sale would not defeat the housing of persons in greatest need. That seems a most extraordinary statement. I have great respect for the hon. and gallant Member's reasoning powers, but it baffles me to find anything that could substantiate any such argument.
Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman must continue the argument which I put forward. My argument was based on the assumption that by building houses for sale we could build many more houses than are being built at the present time.
Mr. McAllister: That qualification only makes the argument more extraordinary, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman is obviously indicting private enterprise when he makes that remark. He is saying that the Scottish building industry, only a very tiny portion of which is in the hands of local authorities and only an infinitesimal proportion of which is in the hands of the State, is not building as many houses as it could build. I see that hon. Members opposite appear to agree that that is a correct rendering of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument.
Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman must not say that, because it is a complete travesty of what I said. The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. If he will read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will see how wrong he is.
Mr. McAllister: I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have been listening with the greatest care, and I tried very hard to follow his argument. He said that if houses were built for sale, the people who wanted to buy houses would be off the corporation waiting lists. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not attempt to dodge his own argument but should try to substantiate it. He is clearly saying beyond a peradventure that the number of houses being built
2906
in Scotland today is not the number that could be built if the Scottish building industry was going full out. I suggest that that is simply an indictment of his own friends and associates, and not of the Government. We on this side of the House would not make such a charge against his own colleagues. We believe that, on the whole, the Scottish building industry is doing its best.
Commander Galbraith: It is doing its best under the prevailing conditions, when it is absolutely tied hand and foot by red tape and by the regulations which the Government lay down.
Mr. McAllister: The argument gets more and more interesting. "Doing its best under conditions of red tape and control"—now we are on familiar Tory ground. The Tories would sweep away all these controls and all these regulations just as they would make the houses available for sale. I happen to know that in Inverness today there are houses being built for sale by private enterprise which are taking a great deal longer to build than any local authority houses which know of in the whole of Scotland.
Commander Galbraith: That might be so in the case of a house built on top of a mountain.
Mr. McAllister: I am not talking of houses on the tops of mountains. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should know his geography a little better than to imagine that Inverness is on top of a mountain. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument cannot be sustained. We on this side of the House are willing to admit that we are not satisfied with the number of houses that have been erected in Scotland or which will be erected in the next 12 months, but when we can build 28,000 houses in one year—
Commander Galbraith: Permanent houses?
Mr. McAllister: No, we should not argue in this quibbling fashion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself said that 20,000 permanent houses were erected in Scotland last year, and when he was corrected by the Under-Secretary of State he admitted that the figure was, in fact, 21,000. If one adds to that the temporary houses that were built in Scotland last year, the total figure is 28,000. When we have built 28,000

2907
houses in Scotland in one year it does not lie in the mouth of any hon. Member opposite to cast any slur on this Government for any failure in housing, because our 28,000 houses three years after the war, represent far more houses than the Tories managed to build in Scotland in any year between the two wars.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman then made another extraordinary claim. He suggested that it was very unfair to these poor Glasgow property-owners, with all these repairs to make and all these rates to pay, that they could not charge an economic rent. He said he hoped that something would be done about it "before the houses fell down." That struck me as a very pregnant remark. I represent the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen. It is not like the constituency which the hon. and gallant Gentleman represents; it is a little town of 20,000 people, but with as high a density of population as is to be found in the worst parts of Glasgow. We have there tenement buildings that are owned by private property-owners for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman has such great sympathy. It is an astonishing fact that since the war ended, so many of these old properties have fallen down in Rutherglen that giving homes to their inhabitants, caught up with the supply of new houses—fallen down literally, so that the people have had to go on to the streets and all sorts of emergency measures have had to be taken to give them temporary accommodation. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman said had very little relevance to the Bill. He was trying to build up a purely party political case which had no substance in it whatsoever. His eye was probably on the municipal elections in Glasgow, rather than on the subject matter of this Debate.
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: This is not a party point. It is a question of economics. Here we have an investment, or a method of expending money, which is certain to bring in a loss as things are now. Would the hon. Gentleman buy property in those circumstances?—because I should be very glad to arrange for him to have quite a lot free.
Mr. McAllister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is raising quite a different point. I think there is unanimous agree-
2908
ment on all sides of the House that the time is probably overdue when the Rent Restriction Acts should be reconsidered, and a new body of legislation dealing with a very thorny and difficult problem is a matter of some urgency.
Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that questions have frequently been put to the Government—to the Minister of Health and to the Secretary of State for Scotland—about that matter, and that the Government have said that they will not introduce legislation dealing with the revision of the Rent Restriction Acts?
Mr. McAllister: I am not a member of the Government and, therefore, I cannot speak for them. They have their legislative time-table. I am replying to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), and I am saying that there is fairly unanimous opinion in all quarters of the House that the general revision of the Rent Restriction Acts and of the whole law affecting landlord and tenant is something which calls for the attention of all parties. There is a need for a systematic review of the whole matter.
Mr. Willis: But not to increase rents.
Mr. McAllister: No.
Mr. Willis: That is what hon. Members opposite want.
Mr. McAllister: I want to get a fair arrangement all round and I am prepared to concede that there is a certain inequity in the Rent Restriction Acts as they stand. I fully agree with that, but it is quite another thing to say that it applies to conversion and to the proposals in this Bill, because there was nothing to prevent any landlord at any time before the war from converting a Glasgow tenement. Landlords by the thousand have done it in London, and with great success for themselves and for their tenants. Scotland has sadly lagged behind on the whole question of conversion. I think great credit is due to the MacTaggart Committee, as the Minister remarked, for having given the nation this Report which serves as an example not only to Scotland but to England and Wales. But in the practical matter of conversion there have been a thousand times more

2909
conversions in the County of London area, for example, than in the whole of Scotland.
Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member knows perfectly well the reason for that. Will he not admit it? It is simply due to the owners' rates. He knows that.
Mr. McAllister: If, as the hon. and gallant Member says, it is simply due to the owners' rates, then the hon. and gallant Member was a Member of the party opposite when they were in power and when they could have introduced a reform of the Scottish rating system, which, as almost everybody is agreed, is a matter calling for some attention. We cannot do everything in one Bill. All I am saying is that more conversion has been done in London than has been done in Scotland and that more conversion has been done in many parts of the world than Scotland has begun to do. If one thinks of the capital city of Scotland, with the Royal Mile, I think the corporation of Edinburgh, the regimental associations and many great voluntary organisations have done a remarkably good job in taking the great historic tenements of Scotland, which were dreadful slums, and turning them into buildings of dignity, beauty and social usefulness. The city of Geneva is equally an old city and equally a Calvinistic city, and one would find there that the old university city was also riddled with slums, but the corporation of Geneva took over the university city, and converted the slums into first-rate houses so that the university part is becoming once again the social and intellectual centre of Geneva. Edinburgh and Glasgow could very well follow such an example.
Sir William Darling: They did not fight two wars in Switzerland.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: They were wiser.
Mr. McAllister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on that point. I think the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) will, on further thought, regret that he has cast any kind of reflection at all on the Swiss people who have given to the world an example of what democratic civilisa-
2910
tion really means. We are getting slightly away from the Bill, however. I was astonished by the vehemence of the attack by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok, because most of the things in this Bill are things which I thought would have been welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. I think we all welcome the conversion of the larger houses into smaller, more convenient houses. I think we all welcome the extension of the boundaries of Scottish housing legislation to embrace the whole community and not merely to have regard to one particular section of the community.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: That would do away with Socialism and the class war.
Mr. McAllister: The hon. and gallant Member is entirely wrong. Keir Hardie, to whom reference has been made, did not preach class war in the sense that he wanted to set class against class. He merely saw in Society, as a great Tory leader, Disraeli also saw, acute class divisions and he wanted to abolish them. The whole object of Socialism and the whole object of our legislation in the end is to produce a society in which class divisions disappear and in which we are all [HON. MEMBERS: "Poorer"]—not poorer, although some people will be poorer, but in which nearly everybody will be infinitely richer, not only in material things but in spiritual things as well.
Everyone should welcome the provision of hostels and restaurants. In a city such as Glasgow with hundreds of young men living away from their homes, there is a need for some kind of accommodation in which they will have restaurant facilities and some social facilities as well. Surely that is not a Committee point; that is something which could be regarded as a good point in the Bill. I should have thought hon. Members in every part of the House would welcome the provisions whereby local authorities are to use local materials in building houses. That is not merely a matter of aesthetics, although I am interested in the aesthetic aspect; it is a matter of encouraging, here and there, small local industries which can be most important and which ought to be encouraged. I hope that this Bill, even if it takes some

2911
time to come into full operation, will help to provide a diversity of architecture and a standard of architecture such as, in our more hasty building, we have seldom been able to achieve. We have a great architectural tradition in Scotland and the proper application of this Bill should help us to maintain it and extend it. I should like to congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary of State on the way in which he introduced this Bill and to assure him that it has our warmest support.
7.27 p.m.
Mr. Spence: I do not intend to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), although I agree with what he said in the latter part of his speech about the encouragement of the use of local material by local authorities. I noticed that he said that we all welcomed the Bill and he rather skated over one point which was touched on only very lightly by the Joint Under-Secretary of State when he introduced the Bill; that is, the effect the provisions of Part II of the Bill will have on the reconditioning of rural houses in Scotland. I think the House is aware that my constituency is part of one of the greatest agricultural counties in Scotland and we are deeply concerned about the effect of this Bill on reconditioning.
We had high hopes that the Bill would include provisions which would carry on the work done under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I remember in the earlier days of this Parliament, when it first met in August, 1945—I think the date was 17th August—an announcement was suddenly made to us from the Front Bench opposite by the former Lord Privy Seal that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was to be discontinued. I remember that he was questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) as to what would be the position, and after some pressure he used these words:
"The Secretary of State for Scotland hopes to supersede it"—
that is, the Housing (Rural Workers) Act—
"by something which will be more fruitful than that Act has been in Scotland. We can be held to that promise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th August, 1945; Vol. 413. c. 257.]
2912
Agriculturists all over Scotland have been waiting for that promise to be fulfilled. We thought that this Bill would fulfil it and I put to the Under-Secretary a question which I hope he will answer, or which his right hon. Friend will answer in winding up the Debate. Does he expect that the provisions of Part II of his Bill will lead to a broad measure of reconditioning and improvement of service cottages on the farms in Scotland? I would remind the House that under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 33,000 houses were reconditioned in Scotland. I do not believe—and I hope to show the House in a moment how bad this Bill is in this respect—that this new Measure we are considering, will do anything for rural housing at all. Scottish farming depends, as to practically 90 per cent., upon service cottages for the housing of the farm workers. The system of the service cottage is the only system which is economic and practical for providing accommodation for those who work on the mixed farms which suit our particular climate and soil. The stipulation of the Bill is that any cottage for which a reconditioning grant is sought, must first be declared by the owner untied, even before an application for grant can be made. That is the provision.
I ask—and I hope we may have a reply tonight—what is the position of the owner if for some reason a grant is not given? What is the position of the owner if the grant is not considered by him sufficient to justify going ahead with the alteration? We must know. Then there is the case of the owner who has accepted a grant and reconditioned the cottage and untied it, but who may wish subsequently to tie it again to his farm. So far as I understand it, the position is that the owner repays the grant. That is fair enough under the provisions of the Bill as it is drafted. Then he applies to the local authority for permission to re-tie the cottage. He does not have the right to re-tie the cottage; he applies for permission to re-tie it; and even then, it is subject to the tenancy of the sitting tenant. So I say that those conditions which are attached to the reconditioning of tied cottages in Scotland make this Bill, so far as reconditioning is concerned worthless and useless.
It is safe to say that approximately 25 per cent. of the farms in Scotland are

2913
owner-occupied, and that the other 75 per cent. are occupied by tenant farmers. There are one or two other questions which I want to have answered. Will the owner-occupier run the risk of lowering the value of his farm by untying his cottages? It must be appreciated in all quarters of the House that the service cottage is essential, especially on farms in remote areas. The ordinary, medium sized farm has probably four cottages. In remote areas especially, the cottages must be tied to the farm. If the owner-occupier unties his cottages, his farm is no longer worth what it was, because he cannot sell it. That is a factor that must be faced, and hon. Members, however much they may dislike the tied cottage, must realise that the objections to accepting a grant on the condition of untying cottages, are so great that the Bill, so far as reconditioning of farm cottages is concerned, just will not operate.
Next I have in mind the case of the tenant farmer. He has probably in his lease a clause agreed with the owner of the farm that the owner shall provide suitable cottages, to enable the tenant to employ men to help him to keep the farm in accordance with the new agricultural law. If the owner of the land unties those cottages to recondition them, he breaks the lease with his tenant. Therefore, once again we come to a stalemate. I cannot see how the Secretary of State, when he winds up tonight, can say with sincerity that the reconditioning Clauses in the Bill will be of real benefit to the farming community in Scotland, or will give results in any way comparable to those achieved under the old Housing (Rural Workers) Act.
The Secretary of State himself is, after all, the largest estate owner in Scotland. Will he untie all the cottages on his farms? Will he untie the houses tied to his other interests in Scotland, and see how he gets on for a year or two? If it is so wicked to have tied cottages surely the Forestry Commission ought not to be building more tied houses today, and surely we should not be authorising tied houses to be built under the National Health Service in Scotland, and under the water schemes? What will the Government do about the 150,000 houses that the National Coal Board owns, and the 50,000 owned by the railways? It seems that hon. Members
2914
opposite hold the view that a tied house, when the owner is the State, is a blessing, but that a tied house, when the owner is a private individual, is a curse.
Mr. Willis: Surely what is at issue is the giving of public money for the improvement of private property over which the Government and the local authorities have no control?
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: The Bill is doing that already. The only condition that is made is that houses should be untied. The principle of improving the property of somebody else is in the Bill.
Mr. Spence: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) for that assistance. His intervention completely answers the point. I conclude by saying that Scotland has a great service to give Britain in the provision of food from its farms. Scotland has many counties celebrated for special products of every kind. In Scotland we have special products from our farms, and I think that Scotland, in relation to Great Britain as a whole, stands higher in this respect than any part of Britain. The Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture have told us what we are expected to do. I say it is up to the Government to help, and that, since they have put these provisions into the Bill, they should see they are removed. The Secretary of State would then be conferring a real benefit on the country. He would confer a benefit on us if he would remove these bad provisions from the Bill before it reaches the Committee stage, and so allow this Bill to do good, and to carry on the good work that was carried on in the past under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act.
7.38 p.m.
Mrs. Cullen: I think the Bill will go a long way in helping to solve our housing problem. Nevertheless, I do not feel that it is of para mount importance so far as Glasgow is concerned, especially the Gorbals. On 17th December, I made my maiden speech, pleading that something should be done for the unfortunate people in the Gorbals. Four months have elapsed and nothing has been done. There are no signs of clearing the slums, and the reconstruction of the old houses in the Gorbals, in my opinion, is about 20 years too late.

2915
There is not an empty cellar in the Gorbals, never mind a house. Therefore, I would plead with the Secretary of State for action in this matter. If there is plentiful material now, before we start reconditioning old houses, and so use up our material, something should be done to clear away the slums and rehouse the people of the Gorbals. I am always much perturbed when I go home at the week-ends hoping to see this good work started, to find that, unfortunately, nothing has been done so far. I plead with the Secretary of State to use the materials, not on the reconstruction of old buildings in Glasgow, but for the housing of the people of the Gorbals.
7.40 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: This is a Bill of very considerable importance both to the people of Scotland and to the local authorities in Scotland as many of its provisions refer to local government work. There is no doubt that we shall have to subject it to very close examination in the Scottish Grand Committee, as, indeed, is usually the fate of most Scottish Bills. There are a great many questions of detail and some of finance which one can raise on this Measure, but I will leave the financial details to my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), who is winding up for the Opposition and who is more of an expert in that line than I am.
I want to refer especially to the provisions of Part II of the Bill which deal with the reconditioning and modernisation of existing dwelling-houses. I would like to express my regret at the rather discouraging little intimation at the foot of page (iv) of the Explanatory Memorandum, that it is only anticipated that a very limited amount of work will be done during the next two years. I appreciate that there are difficulties. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) has pointed out that it is not desirable to divert materials for the reconstruction of old houses from those needed for building new houses which should have priority. I would not dissent from that, but I feel that it is, to some extent, possible to carry on both processes.
Before coming to Part II, I would like to say that I think the Government have
2916
been wise in Part I in dropping the term "working-class" from the various housing Statutes. I remember three years ago, when we were discussing in Committee the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, that there was considerable discussion on this point, and the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) suggested that it would be desirable to get rid of this term at an early date. The right hon. Gentleman who was then the Member for Gorbals, and who was Under-Secretary of State at that time, agreed with that view. He said that it was hoped that that step might be taken some time, and therefore we welcome the change made by this Bill. It should simplify the work of local authorities and, I think, be generally beneficial to the public.
So far as we who live in the cities and burghs of Scotland are concerned, I think that there is no doubt that the most important part of the Bill is that dealing with the reconditioning or improvement of existing dwellings. Undoubtedly, Part II does provide some machinery and some incentive to tackle this problem of the improvement of tenement property, but I am very much afraid that the inducement will not be sufficient to make the Bill the success which the Minister hopes it will be. That point was commented on by my hon. and gallant Friend who opened the discussion for the Opposition, and who pointed out the financial obstacles in the way of getting the work done.
For my own part, I regret that very much, because ever since I entered public life it has been my duty, first in the town council of Edinburgh and subsequently, in this House, to represent parts of the city where there are many miles of tenement property in varying degrees of habitability. I am afraid that today a good deal of that property is now decaying beyond repair. I have always regretted that this matter was not dealt with under the provisions of the 1935 Housing Act which, in the main, was based on the report of the Whitson Committee. Although the majority of the members of that Committee reported in favour of grants for reconditioning, there was a reservation against this by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay), to which I fear too much attention was paid by the Government

2917
of that time, with the result that no provisions were included in the statute for giving grants for reconditioning.
I would like to read paragraph 72 of the Report of the Whitson Committee. It says:
"We therefore recommend, as a policy of limited duration, that financial assistance by way of lump sum grants should be given to owners of working-class houses in accordance with schemes to be prepared and administered by local authorities and approved by the Department of Health of Scotland, to enable owners to recondition their houses so as to attain, so far as possible, the standard of fitness and accommodation indicated in the code of by-laws that we have referred to in Part II."
I feel that it is unfortunate that that recommendation was not acted upon in the legislation which followed the presentation of that Report.
So far as the present Bill is concerned, I note that the main condition for eligibility for an improvement grant is that a dwelling house, after completion of the necessary work of improvement, will provide a proper standard of accommodation, as prescribed by the Secretary of State, for a period of not less than 30 years. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he arrived at the figure of 30 years, because I think that the McTaggart Committee's Report, published in 1946 and referred to earlier in the Debate, specified 20 years and not 30 years. Reconditioning may be possible in a great many cases, but I feel that we all recognise that a lot of tenement property has become so decayed as to make it impossible to reconstruct, and that therefore a good deal of demolition work will undoubtedly be required in the big cities of Scotland. In so far as that work will clear away congested areas in those cities, that is a very good thing, as it will bring fresh air and sunshine into these badly crowded districts.
I do not, therefore, regret in any way the sweeping away of this old and bad property, but at the same time this will bring with it an additional problem in that we shall have to provide more and more new houses to replace those tenements. Moreover, the work of improvement will in itself bring about certain housing difficulties because we shall get the amalgamation of two existing houses to make one improved dwelling, and that will reduce the number of dwellings available for the people, although to some
2918
extent this reduction may he offset by the splitting up and division of large houses into a number of units. I feel, however, that there are not so many of these large houses suitable in Scotland for that purpose as there are in England, and undoubtedly this policy of improvement will reduce very appreciably the number of houses available in existing tenement property. Incidentally, it seems to me that the actual work of improvement—the pouring of new wine into old bottles so to speak—will be attended with some of the difficulties which one associates with that process.
Among those difficulties will be the problem of how best to deal with the tenement which contains a dozen or more separate houses belonging to a variety of different people. I know that is a common occurrence from a scrutiny of the valuation roll in Edinburgh. There may be in a single tenement a dozen different proprietors. Some of the property may belong to owner-occupiers, some to living landlords and some to trust estates. It seems to me that dealing with all these various proprietors will be a matter of some difficulty. I think that the only solution in some cases will be to give the local authority the power to acquire the whole building and carry out the necessary work. I am not at all sure whether this can actually be done under the Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would comment on that point. I mention it for the reason that it would seem from Clause 4 (2) that it is competent for the local authority to acquire land for the purposes of Part II of the Bill, but it is not quite clear whether it is competent for the local authority to acquire a tenement for the purpose of carrying out the work of reconstruction.
Mr. Woodburn indicated assent.
Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: The right hon. Gentleman says it is. Well, that is satisfactory, because I know it is a matter which was exercising the minds of certain local authorities as well as some hon. Members. I am glad to hear that that difficulty is non-existent.
Another point of very considerable importance, to both local authorities and private individuals, concerns the liability to an imposition of a development charge under the Town and Country Planning Act in respect of any work of improve-

2919
ment which may be carried out under Part II. I say this is of considerable importance, because within recent months hon. Members on all sides of the House have seen that considerable and unexpected difficulties arise out of the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I myself think that to be one of the most unfortunate pieces of legislation ever passed by this House; it has been most successful in preserving the status quo and preventing anybody from doing anything to make improvements. If a development charge is to be imposed upon local authorities or private persons who are eligible to get these grants for improvement purposes, it will act as a deterrent in getting the necessary work done.
Another matter connected with tenement property which I wish to put to the Secretary of State concerns the type of tenement buildings with which he and I are very well acquainted, such as that on the Dairy Road and the Gorgie Road in Edinburgh, where there are large buildings with shops or business premises on the street level and various dwelling-houses above them. So far as I can see, the Bill does not take cognisance of this particular type of case. There does not seem to be any power to improve or recondition the shop premises, although it is perfectly competent to improve or recondition the dwelling-house premises above the shops.
That does not seem to me an altogether satisfactory state of affairs, because dwelling-houses may be amalgamated and improved under the terms of Part II, while underneath them, on the street level, there may be some old and rather grubby, and perhaps insanitary, shop premises. It would appear, desirable, therefore, that there should be power for the grants to extend over the whole building instead of having an artificial division between the shop on the street level and the dwelling-house above. Perhaps the Secretary of State would look into this and consider extending the scope of Clause 11 so as to cover that particular type of case, which has been brought to my attention by a local authority.
The only other thing I need say is to ask the Secretary of State about the labour and materials position, because I
2920
am not certain—I do not think any hon. Member is—what the true position is. I have been told by one fairly authoritative source that sufficient materials and labour are available for beginning improvement work in a modest way as soon as this Bill becomes law. On the other hand, I have been warned by an equally authoritative source that to do work of improvement or reconditioning will have a delaying effect upon the construction of new houses. Frankly, I do not know the answer, because both the bodies whose advice I have sought are responsible bodies, and have given different opinions. I should like to know the official view of the Scottish Office, because while I am very anxious indeed to see improvement work carried out in tenement property, I know that the last thing that I or any hon. Member would want to see is the holding up of new building. Perhaps the Secretary of State will, when replying, give us an indication of the building labour and materials position.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Willis: I was interested in the opening remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), because he seemed to disagree with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Lieut.-Commander Galbraith) on Part I. The hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh welcomed Part I, whereas his hon. and gallant Friend tended to condemn it—and to condemn it on a rather peculiar ground.
Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. What I welcomed was the dropping of the term "working class." I was not referring to any other class.
Mr. Willis: The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok condemned Part I on the ground that, according to him, it introduced the principle of people not so well off paying for housing accommodation for people who were better off. That, of course, has been a principle of Housing Acts for a long time past; it is not a new principle. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok—who I am sorry is not here at the moment—went on to tell us that the Opposition would devise Amendments to draw a dividing line. This will be a very interesting experiment on the part of the Opposition—endeavouring to frame Amendments to

2921
draw a dividing line to prevent the not so well off from contributing to the housing of people who are better off. I, for one, shall be rather interested to see the outcome of this experiment.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok went on to say—and I think he said this because the municipal elections are ahead—that we should not extend the sphere of our local authority housing activities, but that we should give the private builder a chance; and he suggested that if the private builder got a chance we could get thousands more houses. Well, really, this argument does not stand much examination. One of the reasons we cannot get more houses is, as I understand it, because of the limitation of materials, and whether local authority methods or private enterprise methods are used, given the same amount of material we shall get the same number of houses. I cannot see how we can get more pints out of a gallon than there are pints in a gallon. The argument to which we have been subjected tonight is quite false. I ventured to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member to indicate that there is nothing to prevent private enterprise from showing its mettle now. I should like to see private enterprise showing its mettle in Edinburgh.
Sir W. Darling: Is it not within the recollection of the hon. Gentleman that when I was trying to construct three houses, he raised difficulties in this House, and asked Questions on why I was being allowed to build those houses?
Mr. Willis: I am coming to that later on. In Edinburgh we have had houses under construction since 1945, being built by a private enterprise company which has received every form of assistance from the Government, who have supplied them with equipment, factory accommodation, and goodness,knows what. The houses they commenced in 1945 are still not finished. If private enterprise wants to claim to be the best medium for building houses, let it demonstrate that it can build houses quickly.
I represent a Division to which Part II of the Bill applies rather considerably, and in which property has been subdivided to form some of the worst slums in the City of Edinburgh. I think it contains more one-apartment houses as a result of these sub-divisions, than any part of Edinburgh. The hon. Member for
2922
South Edinburgh has been active in subdividing houses in a different manner.
Sir W. Darling: Yes, to provide houses.
Mr. Willis: The first point I want to make about this activity is that it has been a profitable activity, and that thousands of pounds have been made out of the creation of these slums. The global rental charged for these one-apartment slums is greater than the rental before sub-division took place. This exploitation has gone on irrespective of the welfare of the city of Edinburgh. On the other hand, we have houses being divided into flats which is also a very profitable activity.
Colonel Hutchison: If the hon. Member thinks it is so profitable, will he accept my offer to give him houses in Glasgow free?
Mr. Willis: If the hon. and gallant Member doubts me, let him ask his hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh who actually formed a private company for the purpose of exploiting this particular activity. That is where he will get his information.
Sir W. Darling: I must take exception to the word "exploitation." There is no question of exploitation. The houses I sub-divided in the hon. Member's area were sold for £1,250 and more.
Mr. Willis: I am using the word "exploitation" in its economic sense. The hon. Member was developing something to fill a need, although I have no doubt that he wanted to fill some other need as well, which accounts for his very prosperous appearance today. That brings me to the point I want to put. Is it possible for the activities of the company of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh to be financed by the Government under the terms of this Bill? I can see no reason why it should not be financed by the Government, provided the terms are accepted. It is true that the local authority will fix the rents, but with the local authority we have in Edinburgh at the present time, I do not know that that is a very great safeguard. I have heard no reason why public funds should be used for the purpose of reconditioning and converting private property. I believe that this should be done under the local authorities.

2923
When the McTaggart Committee inquired into this question and published their Report, we found two most important reservations to it—one signed by six members of the Committee and the other signed by two members of the Committee. Both recommended this; and I agree with them. I cannot see why private owners should be given this facility. I should have thought that in cases where owners are able to afford to pay, there is no need for assistance. The interesting thing is that we have been fighting the suggestion of a means test on another Bill and there is no means test in this Bill. A man can be worth a large amount of money and yet receive assistance to bring his property up to date. That is quite unnecessary and is unjustifiable. If the Report of the Committee is to be accepted, together with this Bill, it is likely to result in an expenditure over a period of years of £120 million, less £30 million which the owners will pay. I cannot see that there is any justification for spending this money in reconditioning the property of private individuals.
There is also the question of labour. We have been told that our housing programme is held up at the present time for lack of men in the finishing trades, plasterers, joiners and that type of labour, and that is precisely the type of labour that will be used under this Bill. One of the reservations in the Committee's Report pointed out this difficulty; that unless the whole field of activity is brought under the aegis of the local authorities, there will be a problem arising in regard to labour. I hope we shall be told what steps my right hon. Friend proposes to take to ensure that that position does not arise. If we are to spend public money on the reconditioning of private property, then the local authorities should have a say in who is to be the tenant. In other words, the property should become available to be filled from the housing lists of the local authorities. Nothing is said about that in Clause 11, and it is a matter that ought to be put right.
Among the miscellaneous provisions is one that I welcome. That is the increase in the amount which can be borrowed under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. I asked a Question about this some time ago, and I was
2924
interested to notice that between December, 1938, and December, 1947, only 50 loans had been made under these Acts. It is true that the war years intervened, but it is also true that there was considerable activity in the selling of houses at the end of the war. Why was it that only 50 people availed themselves of these provisions, which are of considerable benefit inasmuch as they save a considerable amount of interest as compared with borrowing from building societies? I suggest that the first reason is due to the fact that prices were high and the amount allowed insufficient. I welcome, therefore, the increase up to £5,000.
The second reason why these facilities were not used was due to the fact that they were unknown to many of the people buying houses at the end of the war. Many of these people were young ex-Service men, who had just been married, and they were astonished when I told some of them, in Edinburgh, what provisions were open to them. I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that these provisions will be given as much publicity as possible, because they effect a considerable saving to those who will take advantage of them. In conclusion, I welcome the Bill because I see its possibilities, although that welcome is qualified by the defects which I have pointed out. I hope that we shall look at some of those defects on the Committee stage.
8.11 p.m.
Mr. McFarlane: I hope the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) will forgive me if I do not follow him in some of the points he has made. Instead I shall at once refer to the speech of the Under-Secretary, who opened the Debate. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I listened to him with the closest attention, though with no little disappointment. I will grant him everything, even his peroration, but I think he will agree that it is an essential condition of that human happiness of which he spoke, that in Scotland we should have at least some approximation to the idea of a separate dwelling for every family. This Bill contains many desirable and unexceptionable features, but I believe that it will be judged in Scotland according to the prospect it affords of securing additional units of accommodation. In Glasgow, at least, it is only by that standard that the Bill will be judged.

2925
There is one very fundamental difference in the approach of the Under-Secretary to this Bill from that of the Minister of Health in proposing a similar Measure for England and Wales a short time ago. The Under-Secretary said today, in justification for the Bill, that the time was now ripe. The Minister of Health was at great pains to prove that the time was opportune on the basis of his achievements in England and Wales. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had made good the position of 1939, that we had reached the position where the country enjoyed more actual separate habitations than ever before, that we were within sight of providing a separate dwelling for every family, and that this was the time to make a fresh advance based on those achievements. I have no doubt that if those claims are well founded, this is the time to undertake the valuable work of conversion. There is no question about the fact that Scotland has in its buildings a structural stability which has outlived their internal deficiencies.
In my view, however, I do not believe that the time has arrived to put the provisions of this Bill into practice in Scotland. After all, we ought to have some standard such as that upon which the Minister of Health based his Bill for England and Wales. I suggest that we should make a brief comparison with the position in England and Wales. According to the Housing Returns for the year ended December, 1948, 271,585 permanent houses were provided by local authorities in England and Wales and 34,885 were provided in Scotland—which approximates to the traditional one-eighth relationship between England and Scotland. Taking into account the fact, however, that 76,765 houses were provided by private builders in England and 3,344 were provided in Scotland, it will be seen that we fell considerably below the one-eighth.
Mr. Gallacher: There was a much greater need in Scotland than England.
Mr. McFarlane: That is precisely the point I wish to make. We must recognise the greater need in Scotland. I believe that that greater need was properly expressed in the allocation of the temporary programme. Scotland
2926
was given a greater proportion than England in view of that need. In my opinion, it is self-evident, from this comparison, that the pressure for new building and the provision of more units of accommodation in Scotland is still undiminished. I concede to Members opposite all the advantages of the Bill, but I can foresee the danger of dissipating the energies of local authorities from their main and paramount duty, which has not yet been carried out.
As do many Members on this side of the House, I welcome the provision to secure a certain amount of private enterprise help in making conversions and sub-divisions. There is no doubt that we could with great advantage enlist the support of private effort in this direction. I cannot, however, understand the attitude of the Government in ignoring, as they do, the implications of our rating system. The property owner who enters upon this scheme for conversion is placed relatively at a disadvantage compared with the property owner in England. The whole conception of the Bill is nullified. I am reluctant to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) in suggesting that this is deliberate, though it seems that such a suggestion can hardly be avoided. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) accepted the proposition that we must attack our rating system and the Rent Restrictions Act. Such an attack would have very serious consequences, but surely we can say that in so far as the Bill makes an attempt to enlist private enterprise effort in carrying out conversions it might at least recognise the incidence of our rating system. If that is ignored, the whole of the proposals of the Bill relative to private assistance will be nullified.
As I have already said, this House must have regard to the capacity of local authorities before further responsibilities are heaped upon them. I have the greatest doubt about the position of Glasgow now, and I hope that hon. Members will at least spare me any sneers of making this statement with an eye on the forthcoming municipal elections. In the Housing Survey to which I have already referred, 34,885 permanent houses have been built in Scotland since the end of the war, to the great satisfaction of hon. Members opposite. In so far as rhythm

2927
and ratio between houses in course of construction and houses erected has greatly improved recently, I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The point I want to make relative to Glasgow is that, of the permanent houses erected since the end of the war, 5,623 were erected in Glasgow. About 2,000 of them were of the non-traditional type. Glasgow received 2,500 temporary houses out of an allocation of 32,000 for Scotland. This was a matter of deliberate policy on the part of the local authority in Glasgow. If we add the permanent and temporary houses available in Scotland since the war ended, in order to get the units of accommodation, we find that the total is 66,000 and this great city—
Mr. Hoy: No.
Mr. McFarlane: I think I am correct. I have been faithfully following the statistics provided. Since the war ended 34,885 permanent houses were erected in Scotland. To that I have added 32,000 temporary houses to make a figure of 66,000, and of that total Glasgow received 5,623 permanent houses and 2,500 temporary houses. In other words, this great city, which contains something between a fifth and a quarter of the entire population of Scotland, received only 8,000 units of accommodation since the end of the war. We are thinking of putting more responsibility upon local authorities in regard to housing, but surely a record like that is sufficient to make this House think twice before it does anything which would in any way prevent the Glasgow Corporation from facing up to such an appalling deficiency.
I was astonished at the whole tone of the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He seemed to assume that in such a condition we could supply baths and all the rest of it—however desirable these things may be. The whole tone of his speech was based on improvements. I do not want to say that my experience is in any way unique. It is shared by every Member of this House who shares with me the representation of the City of Glasgow. At the present juncture there are 40,000 homeless people in Glasgow and one of the most bitter experiences of any Member is to meet these constituents and realise the tragedy of hopeless frustration.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: It has accumulated.
Mr. McFarlane: This is something which has to be dealt with first, before we proceed with the provisions of this Bill.
8.27 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: I can well understand the passion and sincerity with which the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. McFarlane) spoke when he envisaged the suffering that is experienced in Glasgow today. Surely he will answer frankly, as answer he must, the question whether the suffering started only in the year 1945.
Colonel Hutchison: Is the hon. Member aware that we have suffered from a Socialist corporation in Glasgow since 1933, and a lot of it started that year.
Mr. Ross: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) must realise that it does not matter how progressive a local authority is, unless it gets Acts of Parliament by which it can get on with the job, it can do nothing. All the years before the war we had here a good old Tory Government.
Mr. Snadden: Tell us the old, old story.
Mr. Ross: It may be an old story, but it is a. sad one for the people of Scotland. The hon. Member for Camlachie spoke of the problem of Scotland as compared with England. The two are not comparable at all. Committees, commissions and what not, have sat on this business. I would refer him to the first monumental report on this subject, that of the Royal Commission of 1917, which stated that if the standard of housing condition applicable to England were applied and enforced in Scotland, 690,000 people would be homeless. There was no Socialist Administration in those days. The same report by this Royal Commission stated clearly that the failure was the failure of private enterprise to provide housing for the people of Scotland. That was why, after the war, we got started with subsidised housing.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) on this question of taking the term "working class" out of

2929
the Bill. So far as I can see, it is only bringing the law into line with actual practice, because I can remember the first local authority houses which went up in the burghs of Ayrshire. They were not working-class people who were in them. The hon. and gallant Member talks about poor people having to subsidise richer people, through subsidies for housing. It should be remembered, however, that the working classes of Scotland could not afford to pay rent for these houses. I can well remember what happened in one area, because later on I myself went to live there. It was inhabited by teachers, bankers, and black-coated workers. Tonight we have had spurious indignation from the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok over something that has existed since the year 1919. His voice has been still for all these years. He suddenly decides now to vent his indignation.
The hon. Member for Camlachie spoke about the timeliness of the Bill. He seemed to think that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was wrong in saying that the time was now ripe. He suggested that it was not yet. There must be something wrong in the ranks of the Conservatives. When this Bill was first published, "The Scotsman" interviewed Mr. Murray McGregor, the Secretary of the Property Owners' and Factors' Association of Glasgow, who had this to say:
"If the houses were modernised, as they should be, they would have a useful life of many years."
The same newspaper, which evidently does not mind receiving anonymous reports so long as they are anti-Government, carries this opinion from the director of a large local firm of house factors:
"The problem should have been tackled long ago, when building costs were lower and more labour was available."
That is what official Conservatives have to say about it in their property-owning associations.
The point is that they are quite correct. The 1933 Whitson Report unveiled the serious conditions existing, and suggested that the Government should do something about it. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cannot sit smugly on those benches and criticise the present Government without realising that they had the opportunity, under the 1935 Act for Scotland, and that they completely ignored it.
Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman surely will admit that in 1935 we were very busily engaged in trying to prepare the country for what was coming in 1939.
Mr. Ross: I wish that were true. I can remember an army going into France, a British Army, and walking back defeated because they had not the stuff that the hon. and gallant Member says we were preparing in 1935.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Who voted against rearmament?
Mr. Ross: That will not wash. It was the Government of the day that had all the responsibility. The present Bill is very much overdue. I think the Government's behaviour in bringing it in now is commendable, especially as circumstances are all against it because of the position in regard to labour and materials and the overriding priority of new housing. At the same time, we must recognise that unless we put in the enabling powers, and get on with the preparations to tackle the question, we shall never get the increased standards of housing and of health in Scotland that we so much need. It is all very well to talk about analgesia; the thing that is required in Scotland today is decent housing conditions, in which mothers can bring up their children.
In the present conditions, one house in every three in Scotland is sub-standard. I can assure hon. Members that the standard to which they are related is not high. The McTaggart Report set that standard as a decent water supply and individual sanitary conveniences. There was no mention of a bath. Surely in 1949 we cannot talk, as the hon. Member for Camlachie did, about a bath being a luxury It is the fact that in Scotland today there are whole areas, not just streets, in our towns that are without a single bath. If we took that standard, we should find that a greater proportion than one in three of our houses would be sub-standard. We cannot afford to ignore the facts. Housewives in Scotland, in homes with a sink in front of the window, the recess bed and the old-fashioned grates on which they spend hours of drudgery—it may be all very well for the Front Bench to

2931
laugh but it is no laughing matter for the people of Scotland to endure it.
The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): Which Front Bench?
Mr. Ross: The Opposition Front Bench I mean. The people of Scotland are not laughing.
Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is accusing me, and my hon. Friends sitting beside me, of laughing. We were laughing for a very good reason and not at the people of Scotland. I will tell the hon. Gentleman the reason, if he wishes to know it.
Mr. Ross: I should very much like to hear it.
Commander Galbraith: The story I was telling to my hon. Friends was one of considerable interest to him. It related to baths. It was a conversation which I had some years ago with a forester of over 80 years of age on Loch Lomond side. I asked him how he got on in his youth with regard to washing facilities, and he pointed across the valley to a large house and said, "That is Buchanan Castle. The Duke of Montrose lives there. He has 100 bedrooms and one bathroom. We had four rooms and the burn. Who was better off?"
Mr. Ross: I have regal precedent for saying, "We are not amused." The hon. and gallant Gentleman should do what hon. Gentlemen on this side did when he was speaking, listen to the person who is addressing the House.
Commander Galbraith: I shall be delighted to do so, but the hon. Gentleman referred to me and my hon. Friend, and I have a right to reply to him.
Mr. Ross: I do not disagree with that, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to relate stories about baths to his hon. Friend, he can do it elsewhere.
The Secretary of State gave a recital of really damning statistics which at the very best, cause irritation and frustration to the Scottish housewives and at the worst absolute human misery. However, the urgency of getting down to this problem is something which makes me even welcome this Bill, though I am not
2932
ecstatically enthusiastic about its provisions. The difficulty is that we have 300,000 to 400,000 houses in Scotland which are sub-standard and practically all of them belong to private property owners. That is the crux of the problem. We have rooted objections to handing over public money to private owners to perpetuate their own interest in those buildings.
Colonel Hutchison: That is being done under the Bill.
Mr. Ross: That may be in the Bill but the Bill has not yet passed through this House and so we are not yet doing it. The sole complaint of the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) was that we had stopped doing it in relation to the tied house. The point is that we have that rooted objection, and I consider that we are entitled to have that principle plainly laid before the House tonight, just as it was in the minority Report by two differing sections of the Committee. The dilapidations and the lack of up-to-dateness of the houses which are the subject of our consideration should have been tackled by the property-owners themselves, but they failed to do so for so many years. It is not right that they should now expect the taxpayers and the ratepayers to come to their aid, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) suggested, without any question whether they are financially able to undertake the work themselves.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok was concerned about spending Government money for people who did not really require it, and who could do something for themselves, but he did not apply that to property-owners and owner-occupiers who are financially able to modernise their own property. If he had been logical, he should have carried his theme right through the criticism of the Bill, but his failure to do that, to my mind, was very noticeable indeed. If the Government are depending on these private owners to put this matter right, I am afraid they are backing the wrong horse. If they are depending on the social responsibility and the public spirit of the private property-owners of Scotland, nothing at all will be done in the matter.
Colonel Hutchison: Would the hon. Member do it?
Mr. Ross: I am talking about the private property-owners, the Bill as I see it, and the reactions of hon. Gentlemen opposite in their various utterances.
Colonel Hutchison: I asked, would the hon. Gentleman do it? Because I have offered a house to two hon. Members already, and I will arrange for him to have the house free, if he is prepared to do it.
Mr. Ross: All that I can suggest is that the hon. and gallant Member should offer it to the Glasgow Corporation and let them consider it.
Colonel Hutchison: They will not do it.
Mr. Ross: I know they will not.
Sir W. Darling: They do not do anything about it.
Mr. Ross: The piece of property about which the hon. and gallant Member is concerned will not be covered by this Bill, as I hope a great many of the tenements of Scotland, particularly in the Gorbals, will not be covered, because we will not waste public money on buildings of that nature. They must come down. We will not get the response from the property owners, and I have a feeling that the Bill as it stands will not meet the needs of Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member and another hon. Member referred to the fact that a 6 per cent. rise in rent was not nearly enough. If he looks at the Report, he will see that an even higher grant was being given by the Government, and it was suggested that they would get an 8 per cent. rise in rent—
Colonel Hutchison: Eight per cent. on the money expended.
Mr. Ross: I presumed that hon. Gentlemen had read the Report and would appreciate that point. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at the back of the Report he will find another interim recommendation from Mr. Murray McGregor of the Glasgow Property Owners Association, stating that eight per cent. on that grant was still not enough. Looking at the Bill, and realising the power that lies within these landlords to make or mar the Bill, we must realise that nothing will be done. To my mind the only people who will be able properly to tackle this job will be the local authorities.
Sir W. Darling: Why?
Mr. Ross: The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) does not seem to object to property-owners getting ratepayers' or taxpayers' money, but surely he should have no objection at all to that being spent by the democratic representatives of the people, the local authorities? They have all the planning powers necessary, they have compulsory purchase powers and, financed by the Government, they could make something of this job. But the Secretary of State has stressed in this respect that he has only empowered local authorities to do the task; he has not laid on them any obligation to carry on with it. It means that any local authority which likes, can ignore the Bill, and have no trouble at all from Edinburgh—
Sir W. Darling: Or Glasgow.
Mr. Ross: I was referring to St. Andrew's House, the Department of Health in Edinburgh. What is necessary is what the McTaggart Committee suggested in paragraphs 151–154, that full responsibility should be laid on local authorities to prepare schemes now, to consider which areas and which houses in those areas could properly be dealt with under a modernisation scheme, and then, in the fullness of time, to go ahead with the actual work; but to leave the position as it is at present, with the local authorities not obliged to do anything, will achieve nothing. I remember what happened under the Housing (Rural Workers) (Scotland) Act, the workings of which were reported upon in 1937. That point was covered also by the McTaggart Committee. They found that local authorities were not carrying out their duties; that money was being wasted on houses that were not worth repairing. We found in Ayr County after 1937, when the responsibilities were acted upon and when conditions were tightened up, that the farmers' interest in modernising tied houses suddenly disappeared. We should strengthen the hands of the local authorities—[Interruption.]—I am referring now to Ayrshire—
Mr. Snadden: I am very doubtful.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Member is very doubtful, but I could take him to a number of tied houses which would shame him. The point is that unless local

2935
authorities are obliged to take action, nothing may be done, and I suggest that this aspect should be reconsidered by the Joint Under-Secretary. This is an urgent task. We must get down to the actual preparation of the attack and in the meantime we should ensure that there is no interference with the permanent housing programme. Do not let us forget that this is the hard core of social housing unrest in Scotland. It is not good enough merely to pass an enabling Bill and then not to take steps to ensure that effect is given to it. As time goes on, these conditions become worse. Our housing standards are a disgrace to Scotland, and they are a disgrace to us if we allow them to persist.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) covered a surprising amount of ground and did the thing which always happens in these Debates. He went back over old history, accusing hon. Members on this side of being smug, and made all sorts of general accusations of what happened or did not happen between the wars. I am no expert on housing in detail—I say that straight away—and one thing I have learned today and in other housing Debates to which I have listened is that anyone who turns to figures is asking for trouble, because invariably like is compared with unlike. The three years after the 1918 war were in no way comparable with the three years after the last war—the background behind them was in no way similar; yet these figures get quoted again and again, right, left and centre. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman quoted those particular figures—
Mr. Ross: I did not.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member was talking quite a lot about the failure to do certain things between the wars and must have been tempted to go into those figures.
Mr. Ross: I was suggesting that the problem should have been tackled, and I quoted the Secretary of the Glasgow Property Owners. Surely, the hon. Gentleman does not deny that nothing at all was done with this particular problem.
Mr. Maclay: On that particular problem, I am not going to argue with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ross: But that is the point under discussion.
Mr. Maclay: I, for one, do not think that anything like enough was done on housing between the wars. A great deal more should, and could, have been done, but I consider that in effect a great deal more was done than has actually been achieved in existing circumstances by the present Government. I have some excellent figures here, but I am nervous of housing figures. They do not appear to coincide with any other figures which anybody has used this afternoon, so I shall not use them.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should not do what he advises everyone else not to do.
Mr. Maclay: I said that I am not going to use them. But what I do say about them is that they compare quite deplorably—I make no apology for introducing this into the Debate—with the fantastic statements made by very responsible gentlemen—or right hon. Gentlemen who should have been responsible—at the time of the General Election, when they definitely misled the electorate with talk of 4 million houses in 10 years being nothing like good enough. They said that the houses must be built in much less time than that. How do their figures stand up to the test? How do the figures stand up to the statement that the problem could be solved in two weeks? I get sick and tired of this Government claiming credit for things they have done, while, if one gets hold of the election addresses of 1945, one finds that these tell a very different story compared with actual achievements. I am willing to give way to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) if he wants to make a comment.
Mr. Gallacher: There is no difference between Tories and Liberal Nationals.
Mr. Maclay: I always try to be courteous to the other side. Hon. Member will realise that I intensely dislike being controversial in Debate, but occasionally it seems necessary, on a subject like this, to put a sense of perspective into the discussion. Of course I welcome a great deal of this Bill. Any hon. Member, whether an expert on the Housing Acts, or not, is bound to know from experience in his constituency of the

2937
desperate tragedy—it is nothing less—caused through the failure of the people of all ages, young married couples and elderly people, to get housing accommodation. I find it the most tragic single thing in all my constituency work. One can do nothing to help these people, but if certain parts of the Bill help to solve the problem in any way, we are bound to welcome those parts of the Bill.
I have great difficulty in understanding the Scottish Housing Acts. A good many offers have been going round this evening. An offer was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) which was not taken up. I make another offer, that if any hon. Member can take me away for an hour and explain to me in that hour exactly the operations of all the Housing Acts under which we are working today and the Rent Restrictions Acts and will throw in, for good measure, the Town and Country Planning Act and how it affects this Bill, I should be inordinately grateful and would at least stand him a cup of tea. If he would throw in a reasonably accurate explanation of how the Scottish rating problem can be solved, I would go a good deal further.
In no controversial spirit, I suggest that the time of the Government might have been better occupied during these three or four years if they had got on to the task of tidying up the whole housing mess, because it is a confused, tantalising and exasperating mess. If they had kept off some of the Bills which have contributed nothing but trouble to this country, it would have been a helpful thing. One gives blessing to those parts of the Bill which may improve the situation and I sincerely hope that the fears of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will not be realised but that it will be found possible to get on, to some extent, with the improvement of a lot of houses and flats which are desperately in need of improvement and could be made habitable without much work.
Even in this part of the Bill, there are a good many points which will need clearing up in Committee. I have been puzzling over the Bill and I am wondering whether under the Town and Country Planning Act a development charge could be made for "improvement" as contemplated in this Bill. I have tried to puzzle out whether
2938
a development charge could arise in relation to any improvement under the appropriate part of the Bill. One can find quite a lot of other problems which might arise out of planning.
Mr. McAllister: It was made clear that where a large house is converted, no development charge arises, as there is no alteration in the cubic content.
Mr. Maclay: I know that is in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, but already I have had this question asked by a town clerk and I am not satisfied that that provision covered all possibilities of improvement which might arise. If we are to get anywhere quickly with this Bill, if it becomes law, these fears in relation to the Town and Country Planning Act must be removed. Hon. Members know that the effect of the Town and Country Planning Act in its present form is to cause hopeless confusion, which is holding up development in all parts of the country.
Commander Galbraith: Could my hon. Friend say, from the inquiries which he has made, whether a development charge operates when four houses are converted into two?
Mr. Maclay: No. That question has me completely beaten. I should not attempt to answer it.
Sir W. Darling: And after change of use?
Mr. Maclay: This could become a fascinating discussion of the interpretation of the Town and Country Planning Act. All I suggested, tentatively and nervously, was that whoever is to wind up the Debate, should clear up all the doubts that are in our minds on this subject, and that I would then take him out and give him a cup of coffee at once.
Another problem could arise under general planning schemes. I admit that this is rather a Committee point but it should be mentioned at this stage. Will a local authority be prevented from going ahead enthusiastically with improvement grants under this Bill because of the fear that, say, in the case of a house in respect of which they made a grant on the basis of 10 years' life, that house might be due to be demolished when the time came for a development plan to he implemented? Obviously, difficulties could arise in that respect because an

2939
owner might have to pay 50 per cent. of the cost and the local authority the other 50 per cent. What about compensation to the owner when that plan is finally implemented and the house is demolished in the implementation of that plan? This is a small Committee point, but it might be rather serious if it deterred local authorities from using this Bill in the best possible way, because they were frightened of stirring up trouble for themselves in the long run, if the time came for compulsory acquisition under a planning scheme.
I turn to the part of the Bill which deals with laundries, furniture and grants and loans to individuals and others. It is essential to consider this part of the Bill against the background of the Economic Survey for this year and the Chancellor's Budget speech, the whole emphasis being on economy wherever economy is possible, not only in cash but above all in man-power. We must get the maximum man-power into productive enterprise. I do not apologise for reminding the House of the figures which Members will find in this year's Economic Survey showing the increase in the number of employees in local government service. The total figures for the Civil Service, other Government employees and local authority employees are terrifying. The figures have been used in many other Debates but they are relevant to this one.
The Civil Service proper, other national Government employees and local government employees have increased from 1,465,000 in the middle of 1939 to 2,230,000 by the end of 1948. The increase in the case of local government is from 846,000 to 1,146,000. But that is not all about local government manpower. From the end of 1947 to the end of 11948, the increase was from 1,105,000 to 1,146,000, an increase of 41,000. Here we came to the worst part of the whole story. That increase took place against an estimate in the Economic Survey for 1948 of a decrease of 30,000, so that employees of all kinds in local government service at the end of 1948 stood at a figure of 71,000 more than the planning Departments reckoned that they should, or hoped that they would, according to the various ways, in which they try to steer these things.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the hon. Member wish to reduce not only the number of administrative workers in the building industry but the number of building trade workers as well?
Mr. Maclay: I am just coming to my point. The point I am making relates to laundries, to the provision of furniture, to hostels and meals—about which I would speak on slightly different grounds—and certain other terms in this Bill which must be considered against the background of those staggering figures. I am not suggesting that if my proposals were fully accepted by the Government, they would mean a very large reduction in the vast increase of manpower employed by local authorities. But surely the whole lesson of the Debates since last Wednesday has been that in every direction, we must avoid duplication and extravagance in the use of manpower. I am not talking of cash at the moment, although actually in the end they amount to the same thing.
Here we have, quite gratuitously thrown into this Bill without any evidence that it will really help, the provision that the local authorities can provide laundry services. I go further than my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). I do not think that the local authorities should be given an omnibus power to provide laundry services and just hold that power indefinitely to use how and when they think fit.
Sir W. Darling: Is not it right that local authorities sometimes require to wash dirty linen in public?
Mr. Maclay: I think they can always do that in the available resources of the locality in which they live. I would return now to my laundries rather than to the dirty linen relating to them. I wish to make a point which may seem a small one. People may feel that if we are to have these local authority housing schemes, we may as well provide laundries, and make a job of it. But is the thing necessary? Probably in every case there will be available a private firm which can provide a laundry service. If over a period they find such facilities are not provided local authorities can come and ask for special powers to provide the services as other local authorities have done in the past. That

2941
would make sense; there is full provision for it and they would get a careful check of local public opinion. The same thing applies to hired furniture. That also is duplication. There are always a number of firms available and able to provide furniture on the hire purchase system. The same applies to allowing local authorities to become building societies. Such powers have existed in the past, and I too was proposing to ask why those powers have not been used before.
Mr. Ross: People did not know about them.
Mr. Maclay: There may be another explanation which may well be true, and that is, that people have found that building societies, with their expert knowledge, have been better at this job, and more helpful, than the local authorities.
Mr. Ross: There is the question of interest rates. The interest rate in Edinburgh has been quoted as 1 per cent. lower.
Mr. Maclay: Probably not 1 per cent., but threequarters of 1 per cent.
Mr. Ross: Three-and-a-half per cent.
Mr. Maclay: Something like that. There must be some explanation of why this service has not been used. I can assure the hon. Member that if I had been looking for such financial accommodation, I most certainly would have discovered that that facility was available, as would most people if they wanted finance for building houses.
The whole tenor of my complaint is that in a Bill containing many useful things, we are putting in all these extra powers, which may be quite nice things in themselves, but which are not essential to the working of this Bill. They are duplications of existing facilities. There is provision available, and local authorities cannot provide efficient services of this kind. In fact, as hon. Members will have noticed in the newspapers last week, we have just had a case of a local authority a very few miles away from here, who had a little trouble over wireless sets. I am not imputing any wrong motives. I am merely quoting from a report when I say that they were unable to keep track of the wireless sets with which they were
2942
dealing, and the auditor had to make careful inquiries. Eighteen sets had disappeared. They were traced after some time. Four radiograms were not accounted for. The cost was only £552, but that whole report was frightening. Here was a local authority playing about with the provision of wireless sets rejoicing in the beautiful name of "Civic Concord." One of the missing sets ended up, very properly I think, in the mayor's parlour. I make no complaint about that. The director of a business ought to have an example of his product available for his visitors to see, and he generally does.
But really, is it sense that a local authority should dabble in the peddling of wirelesses and furniture? It is not a local authority function. The local authority will not do it more efficiently. Cannot we cut this kind of nonsense out of the Bill, or is it merely another part of the process of Socialism which wants to put more and more power into the hands of the local authority or the central Government? That is the only possible explanation. I do not believe that hon. Members opposite think that the local authority will perform these functions efficiently. I do not accept that even though the available facilities—
Miss Herbison: Does the hon. Gentleman apply these remarks to the provision of furniture as well as to laundries and so on?
Mr. Maclay: Yes, I do. It might be quite a nice thing for the local authority to have power to supply furniture, but it is a duplication.
Mrs. Jean Mann: Is it not the case that the party opposite agreed to furniture being supplied, and that it has been supplied continuously since 1925?
Mr. Maclay: Quite possibly, but that does not mean that I accept it for one second. I have no responsibility for what was done between the wars. I think it is nonsense, and I do not hesitate to say so. I am in disagreement with some hon. Members on this side on the question of laundry facilities. All I say is that on these matters I am in substantial agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok. If it becomes clear that the facilities are not available then, of course, the local authority, or

2943
somebody, must provide them. There are perfectly good methods of procedure available which enable the local authority to get the power to do that.
I am sorry to emphasise this so much. I have gone away from the good part of the Bill to what I consider to be the quite unnecessary and really irritating part of it. These provisions are tucked in, like so many things that are done by this Government for no obvious reason except to push on with the Socialist theory. When I first read the Bill I thought, "This is splendid. At long last we have power given back to the local authorities." But what power is given to the local authorities? All these powers need the approval or authority of the Secretary of State. As I have said before, with no reflection on the existing or former Secretaries of State, I do not think that any man in that position should be allowed to have powers concentrated on him in the way that they are concentrated in the Secretary of State for Scotland at the moment. I, and a colleague of mine, have noticed that the Secretary of State is looking very tired. I would willingly help him to relieve himself of some of his future duties by putting down Amendments to remove the offensive provisions of this Bill.
9.8 p.m.
Miss Herbison: The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) seemed to be pained at the start of his speech that hon. Members on this side of the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), should dare to have mentioned housing as it was between the wars. We find, time and again, that if any mention whatever is made of what I would say were the sins of omission of hon. Members opposite, there is jeering and pained expressions. One of the reasons why this Bill is important is because of that lack of real work by hon. Members opposite for the provision of houses for the workers.
I am surprised at the mixed reception this Bill has received, and at what I would term the niggling, narking gratitude of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). When he was dealing with certain provisions of the Bill, it seemed to me that he could find nothing good in it. He also referred
2944
to the housing progress in this country since the end of the war; and the hon. Member for Montrose said that the two periods were not comparable—that is to say, the first three years after the First World War and the first three years after the Second World War. I agree that these two periods are not comparable; but I should say that that is another hit against the Opposition.
Mr. Maclay: I said I was bored with this kind of argument. I do not want to be insulting to the hon. Lady; of course, I am not for one second bored by her speech—but I am bored by this endless argument about who built what and when and where, when we are desperately short of houses at this moment and ought to be getting on with the job. I accept the hon. Lady's contention that Opposition Members have made these charges; but I think most of them have come from the Government side.
Miss Herbison: I agree; but in the first instance the charges came from the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok, and it is only right that my hon. Friends should answer them.
In giving a welcome to this Bill I feel that its provisions should lead to more houses being provided more quickly for many of our people. Indeed, in Scotland, in spite of what I consider the very good house building record during the past three and a half years, there are still far too many people living as sub-tenants, and far too many people living in houses with no modern conveniences—houses which ought to have been condemned, not three years, or even ten years ago, but in my constituency, and in Glasgow, 20 years ago. I contend that one of the greatest factors which contributes to the happiness of a family is a good house. I would never say that merely having a good house inevitably meant a happy family; but I would contend most strongly that many families have been made miserable, and many tragedies have come to families, because they have had to live in the awful conditions, in which many of our people in Scotland are still living.
I want to touch for a moment on the provisions of Clause 8, which permits grants to persons other than local authorities for the improvement of housing accommodation. A number of my con-

2945
stituents own their own houses; not big houses, but houses which the owners would have liked to make more modern and more comfortable. They found it impossible to do so because of the lack of money. I am delighted to find that because of this Bill a number of my constituents will be able to make homes which are not too bad at the present time, very much better for their families. There is one thing which worries me. Under Clause 8 there is provision for the owner of property to have help; in other words, an owner who has a tenement and wishes to have help under this Bill may get it. I think that is a good thing; but there must be attached to it certain conditions which are not attached at the present time.
At the beginning of the Debate there was some argument about whether we should build all our houses for letting, as the Scottish Office has insisted should be done for some time, or whether we should allow a number of houses to be built by private enterprise for sale. We have always taken the attitude that the person who had the greatest need ought to have the house first. It is because of our belief in that, that we have stuck closely to this point during most of the last three and a half years, of building houses for letting and not houses for selling.
The problem I want to put before the Secretary of State is this. Under this Bill a private owner may have grants to improve his property. A private owner, if one of his houses becomes vacant at the present time, can let that house to any person. I feel that we are not carrying out the policy in which we believe—the policy that every house that is vacant goes to the family with the greatest need —if we do not lay down as one condition of a grant, that if a person is willing to accept the grant, vacant houses ought to be allocated by the local authority. As Socialists we have gone a long way in this Bill; I agree with some of my hon. Friends that it is against Socialist policy to give grants to private persons for reconditioning their property. If that additional condition is accepted during the Committee stage, then I think that many of my hon. Friends who have qualms and are worried about public money being given to private owners, may be able to overcome these qualms.
2946
In my own constituency, apart from the houses owned by the local authorities, it would be safe to say that the majority of the houses are owned by the National Coal Board. The National Coal Board took over not only a bankrupt industry but some of the worst slums in Scotland. For some time in many of our mining villages, particularly in Lanarkshire, it is going to be difficult to find new houses for these people. As far as I can see, what applies to agricultural workers' cottages will also apply to the houses owned by the National Coal Board under this Bill they will be regarded as service houses. That means that, on the one hand, we are perfectly willing to give money to private owners who may let their houses to anyone, and, on the other hand, not to give money to a big concern like the National Coal Board to help it provide better houses for its workers.
The last point I want to make is on hostels. In the Report of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee there is a paragraph dealing with what are called "service flats." Many of the friends with whom I have worked in Glasgow, live in these service flats. I agree very much with this Report, which says that there is very little service and that sometimes the rents are exorbitant. Many business girls, apart from teachers, who do not even today have very big salaries, find that they have to use far too large a proportion of their salaries to pay rent for these so-called service flats. I welcome very much the provision in the Bill enabling local authorities to build hostels for this type of person. I hope that they will use some imagination. I hope that these hostels will not be barrack-like buildings but will have some beauty. The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) was worried lest much more work would be put on local authorities, and involving a greater number of staff. I agree that we have to be very careful at the present time in regard to the use of manpower.
On the question of furniture, I have been in houses in which there was a family of young children, with only the father working. In those houses I have seen furniture sufficient only for one room. I am certain that this Bill was meant to cover such families—people who are being moved from old slum property to new council houses. They will

2947
be given the chance of getting furniture and paying for it monthly or quarterly on their rent. That seems a much better method than the old method of having furniture on hire purchase, and being given a certain number of years in which to pay for it. Many had to pay for furniture with money which they ought to have used in feeding their children.
Mr. Maclay: I entirely agree about the desirability of furniture being made available for such people, because I, too, have seen furniture in only one room where four rooms were available. But there is no provision in the Bill to make any difference in the kind of terms which will be available for people to buy furniture except, possibly, for a small difference in the rate of interest.
Miss Herbison: I hope that one difference will be that payment will be spread over a longer period. I hope that people will be able to pay monthly or quarterly, and that they will have less to pay by that means, than they would have had to pay under ordinary hire-purchase arrangements. This Bill is a good Bill; I believe it will go a little way to help the serious housing shortage in Scotland.
9.22 p.m.
Major McCallum: I hope the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) will forgive me if I do not follow her into the problems of housing in industrial areas, because I particularly wish to speak, in the short time at my disposal, about housing in the rural areas of Scotland, particularly the Highlands. Much has been said about the Debate which took place last Wednesday, but I also remember a Debate which took place on Tuesday of last week, when a very important speech was made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) about the stepping up of beef and livestock production in Scotland, and the Highland areas forming a great reservoir for the production of store cattle.
I would like to ask the Minister how he proposes to house the farm servants who will be required in the upland hill farms, the marginal farms, in remote areas, where the housing problem is so acute. The Joint Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for agriculture in Scotland knows this full well. The
2948
Minister recently acquired 1,000 Swedish houses which were delivered to certain Highland areas. These houses were to be allocated to local authorities for the use more especially of agricultural workers. Allotments were made to the respective crofting counties, of which my own received a due allotment. A very good thing those houses will prove to be, though all of them have not yet arrived. I should like to deal for a moment with the erection of those houses. I understand they are being put up in groups in villages, and are supposed to be for farm servants of the surrounding farms. Those farms, however—and here I am talking particularly of my own area —are several miles from any village. The Secretary of State knows all about the difficulties of housing people in remote areas, but I suggest that he might be able to issue advice to local authorities in the crofting counties, advising them to put up those houses as economically and as suitably as they can, to house farm servants.
One of the arguments in reply to that may be that it is not economical to put them up in ones and twos, and that a group must be at least four houses. I know of a case in one village where four are being put up, and so far as I know there are no prospective agricultural workers to live in them. It would have been far better if two had been put in that village and two in another. These are rather detailed points, but I feel it would be a good thing if the Secretary of State could issue some advice on this subject to local authorities, not only in regard to these Swedish houses, but also in dealing with houses generally in rural areas.
I make no apology for raising again the issue of service cottages or tied houses. The Secretary of State attended a function in Scotland the other day at which he was asked questions on this subject of tied houses by members of the agricultural industry. I understand that he replied that he could not give way on this question of tied houses, because he could not go back to his party and look for their support. They would not support him in the matter.
Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say where he got his information?
Major McCallum: I got it from one of the weekly agricultural papers, and I

2949
believe that is a fairly accurate summary of the report of the meeting. When my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) was speaking, the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) interjected to ask why should public money be given to private owners to improve their properties. But who gets the benefit of the improvements carried out to these cottages? It is not the landowner or the proprietor, but the worker. It does not increase the value of the property-owner's property in the least. If he is proposing to dispose of the property within a certain number of years he is compelled to repay any grant. The landlord is not getting any benefit out of it. The only person who will get a benefit from it will be the farm workers, and those are the very people whom hon. Members opposite do not wish to see get any benefit, nor do they wish to provide houses for them.
Mr. Willis: The interesting thing about this is that the farm workers themselves do not seem to appreciate the benefits that the hon. and gallant Member seems to think they are going to get.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Member is not a farm worker.
Major McCallum: I can assure the hon. Member that in the Highlands, at any rate, the agricultural worker appreciates very much having a tied house. I have been told that by dozens and dozens of them.
Mr. Willis: Surely the representative organisations of the farm workers in Scotland are against tied houses?
Major McCallum: I cannot accept that, I am sorry to say.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) represents very few of them.
Major McCallum: What is the alternative? Probably a council house in the village. What rent would be charged for the council house? About £32 a year. That is the alternative that the farm worker has to accept for his tied cottage at a few shillings a week. If hon. Members will canvass the farm workers in the Highlands, I can assure them of the answer that they will get on this matter.
Now I turn to the position of the crofters and the applications they may
2950
make to get assistance for the improvement or reconditioning of their houses. It is probably correct to say that they are not covered at all by the Bill, and that they are covered by the Agriculture (Scotland) Act. I should be glad to have that point cleared up. I am speaking about the crofting community and the improvement or modernising of their houses, in the way in which they were assisted by the 1936 Housing (Rural Workers) (Scotland) Act.
I want to refer to other tied cottages. Within recent months the Forestry Commission have acquired 1,000 Finnish wooden houses for erection in Scotland, on the various plantations, for the forestry workers. In my constituency there is one place on Loch Awe and another in Glendaruel, where the Finnish houses have been lying on the roadside all through the winter. Nothing was done about putting them up. We shall be told that they were covered over with tarpaulins. They were. They were put out there, tarpaulins were put over them, and there they were left for months. I have made inquiries about them from the local authority and I have been to inspect them. I found that, as the result of the winter weather, most of the tarpaulins have been blown off. The wooden houses are lying in sections on the roadside, and are deteriorating rapidly. I am told that even when they are dried out again, to be put up in sections as houses, they will be SQ warped that they will be useless.
There are 30 houses for Loch Awe and about 20 in Glendaruel, some 50; houses in all, and there is very great risk of their being completely wasted. They are good wooden Finnish houses. I am afraid that the trouble lies in some dispute or misunderstanding, or something not being agreed upon between the Department of Health for Scotland, the Forestry Commission and the local authority. It may be something about the sites or the services. I hope that the local authority of the Forestry Commission will be able to have something done about it and so clear up the situation.
I turn to the housing estate which it is proposed to put up at Kinlochmore and Kinlochleven. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that I corresponded with him about these houses and that there has recently been a lawsuit, in which

2951
the British Aluminium Company have suffered very heavily financially, because of the fluorine gasses which have caused much damage to property around Fort William. The local authorities are proceeding with a housing estate there, and the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me to say that the housing estate would come to no harm although it was very near the factory at Kinlochleven. He said in his letter that there was no danger to this site because it lies slightly out of the stream of the prevailing wind. I wonder that a question about the prevailing wind was not put up by counsel in the case of the Fort William factory.
I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter. It is not a question of today or tomorrow; it is a question whether the families living in those 50 houses will, all their lives, suffer the bad effects proved to have been suffered by some people living in the vicinity of the Fort William factory. This causes a great deal of anxiety and disquiet in the Kinlochleven area; I have had representations from numbers of people. Judging from the reception that this Bill has had in the rural and Highland areas of Scotland, I do not think that it will do much to solve the problems of those areas.
9.37 p.m.
Mr. J. L. Williams: I welcome the Bill not because it will be an important contribution to the building of new houses here and now, but because it is a piece of legislation dealing with wider and more far-reaching aspects of housing policy. That is important, and it will tell on the drive for new houses in the years to come.
Like other hon. Members, I am concerned with the question of diverting materials from the building of new houses to the efforts connected with the Bill; I am concerned with this for the same reason as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen), because of the large number of people in my constituency who are waiting for houses and depending upon the building drive. I am concerned not only about materials but also about labour. I believe that the labour aspect should be emphasised more than that of materials, and I believe that it is felt in the building industry that in connection with reconditioning we are
2952
spending more proportionately on labour than in the case of new building. We are spending on labour and materials in reconditioning in the ratio of 60 to 40, while in the building of new houses we are spending on labour and materials in the ratio of 40 to 60. That is, no doubt, an arbitrary estimate, but it is at the same time sufficient indication that we should be concerned, allowing for equal scarcity in both cases, about labour even more than about materials.
The question of reconditioning has been dealt with at length tonight, and I will only speak upon one or two aspects which have been rather overlooked. Mention has been made of Part I which extends the provisions of the Housing Acts from the housing of the working classes to the housing of all members of the community. This is rather more important than some hon. Members opposite have been able to accept, because it goes to the root of society. There has been a tendency in recent years in our big towns to have large communities developing upon an income basis. Indeed the development of our big towns has been worse in that direction, notwithstanding all the modern tendencies, than the development of the small country towns, because, in the latter, despite the class feeling that might be shown, certain geographic limits compel people to live together in one society. Today large towns with large communities are developing which are roughly dissimilar on an income basis. We want to get away from that, because that dissimilarity is undesirable and unhealthy for the development of modern society.
My other point deals with hostels which, so far as I know, have not been mentioned. I believe that local authorities should be enabled to build these hostels for young people and for single people living in big towns who have come in from the country to do the work of those big towns. In my early life I had a lengthy, varied and interesting experience of "living in digs," and I can speak with authority on the subject. It may be argued that the question of hostels is not immediately important. If, however, we are to have large numbers of workers coming into a big city to do the work of that city, it is important to house them in this way. It is a desirable and economic form of housing, I suggest.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. Duthie: In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall confine my remarks to a few practical considerations of great importance to the North-East of Scotland in general and to Banffshire in particular. At the risk of repetition, I should like to touch upon the position of the tied cottage, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum). The substitution of the tenancy form of tenure for the present tied system is something which is causing a great deal of concern amongst country farmers, particularly in the North-East. Each farm has grown through the generations into a self-contained community. These farms are not adjacent to each other and are sometimes many miles apart. This is particularly true of farms in the glen areas. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said in speaking of Ayrshire farms, what is true of the Ayrshire dairy farm is more than true of the stock and dairy farms in Banffshire and Aberdeenshire generally. The men must live on the job. Anyone who is conversant with the feeding of cattle, the raising of that prime beef of which the country stands in great need, must know that the stockmen and cowmen must be on the job practically all the time; and in view of the incidence of illness amongst the stock; and many other factors, it is necessary that they should be on call practically at all hours of the day and night.
Because of that necessity, the farm cottage—the tied cottage—has come into being and has been the greatest boon to Scottish agriculture. I would point out also that the holding of the cottage by the tenant farmer is part and parcel of a legal contract with the landlord. The tenant farmer is in duty bound to make the service cottage available for the occupation and benefit of workers on the farm. If the cottage is to become untied, the terms of the leases are broken, and a considerable amount of unsettlement, and perhaps unemployment, will result.
We must consider also the position of the owner farmer. Many of our landlord farmers are working farmers who own their own farms. Some very considerable schemes for the rehabilitation of their farm buildings, and of their cottages in
2954
particular, are being held up pending the outcome of the legislation which is now before the House. For the life of me I cannot understand why there should be all this fuss about the untying of cottages, and going to the trouble of putting it in this Bill, because it seems to me that the application of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1933, reduces this problem to mathematical dimensions; it becomes the axiom. "Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another." The cottage ceases to be a tied cottage, but by the application of the Rent Restrictions Act it becomes a tied cottage again.
If I am correctly informed, and my quotation is correct, the 1933 Rent Restrictions Act provides that if the agricultural worker leaves, and a certificate is granted by the agricultural committee that the cottage is required for another agricultural worker who is to take over his job, then that is a ground for getting possession without offering alternative accommodation. I am referring to paragraph (d) of the First Schedule to the 1933 Rent Restrictions Act. If that is so, then all this seems to be a veritable storm in a teacup. It will remain so if the Government gives to Scottish landlords that same assurance which is implicit in the Rent Restrictions Act. If it is intended, however, to alter that Act, then this is a different story and one of which we would take the most serious view. But the fact remains that considerable rehabilitation schemes for farm cottages are held up pending the outcome of our deliberations. What I am saying applies not only to farms but also to lime quarries and distilleries, all of which are integral parts of our farming economy.
Another point upon which I would like to speak is the type of houses erected in the North. Some of the approved types are quite unsuitable for our northern climate. I have a letter which was written by the contractors to the Banffshire County Council, dealing with the inadequacy of the roofs of Cruden houses, from which I will quote. It says:
"The recent severe gales have revealed serious defects in the construction of the roofs. The specification of these roofs was originally approved by the Building Research Committee and recommended by the Department of Health. We would stress that the roofs have been constructed to the specification and whilst they appear to be satisfactory in the South of Scotland, they do not appear to be able to stand the exposed conditions in the North."

2955
In recommending types of houses for the North in future, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recommend that they should be subjected to the exacting conditions which obtain in an ordinary winter in the North.
I make an appeal on another matter, on which I am sure I will have the ready ear of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, as it concerns members of a community from which both he and I sprang, the fishermen. The fisherman's house has a particular problem which is not common to that of the artisan. Along with his family, his gear must be housed—his nets, his ropes, his buoys, and so on. It is idle to say that they can go into a communal store, because there they cannot be repaired and looked after. From time immemorial, gear has been housed with the family in fishing communities along the Scottish coasts. Present houses supplied by local authorities do not provide that accommodation for fishermen. One of the functions of the fishing industry which is performed in the home is mending the nets. This is done by the wife, daughters and female relatives of the fisherman. That is their task, accepted gladly, and they are expert workers. It is essential that that work should be done in the home. In the houses supplied by local authorities no such accommodation is given.
I was in a Cruden house in a fishing village on the North East coast a short time ago. The house was occupied by a fisherman and his wife and children. One bedroom had to be given up for the repair of nets. If we are to retain our population of herring fishermen we have to give them homes which are suitable for their families and also for their gear. That would almost call for a special type of house to be devised for herring fishermen. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to encourage seaboard local authorities to develop a type of house suitable for herring fishermen, and to see that they are given a special grant to make those houses possible, in ratio to the demands made upon the local authority to house herring fishermen.
Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be highly desirable to have a house for the family and an outhouse for the gear?
Mr. Duthie: That is done in some cases, but that is not the ideal. I know
2956
the ideal, because I was brought up in a house where the ideal was practised, and it is an attic store for nets. Then the mending can be done in the evening and one does not have to trapes from the house to the store when the mending is completed. Many fishermen in the North have made application to local authorities to build houses with net stores, and so far these have been refused. Many older fishermen living in council houses would be only too happy to build their own houses, but again applications have been refused. The finest earnest of the right hon. Gentleman's intention to do all he can for Scottish housing would be immediately to grant those applications for private buildings which I have put before him quite recently. I make a final appeal on the question of the herring fishermen, even at the risk of reiteration. Because it is something which may have been overlooked in the past, do not let us overlook it now, for the retention of the herring man in his industry is a matter of fundamental importance to this country.
9.55 p.m.
Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) asked us not to go too much into history on this question. I agree with him but, unfortunately, history is something like heaven. It lies about us in our infancy and clings to us all the days of our lives. I am not surprised that the party opposite desire to get away from it, because it is largely due to their history that we on this side of the House have such a rosy future.
I wish to say a word or two about the figures which were put forward by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. McFarlane). I am sorry that he is not in his place, but the figures which he gave must be dealt with. I am not in any way suggesting that he was influenced by any thought of electoral advantage. I am willing to believe that his use of the figures and the fact of the oncoming municipal elections in Glasgow was merely coincidental. Nevertheless, the fact that he lamented the inadequacy of the housing figures in Glasgow implied some sort of blame to the Corporation of Glasgow, which, of course, is dominated by the Labour Party.

2957
The hon. Member pointed out that the number of units of housing completed by the Corporation of Glasgow was 8,000—it is a little more than that, 8,178—in the three years from January, 1945, to December, 1948.
Commander Galbraith: That is four years.
Mr. Rankin: It is. I was subtracting 45 from 48. I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Member's prowess in arithmetic has not deserted him, and has enabled him to correct my error. The figures given by the hon. Member for Camlachie were 8,178, but they are figures which we are entitled to compare with the corresponding figures after the last war, when the party now in Opposition were in power. In that period, the number of houses completed in Glasgow was a little over 2,000—
Sir W. Darling: By local authorities.
Mr. Rankin:—and the number of houses completed in the whole of Scotland in that period was 8,137. So in the corresponding period after this war the Labour Council in Glasgow had completed more houses in the city than were completed in the whole of Scotland by the Conservative Party when they were in power.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rankin: Do not all jump up at once. I am not giving way. Hon. Members opposite know quite well that I give way freely but on this occasion I am sorry that I cannot give way. I say that the performance of the Labour majority on the Glasgow Council has been a better one for the City of Glasgow than was the performance of the Tory Party in the whole of Scotland for the period after the last war. I will say further that if we compare the position in Glasgow today so far as permanent Douses are concerned, we find that Glasgow has built 5,628 permanent houses. More houses were built by the Labour Corporation in Glasgow than have been built in Birmingham and Liverpool combined in the same period of time, and more than the number built in Liverpool and Manchester in the same period of time. So that Glasgow has no reason to be ashamed of its record.
2958
We admit quite freely that it is not as many houses as we would like to see being built. But as I say our efforts have been conditioned by the history of the party that now sits opposite. We have to remember this other fact, that Glasgow might have increased its total number of housing units considerably had it departed from its planning.
Sir W. Darling: Oh!
Mr. Rankin: I know that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) hates the sound of the word "planning." He is the supreme anarchist and the word "planning" almost chokes him. Glasgow refused to depart from the planning of its housing system and therefore it did not go in for the temporary house. Because of that fact the figures in Glasgow are not nearly so great as they would have been if Glasgow had followed the bad example of Edinburgh in that respect.
I wish to deal with one particular part of the Bill which has not so far been mentioned. I have nothing to say about Parts I, III, IV and V. I cannot understand the fuss which the Oppoosition have been making over this rather mild Measure. Part I, as the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) admitted is merely an extension of a practice already in being. Glasgow already provides houses for its doctors and dentists, and Part I is simply an extension of that. Part III contains nothing new in principle, and so far as Parts IV and V are concerned I do not propose to spend any time on them, because I do not think that there is any difference of opinion with regard to them. I do, however, wish to look at Part II, and especially that part which provides for financial assistance for improving existing housing accommodation. In the Debate so far, the present position has not been explored.
We want to ask what is the present position with regard to the provision of financial assistance for the improvement of existing housing accommodation by local authorities. Provision exists under Defence Regulation 51. Under that regulation, everything proposed in Part II can already be carried out. The local authority can take over abandoned

2959
houses. That is provided for in the Bill. The local authority can take big houses and break them up into smaller houses. That also is provided for in Part II. The local authority can take over houses used by Service Departments, and they can requisition shops for the purpose of turning them into dwellings. All these things can be done at present under Regulation 51. Part II makes no change except that under the Defence Regulation my right hon. Friend must pay to the local authority 100 per cent. of the cost they incurred in requisitioning and improving buildings to make them habitable, while under the Bill he takes 25 per cent. of that cost and puts it on the shoulders of the local authority, and he only pays 75 per cent. If my interpretation is correct, I suggest that in the long run, my right hon. Friend will not improve existing housing accommodation by increasing the burden of cost on the local authority. To me, that is one of the serious features of the financial arrangement.
There is a further point. I have examined the Bill and, so far as I can follow it, there is nothing in it which cancels Defence Regulation 51. Even when this Bill becomes an Act, a local authority will still have the power to say to my right hon. Friend, "We propose to proceed to carry out these provisions under Defence Regulation 51." They have that power. Will my right hon. Friend allow both methods of procedure if this Bill becomes law? Will he allow them both to run concurrently, or will he say to the local authorities who ask for power to take over a building to convert it into smaller dwellings, "You cannot do it under the regulation. I shall compel you to proceed under the Bill." In proceeding under the Bill, he will fling upon the local authorities a burden which, I submit, will compel them not to proceed to carry out these improvements in housing conditions in Glasgow which I hope everyone here wishes to see.
There is this further point which I wish to put to my right hon. Friend. Under the Defence Regulations local authorities have power to requisition buildings occupied by Service Departments, and until recently Service Departments were instructed: "Get rid of these buildings as quickly as you can. When
2960
a local authority comes forward to requisition, do not oppose them. "Within the last month or so Service Departments have been instructed not to get rid of these buildings, but to hang on to them. That means that when a local authority wants to requisition one of these buildings, the Service Departments will resist. I wonder whether they will be supported? I wonder what is the reason for that step? It may be twofold, although I hope that the second suspected reason is non-existent.
That one aspect which I have raised is to me a very serious one, because I represent in the City of Glasgow a Division which has terrible housing conditions. They may not be very different from some others, but I must speak about them. In Marlow Street, in the last two years, the entire end of a property inhabited by human beings just collapsed through sheer exhaustion and lack of sustenance; it fell down.
Mr. Kirkwood: And they were getting rent for it.
Mr. Rankin: Yes, they were getting rent for it. I have been in a house in Watt Street in which I could shove my two hands into a crack between the sides of the bedroom; the whole building was just slipping down. That house was inhabited by men to whom we are today appealing for increased production—the engineers and the workers on the Clyde-side. The whole of that building is coming down. I had to direct my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in a house in Blackburn Street, in which human beings were living, the whole side of the building was falling out. I have been in one house in which there was only room for a bed and a little distance to move about in, with a mother and ten children, the oldest 19 and the youngest standing not much higher than these benches, all living there. On Friday night in Midlock Street I stood in a house the tenant of which had that week caught 14 rats. My right hon. Friend has a letter on that subject.
That is only a glimpse at the housing conditions in the Tradeston Division today. I am anxious that this Bill should do something to remedy those conditions. I hope that in limiting the powers which local authorities have today under Defence Regulation 51 my right hon.

2961
Friend is not doing something which, instead of assisting to improve these conditions, may actually make them worse than they are.
10.14 p.m.
Sir William Darling: This afternoon and evening we have had an almost all-Scottish Debate, except for the fleeting visitation of the Lord President who looked in, I take it, to see that we were not spending more money than our English colleagues. I think the Secretary of State must be a little disappointed at the reception given to his Bill. He cannot have listened with any less feelings of emotion than I did to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), and when we remember that the hon. Member for Tradeston speaks for a Division of Glasgow, and that Glasgow has been ruled by a Socialist council since 1934 and by this Government for the last four years, we see how bitter these conclusions must be to him and to those who share his views. We have heard throughout the Debate a great deal about the years of Tory misrule and about the responsibilities for housing in the past. I am willing to accept those responsibilities, but the Members who make such observations must direct them, on this occasion at any rate, rather narrowly to the Tradeston Division, which has had the infinite benefit since 1934 of a Socialist local administration supported today by a national one.
Mrs. Mann: Will not the hon. Member admit that when the Socialists got control in 1934 the Government of the day withdrew the only Act under which they could build, namely, the Wheately Act?
Sir W. Darling: The hon. Lady is an astute and able debater, but I do not think we had anything to do with the 34 rats—
Mr. Rankin: It was only 14.
Sir W. Darling: —nor for the collapses through dilapidation. Glasgow has long had power to deal with buildings in ruinous and dangerous condition, and if the hon. Lady has forgotten her municipal experience, then let me have the honour of reminding her.
2962
This Bill has not been given a good reception. I do not think the Secretary of State expected it to get one. If I may put myself in his place, I think he said to himself, "We had better do some tidying up in this matter of Scottish housing. The English Bill has had a good run, so let us see what we can do. England is a bit ahead in housing, so I had better go before the House of Commons and say something about the Scottish position." These little bits and pieces, picked up and cast out from previous reports, are interesting reading but a little flyblown; they are very familiar to us. The right hon. Gentleman has not held office for the whole of the past four years, but he and his predecessors—some are dead and some are fled—have, and therefore he must accept responsibility for the last four years. He will agree that during that time he has not been very well pleased, and do not let him be under the delusion that Scotland is pleased.
The housing position is deplorable, and if a Tory administration or an administration other than a Socialist administration were in power, the veil of the temple would be rent in twain. The mouths of the Socialist supporters are stopped, and quite rightly stopped, by their own inadequacy. They can only rail about the evils of the past, which all deplore and none can remedy. It is in the hands of the Government, inspired by all the genius and apparently commanding all the capital they require. I am not surprised that there are pained looks on the faces of Members opposite. The hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) has gone. I was afraid that she was going to break down because of the tragic condition in which she found herself, unable to blame the Tory Party and unable to move the Minister to achieve anything better.
The problem is a very real one, and we on this side are willing to take all the blame for all the miseries if, having made that admission, the Government will make a start with a new sheet. Look to the past four years, during which the Government have had full power and authority: the achievement has been a very inadequate and tragic one. It is not I but the long eloquent waiting lists in every local authority office in Scotland that cry out. It is those who believed,

2963
rightly or wrongly, that they would get a house when they came back from the war, those who believed Labour would get things done, who indict the Government, and not Members on this side.
The real problem is that there is and always has been a tremendous shortage of houses in Scotland. The remedy, of course, is to concentrate on that shortage, and once the shortage is remedied then overcrowding and slum clearance will fall into their proper place and disappear. That is why those who spoke from our point of view at the General Election recommended, not a narrow approach, but an approach on every line possible. We wanted local authorities to do all they could, and private enterprise to do all it could. We believe that anyone who could build anything better than a shack should be encouraged to do so. Having dealt with the problem of accommodation we would then steadily raise the standards. The Government have chosen one instrument only—the local authority. Those who have served on a local authority know how inadequate that instrument can often be.
I am interested in Part I of the Bill, which shows that the Government have thought of something new. They are now going to deal with the question of housing all the people, and not only the working class. This, it seems, requires a special piece of legislation. Considering the working class support which the Government claim to have, it would have been wiser if they had first housed the working class. Like Alexander, they are sighing for new worlds to conquer before they have conquered the first. The Government say, "We cannot house the working class so we will change the name. We will abolish the working class, and thereby deal with the situation." That seems clever, but it is not impressive. I do not mind who houses me, but if I have to have a house I want a house and not a baptism. The Government are deserting their duty. They got the votes of the workers. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. L. Williams), particularly, feels that the working class vote is not enough. So, the Government have broadened the basis, and seek the vote of those who are described as the middle class, the salariat. But the middle class do not want Government housing. They
2964
want to provide their own homes. Why not let them? The building societies are only too ready to help them, but the Government are an impediment in their way.
I was struck by the argument in the Debate on the English Bill, in which the Minister of Health made one of those utterances which will make for him a certain place in the political history of today and tomorrow. Talking about the choice of houses, he said:
"Only a public authority can choose between the relative claims of different applicants for houses. That cannot be done by private persons acting upon private enterprise only."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2133.]
It seems that men and women joined together in holy matrimony cannot choose a house. The Minister of Health says this can only be done by a public body. In the bad old days when men and women married they found a house—true, with some difficulty, but they did find one. Now, only a public authority can choose, says the Minister of Health, whose faithful disciple the Secretary of State is no doubt proud to call himself. Gone are the days when an Englishman's home was his castle. His home is now chosen for him by a public authority—and so is his gaol.
Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting what the Minister of Health actually said. He said that the public authority could best make the decision as to whose priority was greatest for the actual houses.
Sir W. Darling: I do not think I am misinterpreting what he said. He argued that it was not for the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and his bride or for the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and his bride to choose their homes, but it was competent for the local authority to choose between the abundant merits of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and those of the hon. Member for North Edinburgh. If the hon. Member will read what the Minister of Health said, he will find that it will beat out my assertion. Where there is any dispute as to who shall have the house, the deciding factor is the official, and it is the same type of official who decides whether I go to gaol or not
Part II of the Bill is very interesting because of the admission that there are

2965
houses in this country. Obviously His Majesty's Government would not propose to improve those houses if they did not exist, and so for the first time a Bill is brought before us which declares that in this barren, naked land of Scotland, in which everyone lived in caves under Tory misrule, there were, after all, over one million houses. These are all capable of improvement. These are the houses which the degenerate Tories built, but they must have done their job well because the houses have lasted and they are now capable of improvement. It is asked why they were not improved before? The answer is equally obvious. Taxation has been so severe that the landlords have been taxed almost out of existence. They are called "landlords," but they are neither possessors of land, nor are they lords. They are house providers, who were indiscreet and foolish enough to choose to invest money in house property, for which there was such a low return and so little gratitude. It is because this Government have so heavily taxed the landlord that this animal has now decided not to be a landlord any more. He has left the responsibility to the community, with very much less desirable results to the people in need of houses, and also at greater cost.
The Government have been penalising the landlord for a long time and the sufferers, oddly enough, are not the landlords because, according to hon. Members opposite, they can get away with anything. The people who are suffering are the tenants. When I was a youth there were plenty of houses to let. I remember that my mother had the choice of at least six flats when she wanted accommodation. The agents came to her asking her if she would take this one and they would do up the kitchen, or this other one and they would do up the drawing room. That is not my experience today, nor is it the experience of anyone in this House. What has happened to make houses which were abundant so scarce? I will tell the House. It is because of the busybody interference of public authorities, who have tried to provide houses and have failed catastrophically in their efforts.
Part III of the Bill deals with houses of character. I do not see much encouragement here for individuals. Under this part of the Bill certain allowances
2966
are to be made to local authorities and the Special Housing Association to build houses of character. Why those bodies? Are those advantages only to be conferred on organised bodies who are either the "stooges" of His Majesty's Government or local authorities? Do not His Majesty's Government think that there are persons with ideas in Scotland, who might conceive an idea to build houses of character and should be encouraged? It seems that His Majesty's Government believe that all the intelligence of Scotland rests in committees. They have not seen as much of committees as I have. Individual Scotsmen are more entitled to public confidence than that. On hostels and building experiments I make the same observations. Why are these advantages not being made available to private persons? Why are local authorities alone to be instruments of his blundering folly, when we know that they have failed His Majesty's Government in the task already assigned to them, which is the provision of houses for the people?
When I look at Part IV I note three miscellaneous and entirely objectionable Clauses under which there is the provision of finance for the purchase of houses. That has been done very adequately and successfully by the people themselves. There are a score of first-class building societies. I am not a member of one, nor do I subscribe to any, but these people provide money for this purpose. The Government put their blundering feet into this territory in which they can only operate at a loss. They desire to enter the laundry business. I remark in relation to this that unless they wish to wash dirty linen in public, I do not know why the Government want laundries. The people are satisfied with their own laundries. They are buying washing machines by the score and would buy more if the Purchase Tax were removed. The Government apparently want to set up laundries in every community, whether those communities desire them or not.
In addition, the Government are going to enter the hire purchase business. This is a greedy grab for gold. They are going to take over the Prudential, and presumably would like to take over the Times Furnishing Co. and other distribut-

2967
ing stores. What justification can there be in a Housing Act, which is intended to provide better houses for Scotland, for such futilities as these? These are not the marks of serious-minded men, of men addressing themselves to this task. Scotland desperately needs new houses. The plight of the people is deplorable.
To put on the Statute Book a Bill in which in the aggregate there is nothing but trivialities is an insult to Scottish intelligence. Here we have a few interesting suggestions culled from the specialists of St. Andrew's House, patient men and women who have collected together and presented to the Minister as upon a chalice, these little bits and pieces to embody in a Bill which may satisfy the House of Commons; but it will not satisfy the people of Scotland. It will go through this Bill, Clause by Clause, we find that its sum total is a round nothing. I regret to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland knows that as well as I do.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? At Question Time yesterday, the Leader of the House assured us that there would be some recompense to Scottish Members for the time allotted to the discussion of the Motion by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I should like to ask whether the speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland will conclude this Debate, or whether the Debate will continue after; that speech?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member surely noticed that we passed an Order today suspending the Rule. I may call upon the right hon. Gentleman, but that does not interfere with the hon. Member's right if he wishes to carry on the Debate.
10.33 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I have no complaint to make about the reception accorded this Bill. A good deal of the discussion, of course, has been about the various housing problems of hon. Gentlemen, and they have made no reference either to the provisions of this Bill or to what is contained in it. For instance, the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) had an Adjournment Debate
2968
all of his own in the middle of the discussion of this Bill on the necessities of Highland housing and the distribution in the Highlands of timber houses and other matters. Some of these points have been dealt with in Adjournment Debates and in other ways, and I am sure that hon. Members would not wish me to take up the time of the House in replying to these various matters which were interposed into the discussion of the Bill.
I should like to deplore what is becoming a habit of some hon. Members opposite of taking every possible occasion to depreciate Scotland and Scotland's affairs. The way they come into this House and elevate English Ministers really is very sad. If they can cast any slur upon Scotland, they have not the slightest objection to doing so. If they can depreciate Scottish Ministers and make them appear in the public eye as something of no importance, they go out of their way to do it. There is an old Scottish proverb which says, "It is an ill bird which fouls its ain nest." I hope that this will be kept in mind by these hon. Members when bringing these things against their own Ministers and countrymen.
The problem of Scottish housing is not something new, nor is its solution anything new. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) was, I presume, speaking for the Conservative Party; therefore, I gather that it is no longer the purpose of the Conservative Party to use the local authorities as an instrument for the building of houses, should that party ever come back into power in this country. That is a change of policy. The hon. Member condemns the use of the local authorities for this purpose so far as the Labour Party are concerned, but when Mr. Willink was Minister of Health in 1944, he told the House that, however much we might believe in private enterprise, most of our houses would be built by local authorities.
But the problem of housing in Scotland is much more serious than this silly party talk. It is going to be extremely difficult for anybody who tackles this problem to solve it. I would remind hon. Members that, in the years between the wars—in the whole 20 years—only 400,000 houses were built. Now we are expected to build 500,000 in three years. It is certainly a

2969
flattering expectation which hon. Members opposite have of us, but if one talks seriously, one must admit that, if only 400,000 were built in 20 years, it is an impossible demand on the building trade to expect such an achievement when the trade is depleted and disorganised, and when there is a shortage of materials which never existed between the wars. Sixteen thousand, five hundred houses a year were put up between the wars, but 21,211 permanent houses were built last year in Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said he could not find these figures in the Report. That is because he had not counted in the permanent aluminium houses—a total of 1,500. In the same time after this war as after the first, 25 times as many houses have been provided in Edinburgh.
Lord William Scott: It is not comparable. Will the Secretary of State say whether the 21,000 odd houses built last year were actually built or finished last year?
Mr. Woodburn: Finished for occupation.
Lord William Scott: That is what I thought. A great many were started a year before—[Interruption]—Well, the Secretary of State said they were built last year.
Mr. Woodburn: Hon. Members must know that that is always the case. Very few houses are finished in the year in which they are started. All these houses have been provided since the war, and 25 times as many were built in Edinburgh in the same period after this war as compared with the first war. To say that we are not providing houses is grossly to mislead the population. Hon. Members have asked why more houses are not built. I can tell them that I met representatives of the building trade at a public conference at which there were members of the Press. The Press men put questions, and one of the answers of the building trade representatives was that the reason for the slow-up in the building of houses was that we had asked the trade to do more than it could undertake.
I have already pointed out that the building industry is disorganised and depleted; it cannot get all the materials we would like. In other words, it was
2970
a question of more haste, less speed, because contractors who had taken on a large number of contracts could only do a portion of them, with the result that there was a lack of economy, wastage of effort and the very conditions that the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok described—a rise in cost and an uneven flow of materials spread over too many projects. Therefore, 18 months ago it was my duty to bring that sort of thing to a stop by getting materials concentrated in a flow where it could be put into the houses.
The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) raised one of the fundamental points about this Bill—why should public money be given to private owners of property to improve that property? It is very unfortunate that this question cannot be discussed objectively, just as many housing problems cannot be discussed objectively, because the history of landlords in Scotland has created such a prejudice that no reason can appear to enter into anything concerning landlords. Therefore, however reasonable may be some of the arguments put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok about the difficulties most landlords are having, it is almost impossible to give those questions impartial consideration because of the prejudice created by landlords in the past by their behaviour in regard to rents and tenants. Landlords today are undoubtedly suffering for the sins of their fathers.
Let us take Glasgow. Undoubtedly the great problem arising in Glasgow is that house property which is becoming steadily worse is being offered to the local, authority; the property is in such a condition that the landlord will no longer keep it up and the local authority finds it impossible to do anything with it either. That means that the local authority is faced with the responsibility of providing new houses for the people in those properties, and that is not only costly to the local authority but costly to the State. If these houses could be maintained in a proper condition, even to give the local authority time to accomplish their job, it would be an economy both to the State and to that local authority. That is the first reason why money is being given to private persons to maintain property in a condition which wilt make it last longer.
Commander Galbraith: What is the good of doing that when a man has already suffered and the loss will only be increased?
Mr. Woodburn: I will come to that. I am answering the hon. Member for North Edinburgh. If a house can be maintained for 30 years and made into practically a modern house at half the cost of a new house, that will still be an economy to the public. Therefore, from the point of view of the public, this is being done first of all. It is clearly the case, whatever we may think about it, that people who are homeless and requiring new houses, who are overcrowded and require new houses, who are living in substantial old houses that are not likely to be condemned, are all qualified tenants for new houses and it will be a long time before they can get the advantage of going into new houses.
This Bill is not for the benefit of landlords, but for the benefit of tenants. It is not the landlord who gets the benefit. It is amazing to me how many people there are who are prepared to refuse these benefits because for some theoretical reason they think the landlord will benefit. I cannot understand it. I have known persons who, though skilled men, would refuse to repair windows for their wives because it was the landlord's duty to do it. That is really fantastic. The whole purpose of this Bill is to try to give the people who live in substantial old houses some of the amenities they might get if they moved into new houses.
Why should they get them? They get them for the reason that they themselves pay taxes and rates and are thus paying a contribution to give houses to other people. They are themselves entitled to share in the benefits the State is providing, as are the people who get the new houses. In this Bill every care, perhaps too much care, has been taken to see that no benefit of a financial kind goes to the landlord. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) pointed out that some landlords are losing money on houses. I defy any hon. Member to show how any landlord can take money out of a house under this Bill. Even if he sells it he has to pay back to the Government any advance that they make.
Mr. McFarlane: But why should a Scottish landlord be placed in an invidious position compared with a landlord across the Border?
Mr. Woodburn: That point has been raised and I will come to it. This Bill gives no financial advantage to the landlord. There is considerable doubt whether the private landlord, unless he is very generous, will actually go the extent of using this Bill to make repairs to a house. It is an entirely false idea that the landlord is going to get any financial benefit from the Bill, and the question is whether the inducement is sufficient to make the landlord do anything at all. That is a question which can only be proved in practice.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are keen about people owning their own houses, but I notice that not one of them has commented on the benefit that comes to owner-occupiers under the Bill—that any person owning a house can get a grant from the Government to improve the house. We have heard much about the railwaymen, who out of 18s. a week which they received in wages, managed to save up to buy their own houses. Some of them are substantial, decent houses and they could be improved. These men can get a grant if they are prepared to make a contribution as well. The fact of the matter is that this Bill will enable the local authority to provide help to individuals for the housing of people, and to provide help to individuals going out of their way to improve their houses.
On the subject of tied houses, we are told that the landlord cannot do anything under the Bill and yet the farmers are complaining that they cannot have its advantages. If there are advantages, they will go to the landlords in the urban areas and in the rural areas. So far as the agricultural tied houses are concerned. I may say that I have met the farmers and the farm workers and they cannot agree about the tied houses. It is not for me to set up as an arbitrator and force something on people who do not want it. This Bill is for the benefit of the farm workers. The other day I addressed farmers about this, and was asked several questions. One man who put a question did so in such a manner that he was clearly concerned about the power to evict people. The attitude of mind which

2973
he represented makes it impossible for a Government to give powers to evict people at a moment's notice. It is this eviction of people at a moment's notice that has made for all the bitter feeling about the tied houses. No Government would give powers to evict.
Scottish farmers assure me that they want to keep the tied houses because of the goodwill between themselves and the farm workers. The Government are not going to interfere with this goodwill between farmers and farm workers. If they will explain to the Government what they want, I shall be prepared to examine it. I am not prepared to take sides in a fight of this kind, and it is up to the farmers and farm workers to come to an agreement. Farmers have an advantage under the provisions of the Agriculture Act: if they are prepared to provide a new house for a farm worker, they will get a grant for replacing a tied house, which gives them a considerable advantage.
The question of long waiting lists was mentioned. The Government have helped to create long waiting lists as they have provided people with full employment, which gives them wages from which they can afford to pay rent. If there were two million people unemployed and in the state in which they were between the two wars, there would be no waiting lists for houses. The full employment of today, the fact that people are prosperous, that young people are able to get married and that old people are able to keep their houses where formerly they were driven out by poverty in old age, have intensified the housing problem.
Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman said that before the war there were no waiting lists. Surely he is mistaken?
Mr. Woodburn: I did not say there were no waiting lists. I said that if there were two or three millions of unemployed, there would be no waiting lists. The small waiting lists before the war were due to the fact that a number of people could not afford to ask for new houses, and some did not think that they were entitled. A new psychology exists among the people. [Interruption.] There is no question at all. If the hon. Member will go into the Canongate of Edinburgh he will find people living in one room. They deserve new houses.
2974
Prior to the first war, and between the wars, they did not know what new houses were. There is a new spirit abroad which causes disturbance only to those who would like people always to be quiet and content. I welcome the demand for new houses, and hope that people will never be content with slums and degrading conditions.
The hon. Member for Banff raised a point about fishermen's houses. If he looks at Clause 20 (3) of the Bill, he will find that:
"A dwelling shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be used for purposes other than those of a private dwelling-house by reason only that part thereof is used as a shop or office, or for business, trade or professional purposes."
That brings fishing cottages well within the definition of "house." Another question raised was whether a tied house had to be untied before application could be made for a grant. Under the Bill as it stands it is the case that it would have to be untied first, but we can see that a reasonable point has been made, and will consider it before we come to the Committee stage.
Several other points were raised. Many will come up again on the Committee stage. Regarding furniture, the supply is not going to be very much different than it has been. In the old Acts it would appear that the practice was to supply furniture to the house, and although it has been supplied to the tenants it was not very clear what the law actually said. The Bill merely makes certain in a legal form the position in regard to the supply of furniture to tenants going into such houses. It has been a great convenience and in some places has made all the difference between a new home and just walls in an old home.
Reference has been made to laundries and meals. Municipal wash-houses have never been objected to and I hope no one will object to local authorities helping people to be clean whether in linen or in anything else. Where these facilities can best be provided by local authorities, then the local authorities will do it, but it is not intended that the local authorities will start up great competitive laundries or restaurants of that kind. They can supply restaurants under the Civic Restaurants Act. This is a question relating to hostels for old people and seeing

2975
whether meals and laundry can be supplied to hostels, as well as other amenities.
Questions have been asked about labour and materials for new houses. It is not our intention to divert labour from new houses for this purpose, but it is known that about 45 to 50 per cent. of the building trade devotes itself to jobbing work. There is no reason why the small type of houses should not get their share of that jobbing work, and there are many villages where a great deal of labour which does not go into the building of new houses could be available for this purpose. I would like hon. Members to remember that all houses are not in towns and that many fine and substantial cottages in the better villages could be given greater amenities by some additions, without disturbing the tenant at all. There may be no change in the tenant and the work could be done while he is in the house. Then there was a question about development charge. Development charges often raise difficult legal points, but it is not likely that development charge would be chargeable in many cases under this Bill. If development charge does come in, it qualifies for grant as part of the expenditure on the job. The grant goes towards development charge as part of the whole expenditure.
I want to deal with the question of the 6 per cent. The question was raised as to why a distinction was made between Scotland and England. I agree that as between the landlord in England and the landlord in Scotland, this cannot be considered fair to the landlord in Scotland. But this is not a problem that has arisen just now. We did not establish the Scottish rating system. It was there before Labour was in office, when there were several Housing Bills. They dealt with the matter before Labour came into power, and they had the same rate of increase for England as Scotland.
In the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, it only amounted to 3 per cent. in England and Scotland and only on one-third of the cost. In 1935 the rate was increased to 4 per cent. We are giving 6 per cent. on half the cost. We have to keep in mind the tenant because if 6 per cent. on £300 is to be charged, that is £18 extra on the rent. What the tenant can afford to pay must be taken
2976
into account as well as what the landlord can afford, and there must be a balance between the two. It may be that neither can afford to pay the cost of this work at the present time, but nevertheless we hope that costs will not always remain as high as they are and that they may come down. If the rate were raised to 8 per cent. it would mean that the £18 would be raised to £24 extra on the rent.
Mr. Willis: Plus rates?
Mr. Woodburn: Yes, it would be plus rates. I suggest that this is a fair compromise, but if the question of English and Scottish rates is to be considered it must be considered in a different atmosphere from this Bill. There are enough anomalies already and the solution will have to come forward in a more comprehensive way. Incidentally, the party opposite was in power for a great many years and they never tackled the problem. If Members opposite have any solution to offer that is acceptable to all concerned, I am willing to have a look at it. This is again a question of imposing some settlement on one section with which the other section does not agree.
I have met landlords from Glasgow, and they have put before me the problem of maintaining houses at present rates. They have pointed out that about 30,000 houses are likely to become dilapidated and fall into the hands of Glasgow Corporation, when they will become a liability instead of an asset. I have no reason to doubt that that is what they foresee. I suggested to them that they should go to Glasgow Corporation and that the two sides should get the facts. I told them when they agreed upon the facts to come to me with them, and that then I should be prepared to see what would be the solution. I have also consulted Glasgow Corporation, but according to the Corporation, when they have met the landlords on previous occasions and there has been any question of the Corporation taking over any properties, the prices have miraculously gone up.
If the landlords want to come to some arrangement with Glasgow Corporation to solve their problems, they must approach the matter in a reasonable way. I shall certainly try on my part to use my influence to get the Corporation to approach the matter in a reasonable way.

2977
This is like the tied cottage problem, with the two sides not agreeing while the property is falling into decay. If these people get together the landlords must play their part and make a contribution towards a solution. There is no point in going to the Glasgow Corporation—I may be doing them an injustice—and demanding a price equivalent to a new house or capitalisation of the rent they have been receiving for 80 years.
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: They have been offering them free to the corporation.
Mr. Woodburn: After they have been drawing the rent for 80 years and are still drawing it. We want them to consider this problem reasonably. Under this Bill the corporation will have an opportunity to deal with a great deal of this property, and if they are prepared to take it over and if it can be modernised the landlord must get rid of his liability on reasonable terms. The terms must be reasonable and the corporation must accept them as being reasonable. The corporation will then find an economy. They will be able to maintain people in good houses, for whom they would otherwise have had to provide new houses.
Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that a Committee was appointed in 1945 on the question of rating and presented a unanimous report?
Mr. Woodburn: With all respect to that Committee, the Report did not receive a unanimous acceptance. A great many people have to be consulted before what is in a report can be given legislative effect.
Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: It was an all-party Committee.
Mr. Woodburn: The hon. and gallant Member means that it was a Committee comprising individuals from all parties. All individuals in all parties are not reasonable, but some individuals in all parties may be. Members of the Committee may be very reasonable when sitting round the table, but that does not mean that their report is acceptable when it is made, because all the prejudices of the past of landlords and local authorities then come out.
The progress of the work started by this Bill will take one or two forms. First
2978
of all, it is clear that the first step will be the sub-division of existing houses to form new houses. It will not be possible in the immediate future to join up houses and thus reduce the number of houses to form better ones. That will be the second stage. The third stage may be the conversion of non-residential buildings into residential buildings. But the progress will be gradual and will provide an opportunity for ingenuity on the part of people all over the country in ways which perhaps we do not see at the moment. It is wonderful how solutions are found to problems in our little towns and villages. They often find ways we do not see, and it is useful to give them this power to help themselves. I am a great believer in the Government giving help for people to help themselves.
There are a great many other parts of the Bill which it is impossible to discuss tonight, but during the Committee stage I am quite sure that many of the points raised tonight will be threshed out in greater detail, and it will not be because of lack of ingenuity on the part of hon. Members if we do not find solutions to the problems. The Bill then will not be less good than it is now, and if experience is any guide it may be better.
Mr. Rankin: Will the Minister say a word on the point I raised with regard to his powers under Defence Regulation 51?
Mr. Woodburn: Powers under this Defence Regulation still exist for the purpose for which it was made, but it is a different purpose from the purpose of this Bill. Powers under the Defence Regulations were always meant to be temporary powers for war purposes. The powers under this Bill are intended to be permanent, and to become part of the law of the land.
Mr. Rankin: Does the Bill now override the powers under Defence Regulation 51?
Mr. Woodburn: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that the powers under the Defence Regulation will still exist when this Bill is passed. The powers in the Bill do not override the Defence Regulation, which will continue to be used for the purpose for which it was intended.
11.3 p.m.
Colonel.J. R. H. Hutchison: I want to make a few comments on this Bill because this is, as far as my constituency is concerned, an important occasion. The truest words spoken this evening have been those used in the last few minutes by the right hon. Gentleman when he answered some of the political prejudice poured out notably by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and to a lesser degree the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). It would help if this jobbing-back into the past and mutual recriminations were stopped, but I must make the comment that the right hon. Gentleman, in his remarks on this subject—while he was calling for a truce so to speak on political prejudice—could not forbear from joining in himself, so deeply has this prejudice entered even into him.
The right hon. Gentleman called attention to comparisons between the First World War and the Second World War. What must be learned is that the circumstances were completely different. There had been no, or virtually no bombing, and there had been houses empty at the beginning of the First World War waiting for occupants. At the beginning of the Second World War there was a waiting list for houses. At the beginning of the First World War there was nothing like the demand for houses that there was at the beginning of the Second World War. No political parties staked their reputation on housing, and all the circumstances occurring after the Second World War—
Mr. Ross: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman read again the Report of the Royal Commission on Housing for Scotland for the year 1917? He will find what he is saying is absolutely false.
Colonel Hutchison: On the contrary; if that is the hon. Gentleman's point, in 1914 there were 17,000 empty houses in Glasgow.
Mr. Ross: The Royal Commission stated that 103,000 houses were required to deal with overcrowding alone, and another 100,000 to deal with condemned property of the one-roomed type.
Colonel Hutchison: I am talking of the city of Glasgow, to which the hon. Gentleman, with great temerity, as he does not represent a Glasgow constituency, referred. He went on to extremely thin ice in doing so and in holding up to obloquy the Government between the wars. The hon. Member for Tradeston said that in four years the Government had succeeded in building 8,000 houses in Glasgow. In 1929, in one year, private enterprise and the local authorities combined produced 6,300. I remember standing for the Glasgow Corporation in 1935, and my opponent promised that if the Socialist majority on the town council was continued in office, they would build 10,000 houses a year. They never did. From the day they got control of the Glasgow Corporation, and gradually cut off all private enterprise and went in for direct labour, the number of houses went down and down.
Today's shortage and the disgraceful housing conditions in Glasgow—because I do not join issue with hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this matter—owe their origin to the blind dogma of the Socialists who controlled the City Corporation in the period immediately before the war. Those are facts, and if the hon. Gentleman studied them a little more closely, and came to Glasgow more often to see what happened, he would know them. But his political prejudice is such that he cannot listen to this subject in an objective way. I refer him to the Secretary of State.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that this 6 per cent. was carefully thought out and considered. I must accept what he says, but it looks to me as if this Bill were a classic example of what we complain of so much, of Scottish Bills being tacked on to English Bills like a dinghy to a yacht, and being dragged through stormy seas in which such a craft is quite unsuitable.
Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps the how and gallant Gentleman was not here at the beginning, when I pointed out that this Bill originated in Scottish conditions. When I have said that, I think he ought to accept it, and not repeat this slur on Scotland.
Colonel Hutchison: I said I accepted it, but that it had the appearance of someone in England having thought of

2981
this 6 per cent. and it being consequently incorporated in a Scottish Bill. If this 6 per cent. is fair in England it cannot be fair in Scotland, with the different rating conditions. It may be that the cure is not an alteration of the percentage. It may be—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—that the whole question which bedevils Scottish housing is the rating system, and the sooner that matter is tackled and put right the better.
Hon. Members on the other side were afraid that £90 million was to be spent on improving the property of private individuals. I am satisfied that, as the Bill stands, no money will be spent in that way. Hon. Friends of mine have shown that the effect in rural districts is likely to be negligible, because the system of tied houses is such that this Bill cannot have any effect. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok has shown conclusively that as regards urban housing it will be of less than no effect. One may say that the landlord classes should rise to a height of altruism and philanthropy which should prompt them to accept a grant on which they are going to lose money, so as to be able to do something of this kind. But I have been unlucky, because whenever I made the suggestion to hon. Members opposite that they should accept some houses free, and I have offered them a chance to do it themselves, they did not accept. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that pourparlers were going on with property-owners in Glasgow in an effort to reach some conclusion in what is really a desperate state of affairs, as the hon. Gentleman has himself admitted.
I want to make only one more observation, and it is an observation along a line which has not yet been touched upon. The crux and purpose of the Bill is to provide more accommodation. I will support any measure which will provide suitable accommodation in the quickest possible way. It must be realised that when you start to recondition or to repair houses, you must take away some labour and some materials from new house building. The question is whether you are going to get better results with one than with the other, or whether you are going to get the best results by combining the two operations. It seems to me that you have a different problem in different
2982
places. Where you are reconditioning houses, in the main you use more labour and less material. Where you are building new houses, you use more material and less labour. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the situation differs in different parts of Scotland. He has, for example, the problem of moving miners from Lanarkshire to Fife, where new houses will be required, and, perhaps, the situation in Glasgow, which has been outlined so vividly by a number of hon. Members, where reconditioning may well produce results more quickly.
But it is a curious commentary that in the Economic Survey for 1949, it is stated that the aim was to reduce the labour force for house building over the whole country by 164,000 individuals. In fact, they did not achieve that figure, and many of the manpower targets as shown in the Economic Surveys were not attained. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has realised that it is intended to reduce the building labour force of the country. It may be that the Government will be more successful in achieving a reduction this year than it was last year. How is that going to affect his plan? I suggest that this Bill may do very little, unless a careful census and plan is made of where reconditioning can more fruitfully be applied, and where the best results will be obtained through the building of new houses.
The Bill is a "curate's egg" Bill. Parts of it are good, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) suggested. I, for my part, and I believe that we on this side of the House generally, welcome the intentions, but in many of the Clauses of the Bill the method has gone sadly astray. It is that method which we on this side of the House will have to try to improve, and to put right, during the Committee stage.
11.20 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I believe that in the concluding part of his speech, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) has touched upon the weakness of this Bill; but I believe that on the whole the Bill should be given a fair trial and a proper welcome, in so far as it makes a contribution to the solution of the housing shortage of Scotland. I believe it has now become universally accepted that

2983
the housing problem of Scotland is by far the greatest social problem of all. I do not think that the Secretary of State has answered the question about the labour force. I have raised this question before, and I should like to ask if labour is to be diverted from the building of houses to this process of patching up? Here I speak with some 20 years' experience on a small local authority facing the housing problem; and, over that period, I am glad to say, we succeeded in solving the problem in so far as we were able to rebuild 83 per cent. of the houses in that area. If World War Two had not occurred, we should have been able to solve the problem in that Scottish town.
Does the Secretary of State realise the supreme urgency of giving greater attention to mobilising the labour force, both for the houses required in the great cities, and for those needed in the countryside? Like all hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies, I get regular letters from constituents asking me to do something to get the houses so badly needed. These letters always seem to come in a shoal after some county council or town council has made its allocation of houses. I have collected a large batch of documents from constituents; and every letter represents a personal tragedy. They bear upon this Bill, and I should like to know how it is going to help solve the problem of these people It is only the building of houses on a very large scale that will solve it. The labour force which we have today is utterly inadequate for the gigantic task in front of it.
I have a letter from an old lady living in a village in Ayrshire, and she says:
"We are living in one apartment, not fit for a pig, and I should like you to raise the subject when you speak in Parliament. We are twenty years without accommodation. We have two sons, twelve years in the Services, and is it right that they should come home in April to, the likes of the conditions we live in?"
Here are two men coming home after giving the best part of their lives to their country to a house without water or any sanitary accommodation. What is to happen to that family under this Bill? One may patch up the houses, but in this case, where are we going to put the eight people? They are not miners, or agricultural workers, so that there is no
2984
special provision for them, and there is absolutely no hope for them under this Bill at all. I have another case from a country village. This is a constituent who says there are eight in the family, with a girl who is a nurse, two boys, a girl of twelve and one of three-and-a-half. This constituent says it is a sin to have them all in one room:
"We have to go to the farm for our water, and we have no sanitation. We have been in the house for 17 years, and my husband is a painter with Ayr Corporation."
How are we going to solve the problem of these people under the Bill? You cannot patch up their houses because you must find some other accommodation for them.
I have a third case—that of people living in a tied house owned by the National Coal Board. From the village of Muirkirk, I received a pathetic letter from a miner, who said:
"There are three of us working, lying on the floor and there are people talking about us not getting a house. There are 10 of us in a single dwelling. There is no lavatory and no wash-house: in fact there is nothing here. I had the 'cruelty' man here to the children, because it was impossible to send them clean to school."
These are human problems—not the problem of the grim town slum, but of the country slum, the small collection of insanitary houses in the countryside. It is just as serious a problem in its own way as the gigantic problem of the Gorbals. I want to know how this Bill meets that problem. I cannot see how patching up houses here and there will help us in the big, gigantic drive which we all think is necessary in Scotland at the present time.
I am seriously perturbed about the whole question of building labour. I can go round Ayrshire and see scheme after scheme slowing down and breaking down because we have not mobilised our building labour force. I do not see that this problem is being tackled as seriously as it should be. We have heard in this Debate about the 21,000 houses per year. There is an estimated shortage in, Scotland of between 400,000 and 450,000 or even 500,000 houses, so we are faced with the fact that at the rate of progress last year it will take another quarter of a century before we shall see Scotland decently housed.

2985
I want to see this problem tackled as a military operation because during the war, munition works and aerodromes were built in record time. I want to see the same drive, the same imagination and the same intensive purpose on the housing front as we showed in making the aerodromes and erecting the munition factories during the war.
Commander Galbraith: That was under the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).
Mr. Hughes: I do not think that the right hon. Member for Woodford is particularly interested in housing. I have seen him in the big spectacular debates on battleships and bombers, but he never seems to show the slightest interest in housing. I am very doubtful if the right hon. Member has ever been in a municipal house in his life.
The Secretary of State for Scotland talked about a sort of reserve labour force at present engaged on repair work, but if it is to be transferred from this repair work to other repair work, it will not help us very much. The report of the Department of Health for Scotland for last year states that the shortage of joiners, plasterers and painters accounted for 640 out of the 957 labour vacancies on housing schemes at the end of the year. We start 1949 with a shortage of 640 joiners, plasterers and painters—all key workers. I can see, when this Bill comes on to the Statute Book, that in the small towns and the agricultural districts, where there is more of a property-owning complex, the Secretary of State will have to employ more officials to prevent the local builder taking his workers from housing schemes.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) lives at Mauchline and I live at Cumnock. We are at present faced with the fact that the biggest plasterer between Mauchline and Dumfries will not undertake to offer himself for any new housing schemes. That is the position today. Now this legislation is complicating what is necessary for the housing drive and I urge the Secretary of State to look very carefully at this power which is being given to the local authorities.
I want now to make some constructive suggestions. First, I want to stop the recruiting of workers from the building
2986
industry into the Forces. I believe that is absolutely essential. If hon. Gentlemen will follow this to its true logical conclusion they will support me in my claim that the plasterers, joiners, electricians and all the other skilled workers needed for the housing drive should be as exempt from military service as are agricultural workers and miners. In the House the other day I raised the question of the village blacksmith being exempt from military service, and after a little struggle I succeeded in getting him exempt on the ground that his work was necessary to agriculture. I am sure that the Ministry of Labour recognised the justice of that claim. Surely if the village blacksmith is to be exempt, it is logical to argue for the exemption of the joiners, plasterers, plumbers and other people who are essential if this work is to go on.
I believe that all people who have experience of the building trade should be brought out of the Forces and that the Minister of Works should be asked to release essential housing workers employed by his Department from the vast army of people engaged by it. It is a substantial army, because in reply to a question which I asked him on 4th April, the Minister of Works said that there were 27,500 building workers employed on works for the Service Departments, 4,100 were employed in building houses for the Services, and 362 of these were employed in Scotland. So I suggest that there is here a substantial margin for transferring building workers who have necessary technical experience.
Housing should have first priority. I ask the Secretary of State to make up his mind. There is a strong public opinion in Scotland determined that this housing problem must be tackled in a really urgent and realistic manner. After all, housing is a thing that remains. Large sums of money may be spent on bombers and a few years afterwards they are obsolete. We have heard different figures about the cost of houses during this Debate. At the present time the cost of one bomber is £300,000, the cost of about 200 houses.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot go any further in that matter. He has made his point very cleverly.
Mr. Hughes: I want to follow the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentle-

2987
man the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) who said that the Economic Survey suggested a reduction of the number of building workers in industry. The Secretary of State for Scotland should put his foot down in the Cabinet and say to the powerful Ministers there, the Service Ministers, that we must have priority number one in houses if we are ever to solve it. The Prime Minister visited Glasgow last week and said that Communism was being created by bad conditions. We have built 21,000 permanent houses in Scotland last year. But we need about 450,000. At the present rate it will take 20 years to solve the problem. If we leave this housing problem for another 20 years, we are going the surest way to create Communism and discontent in this country. I wish that hon. Members for Scottish constituencies would take the same attitude toward housing as Parnell took about Home Rule for Ireland, and get at the Government until they force them to realise the absolute necessity for a change in their policy.
We have tremendous headway to make up in Scotland. We have some of the foulest slums in the world. I have seen the slums of Moscow and New York. Those of Glasgow are worse than any. We have houses and hovels that are a shame to all. I believe this Bill will be a step in the right direction, but I hope that the Secretary of. State for Scotland will impress on the Ministry of Labour the need for mobilising more workers in the building force. It is only by mobilising the labour force in the country that we shall get the houses needed throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
11.37 p.m.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: I am sure that all hon. Members admire the pertinacity of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in pushing his subject all the time, and hope that it will have some effect on the Government. We are all concerned with the urgent need for providing more houses in Scotland. It may be that there is something wrong in the psychological attitude toward the provision of houses: they are not going up quickly enough, but this is not the occasion to enlarge upon that subject. I am not certain that
2988
this Bill will alleviate or improve the psychological attitude toward housing in Scotland. We on this side welcome the release of all forces which can contribute to the housing drive in Scotland.
There are points in the Bill which, on the face of them, tend toward hastening a solution by allowing private individuals to come in, as a right, to participate in the building, rebuilding, conversion and improvement of houses. As the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) has pointed out, it is not certain that we are really getting to the roots of the matter. On 31st December, 1948—the date on which we had the last quarterly statement, three and a half years after the end of the war —some 35,000 permanent houses had been completed by local authorities. There were under construction at that time double that number. What was more, sites approved amounted to those for 273,000 houses.
This Bill puts into the hands of the local authorities all the licensing for improvements, and all the giving of grants for improvements, conversion and so forth. What likelihood is there that local authorities will give these facilities when they have this enormous amount of outstanding work of their own on their hands? The Under-Secretary—and I also should like to congratulate him on his first major appearance at the Box—really let the cat completely out of the bag because he admitted that in the initial stages they would have to be "rather selective." Those were his words. The hon. Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. J. L. Williams) said that this was a long-term Bill and that we could not look for effects in the near future, but is that going to create the correct psychological atmosphere? People are going to be aware of their rights under the Bill. There will be long waiting lists at the local authorities of applicants ready to improve their houses, and that includes putting in water, sanitary arrangements, and all the rest.
On what basis can a local authority possibly decide priorities? The Secretary of State made a contribution to that when he said that the first step would be in subdivision of houses, secondly in joining up, and thirdly in conversion of non-residential buildings. He did not mention the

2989
question of general improvement. I take it that that would be going on all the time but it shows the great difficulty we are in, in this matter. I am not at all certain that this is going to work out very well. I am afraid that far from being "rather selective," the Bill is going to be highly selective.
The local authority is given power to make grants towards the improvement or conversion of houses, where the cost is not less than £100 and not more than £600, but we should know whether the Secretary of State has discretion to vary either figure either way. Then we find that the amount of the grant is entirely at the discretion of the local authority—it may not exceed one-half. Is one-half to be the maximum to be granted in every case or is it within the discretion of the authority to give what it thinks right and proper and discriminate between applicants? We may point to the discretion given in the Bill. The State is to contribute three-quarters of the grant given to the local authorities but this may also be reviewed. It may be scaled down to two-thirds so that the local authority itself is in a difficulty and does not know what its ultimate liability is going to be.
That is a psychological error in the Bill. I deplore these discretions. If one is to give a grant of one-half, it may be one-half or a grant "not exceeding" one-half. It is wrong to give a discretion and to allow a suspicion of favouritism and discrimination to come in. It will create an entirely wrong psychological attitude. I deplore this error in the Bill and I hope we shall have an opportunity to correct it in the Committee stage. So much on the general matter.
There are two further observations I have to make. Clause 21 deals with the supplementary grants of £5 per annum in respect of houses built of stone. I want to refer to this because it greatly concerns my part of the world. I was disappointed by what the Under-Secretary said because he gave a narrow interpretation of that Clause. It gives a grant in order to preserve the character of surroundings and he narrowed the surroundings more or less to gaps in the street and historical monuments. I think the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) referred to the necessity of using local material and having the materials required for the climate. Stone is the
2990
traditional building material in Scotland, although we have a few bricks in one corner of the country. I should have thought that the correct policy was to encourage the use of stone. What is the position regarding the committee set up to look into the question of the use of stone in Scotland? We seem to have waited a long time for its report. Was the report before the right hon. Gentleman when he reached the decision to put in a grant of £5 and limit it to this very narrow extent?
Hon. Members have referred to the tied house. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff in this connection. He says that the North-East of Scotland is particularly affected, but I can tell him that other parts of the country are affected as well. Previous Bills have sought to benefit workers and agricultural workers, but in Clause 1 of this Bill we wash out the workers and in Clause 2 the agricultural workers. The Bill is supposed to confer advantages on everyone except the agricultural worker. It is a remarkable thing that within the last week we have had a threat of a strike of miners because someone who was not a miner was put into a miner's tied house, whereas here the Government are on strike, so to speak, by encouraging people who are not agricultural workers to be put into agricultural tied houses.
The right hon. Gentleman has said "let the two sides get together," but he knows the wide difference between the representative body of the farmers and the so-called representative body of the farm workers. Surely it is up to him to give a lead in the matter. It may be that along the lines of contract of service lies the solution; but somehow a solution must be reached. Suppose that what the Minister of Health has said takes place. He obviously wants houses to be untied so that the farmer and the agricultural worker may get the advantage of the grant. What happens in the event of the occupant of a cottage deciding to leave his occupation as an agricultural worker? If that happens, a certificate can be applied for to the Department of Agriculture, and if he does not leave, the matter goes to the sheriff. The trouble is the delay that ensues. On the one hand, the farmer must have someone to carry on the work and to live close by; and on the other hand, he does not know whether

2991
he will obtain possession of the cottage or have to build another. It should be possible to reduce that delay and even to abolish it altogether, which would be a step in the right direction.
One thing is quite certain, and that is that the solution to the tied cottage problem should not be attempted in a Bill of this kind. That is wholly wrong. Apart from that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) has pointed out, the Government have in fact departed from their pledge to do something in the place of the Rural Workers' Housing Act of 1926. The right hon. Gentleman said that in that Act there was a grant of only one-third of the expenditure. This Bill substitutes, if it can be called substitution at all, a half on condition that the cottages are un-tied.
That is a wholly improper method of dealing with the matter, the more so because the effect of this action is psychologically wrong. It is going to cause friction between the farmer and his employee who will be demanding the improvements, whereas the farmer quite naturally will tend to hold off for a more reasonable solution. This to my mind is certainly not the way to increase the production of food for the people; it seems an unworthy method of dealing with it, and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman should have followed the Minister of Health, at any rate in this matter. I am sure the Secretary of State will not claim that he initiated this. In this part at any rate he has followed the Minister of Health and not for the better. In conclusion I congratulate him on the very fair way he summed up tonight, and I hope that his followers will "read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest" what he has said.
Mr. Woodburn: With permission of the House, I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the use of stone in building. The difference in the cost of building in stone as distinct from brick is much less than would be given under this Bill. I am sorry that in his closing remarks he referred to this silly business of Scotland following England. I explained that I had met the representatives of the farm workers and they are adamant against any money being given on tied cottages in Scotland. He should accept that statement and not repeat the other.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]
[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]
Resolved:
"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1946, and to promote the improvement of housing accommodation in Scotland by authorising the making of contributions out of the Exchequer and of grants by local authorities (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") it is expedient to authorise—
A. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in—

(1) making to a local authority or to a corporation established by an order under section two of the New Towns Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as a 'development corporation'), towards the annual loss determined by the Secretary of State to be likely to be incurred by them as a result of giving effect to proposals approved by him for the provision of dwellings by means of the conversion of houses or other buildings or the improvement of dwellings, an annual contribution for twenty years of an amount equal to three-quarters of that loss, or, in the case of a local authority for an area or a development corporation for a new town in the Highlands and Islands, as defined in the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, seven-eighths of that loss:

(2) making to a local authority, towards the expense incurred by them in making to a person other than a local authority a grant in respect of expenses incurred by him for the purposes of the execution of works for the provision of dwellings by means of the conversion of houses or other buildings or the improvement of dwellings, an annual contribution for twenty years of an amount equal to three-quarters, or, in the case of a local authority for any area in the aforesaid Highlands and Islands, seven-eighths of the annual loan charges referable to the amount of the grant;

(3) making to a local authority, in respect of arrangements made by them with a housing association or development corporation for the provision of dwellings by means of the conversion of houses or other buildings or the improvement of dwellings, an annual contribution for twenty years of an amount equal to three-quarters, or in the case of a local authority for any area in the aforesaid Highlands and Islands, seven-eighths, of the annual loss determined by the local authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State to be likely to be incurred by the association or corporation in carrying out the arrangements;

2993

(4) making to a local authority or the Scottish Special Housing Association, in respect of a house or flat the cost of providing which has been or will be substantially enhanced by expenses attributable to measures taken to preserve the character of the surroundings, an annual contribution, in addition to any contribution payable under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1944, or the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1946, for a period of sixty years of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine not exceeding, in the case of a local authority, five pounds, or in the case of the said Association, seven pounds ten shillings;

B. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in making—

(1) to a local authority or development corporation, in respect of a new building provided, or a building converted, by them for use as a hostel (as defined by the Act); or

(2) to a local authority in respect of a new building provided, or a building converted, by a housing association or development corporation for such use being a building provided or converted under arrangements made by the local authority under section twenty-six of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935;

an annual contribution for such number of years, not exceeding sixty, and of such amount, not exceeding the sum produced by multiplying seven pounds by the number of bedrooms contained in the building, as the Secretary of State may determine;
C. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in making a grant to a local authority or to the Scottish Special Housing Association in respect of—

(1) the construction of a house or flat by an experimental method, the use for the purposes of experiment of any materials in the construction of a house or flat or the installation in a house or flat, in the course of the construction thereof, of equipment or fittings for those purposes; or

(2) the incorporation or installation in a house or flat, otherwise than in the course of the construction thereof, of materials, equipment or fittings for those purposes;

D. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State attributable to any provisions of the Act empowering him to make contributions in respect of buildings provided or converted for use as hostels (as defined by the Act) which become vested in local authorities;
E. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in reimbursing to a local authority not more than one half of any loss sustained by them under a guarantee given by them for the repayment of advances made to its members by a society incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1939, or the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1928, for the building or acquisition of houses or flats, being a guarantee as to which
2994
the Secretary of State is satisfied that the liability of the local authority thereunder cannot be greater than two-thirds of the principal of, and interest on, the amount by which the sum to be advanced by the society exceeds the sum which would normally be advanced by it without the guarantee;
F. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(1) any increase in the sums payable under section thirty-nine of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, out of moneys so provided which is attributable to the passing of this Act; and

(2) any increase in the sums payable under section twenty-six of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, or under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1946, out of moneys so provided which is attributable to the removal from the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1946, of references to the working classes; and

G. the payment into the Exchequer of all sums received by the Secretary of State under the Act."—[Mr. Woodburn.]
Resolution to be reported tomorrow.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time, and passed without Amendment.

HOUSING, STREATHAM
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]
11.56 p.m.
Sir David Robertson: We have heard a great deal tonight about housing, or the lack of it, in Scotland. I wish to talk about housing in my constituency Streatham was heavily bombed during the war, and in the life of this Parliament I have been deluged with letters from my constituents who are in desperate need of homes. These letters make pitiful reading and represnt a sum total of human misery which is heart-breaking. In the first year or so I was able to explain the massive task which faced the Government and the Wandsworth Borough Council, both of whom I was anxious to assist. I deprecated premature criticism in this House, I endeavoured to become acquainted with the difficulties and I brought the plight of my constituents to the notice of Ministers of Health and Works, to the borough councillors, and

2995
officials, so that they would realise the urgency of the problem. Like all other hon. Members I earnestly hoped that the housing drive would succeed, and I genuinely regret that my hopes have not been realised.
The state of housing in Streatham is shameful. The Ministry of Health and the Borough Council have failed lamentably. The war has been over four years. The Government have been in office for almost four years, and the number of new permanent dwellings erected and completed by the council is only 41–41 new dwellings, in one of London's towns where there is a population of 75,000 people, and which was heavily bombed. The number of rebuilt demolished council dwellings which have been completed is 24. These are pitiful figures. A number of requisitioned houses have been divided into flats, and although the actual living accommodation has not been increased it is fair to say that a large number of people have been accommodated as a result of these conversions. At the present time there are 8,500 families, comprising over 27,000 people, on the borough housing lists awaiting rehousing, and there are many more on the lists of the L.C.C. These figures reveal abject failure. It is not a housing drive, it is a crawl.
Here are four examples of unwarrantable delays, and I believe these are typical of hundreds of cases throughout London and the country. First a small house of six rooms, 10, Blairderry Road, requisitioned in 1944 and occupied, vacated in March 1948, has remained unoccupied ever since. It is now being divided into two flats. I inspected it on Friday. I am amazed that such a small dwelling should be deemed worthy of conversion. It should have been offered to one of the large families on the housing list for immediate occupation. But here it remains, idle and empty, for 13 months, while the rent of £120 a year runs on and the taxpayer has to pay. One of the saddest things of all in relation to this particular house is that it did accommodate seven people before they started to convert it into two tiny flats, and now it will accommodate only six people, because that is all the accommodation which is provided. Actually, a bedroom has been lost in the conversion.
2996
The second instance is one which I raised in this House on 10th March and again on the 24th March. It is a large self-contained flat, 29, Mount Nod Road. It was under requisition, and became vacant at the end of October, 1948. Any of the suffering families on the housing list would gladly have taken it. Two families wrote to me, which is how I got to know about this case. They wanted to occupy the flat as it was, but the council took the view that some decorative repairs were required—painting or wallpapering a room or two.
Here is one of the tragedies, I think perhaps the kernel, of the situation. It is that a council cannot spend more than £50 on a requisitioned dwelling without the consent of the Ministry of Health. The great Borough of Wandsworth, with a population of more than a quarter of a million and an annual income and expenditure running into millions, has to go cap in hand to the Ministry of Health if it wants to spend more than £50 on such work. These decorative repairs came to £64. There was four months of delay in corresponding and negotiations between the council and the Ministry of Health before sanction was given for this expenditure. And there are 27,000 people awaiting homes in this borough. Four months elapsed before paint was put on a wall or a wall was papered. Yet the house was ready for immediate occupation when it became vacant at the end of October. I saw this flat on Friday afternoon. It is available for accommodation, but is still unoccupied—more than five months delay while so many people are living in misery.
The third instance is that of a large double-fronted house at 41, Tierney Road and was requisitioned in May, 1948. After continuous occupation for years, a family walked out when the council requisitioned the house. Instead of putting the house at the disposal of people in desperate need, the council decided to divide it into three flats. There was eight months of negotiation and correspondence between the council and the Ministry before a scheme of conversion was approved. The work of converting the house is still going on. I saw this place also on Friday afternoon. It will be several months before the house is occupied. The rent is going on all the time,

2997
and it cannot be less than £200 or £250 a year. So this house will be out of occupation for 12 months or more after being occupied continuously for 50 years; and out of that 12 months, eight months were occupied with these ridiculous negotiations between the council and the Ministry. During that time homeless people were passing the house and were writing to me about it.
The fourth and last example is 44, Gleneldon Road. These are all roads in Streatham only 15 minutes by road or rail from this House. Streatham was one of the most severely bombed areas of London. This small densely populated area received no fewer than 44 flying bombs in 1944 and more on its borders. Here is the report of the Wandsworth housing manager written a few days ago. He said that the house was previously let to a family which occupied the whole house from 15th January, 1945 to 28th June, 1948. On the premises becoming vacant, an immediate inspection was made and owing to the size of the accommodation it was recommended for conversion into two flats and passed to the borough architect on 6th July, 1948. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give his attention to this? Details of the proposed conversions were submitted by the borough architect on 3rd January, 1949, to the Minister of Health. The house was vacated on 28th June. It was not until 3rd January that any scheme at all was put forward. The Ministry of Health considered that a more economical scheme of adaptation only should be adopted, excluding the greater part of the works of conversion. Specifications for the amended scheme are in course of preparation and will be submitted to the Ministry shortly. In short, a house vacated on 28th June, 1948, is still empty tonight, or rather this morning, 14th April. No work has commenced, and no plans have been approved.
These dreadful cases of delay have all occurred in the last year when labour and materials have been available. They are due to unwarrantable delay by the borough council and to the financial control of the Ministry of Health, conducted in a leisurely fashion, entirely out of keeping with the times in which we live. It has to be remembered that the rent is being paid all the time, and greater sums are being wasted in that way than
2998
would be saved on checking and pruning repairs. Great waste is going on as a result of this ridiculous financial control. I am more concerned about the health and wellbeing of the people than in saving a few pounds per house after months of delay. Every public health regulation is being broken daily in my constituency through overcrowding with all the other troubles which flow from such conditions. If the situation is not remedied, the people will sweep those responsible from office, and that will be a well-deserved fate.
12.7 a.m.
Mr. Skeffington: I do not want to be as critical as the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) has just been, but I should like to say that I am concerned about the delays in repair to requisitioned property in my own borough of Lewisham. I consider that that borough has done a good job in the post-war circumstances so far as housing is concerned. We had no claim to be considered as a competent housing authority; no land was purchased for re-building, before the end of the war as requested, and there was no real housing department: we had no architect. It was many years since the borough had taken a direct part in any house-building, though there were some appalling buildings, some more than 100 years old. But we have been able to re-house eight thousand families and that, I think, is not a bad record.
Nevertheless, one is continually having one's notice drawn to properties which have been requisitioned and not used, and this is all the more galling to people needing accommodation so badly, who see these houses daily. This gives rise to the wildest rumours. Recently, for example, it was stated that there were "hundreds" of such premises in the borough which were remaining empty for two years; but, on investigation, of course, this was found to be nothing like the truth of the position. But if there is only a very small number remaining empty for a few months, the position should be brought to the notice of the Minister and remedied at once.
There are, I think, two categories; there is the case where houses become vacant after they have been occupied for a period as a requisitioned property. This is the type of case quoted by the

2999
hon. Member for Streatham. I have two such examples before me now. One became vacant on 22nd November, and another on 16th December, and when I complained to the local authority, I was told: "Well, these repairs are reckoned to cost more than £50, and therefore, we must get the permission of the Ministry." Furthermore, the Ministry insisted that the work should go out to competitive tender. Really we just cannot wait for the long-winded procedure. I know it is public money that is being used, but these local authorities are great public concerns, and surely they should be given a little more discretion. If there was thought to be some error, surely they could be subject to a surcharge. A surcharge could be levied if it was thought the local authority had really done something not in order. In any case, surely competitive tender is not necessary for these small amounts.
The second category is that where repairs have to be done when the premises are first requisitioned. I have one example requisitioned last July and still not available. I do beg the Minister, if he can, to give us some encouragement tonight by saying that the whole system of authorisations will be looked at and that these large local authorities will be given a little more discretion financially than has been given to them in the past. After all, the great boroughs of Wandsworth and Lewisham collect and disburse millions of pounds every year. Surely they could be trusted to do the job without these cumbrous checks.
12.10 p.m.
Mr. Linstead: I want to endorse very warmly the plea about housing conditions in the borough of Wandsworth, which the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) has put to the House. It is no credit to the present Administration that four years after the war came to an end, we still have in this borough a housing list as long as the list at the end of the war. Something like 25,000 people are still requiring to be re-housed and I can endorse from experience in my part of the borough, the great annoyance and discouragement which is felt by the people there when they find empty houses not being converted and, if converted, still standing
3000
empty for weeks and sometimes months, when people know that there are long lists of applicants waiting for homes.
The point I should like to mention to the Parliamentary Secretary in particular is the difficulty caused by the overlapping of activities as between the L.C.C. and the boroughs. That is particularly bad in Putney where there is open land and competition between the L.C.C. and the borough for the use of that land. There seems to be a lack of co-ordination and where schemes are started—sometimes by the county and sometimes by the borough—they seem to be too large for the resources available. They are started and abandoned, or started and slowed up and then, when they are completed by the County Council, people are brought in from other parts of London so that the case of the local inhabitants is by no means assisted. In fact, there is a great deal of friction because they find their own list in the borough as long as ever and because the overriding authority of the County Council is used to take what they regard as their own land and use it for people from outside their own borders. I think that question of co-ordination between the county and the borough is a problem which should really receive the attention of the Minister.
12.13 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I appreciate the concern of hon. Members in all parts of the House on the question of ensuring as speedily as possible the provision of accommodation for the very many people in their constituencies and elsewhere who are urgently needing housing accommodation. Tonight I will try first to deal specifically with the points raised by the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) in connection with requisitioned property that requires repair and maintenance, where licensees have already been in occupation and where there has been a change of licensee, and he is very properly complaining of delays which have occurred. In the specific case which the hon. Member for Streatham has raised and which he raised in Questions in the House, I would not attempt to defend the delay which occurred. It is the case of a particular property which the hon. Member raised; it was quite extraordinary and I hope to suggest a way

3001
in which to ensure that it will not occur again.
I should like to put this matter in its proper setting. In fact, local authorities hold under requisition some 90,000 properties and very many of those are held here in London. When maintenance and repair work must be carried out, a convenient time to do it is when there is a change of licensee. If the amount of work to be carried out is under the value of £50, no application to the Ministry of Health will need to be made, although the cost is to be met out of Exchequer funds. If the cost is to run out at anything more than £50, the procedure in the past—and it will continue to be so in the future—was that an application had to be made to the Ministry for approval. The reason for delay in the particular case that has been raised, is that an estimate was submitted to the Ministry without any competitive tender having been obtained. In this particular case the direct labour scheme was suggested and it has been the practice of the Ministry, in its proper desire, I should have thought, to safeguard Exchequer funds, to require a competitive tender to be put forward.
In the normal case this type of problem does not cause any difficulty. We find that on the average, roughly about 100 cases of this kind are submitted each week to the Ministry and they are dealt with within a fortnight. I do not think there can be any complaint about that. But I agree that where an authority, such as Wandsworth, has its own direct labour force and where the estimate is under £100, it is unreasonable that a competitive tender should be asked for, and we are arranging in such cases that in future we shall not require this competitive tender so long as the case is submitted to the Ministry for the ordinary reasonable checking of the estimate. After all, this is national money and I should have thought that hon. Members on the other side of the House would have been anxious to see that a proper check is made on expenditure of that kind.
Mr. Linstead: Would the Parliamentary Secretary explain what is the value of the competitive tender for work being done by a local authority under the direct labour scheme?
Mr. Blenkinsop: It is to see that the cost put forward in the direct labour tender by the local authority is comparable with a tender by a builder. It has, in practice, saved a considerable sum of money. Where the sum involved is small, we are not going to insist on it in future. In the case of new requisitions, longer delays occur because much larger sums of money and different principles are involved. We must insist that there is a proper check on schemes submitted for conversion of properties which in some cases, in our view, are unsatisfactory for conversion. Often we find proposals are put forward that would involve large sums of money without any proper guarantee that the dwellings will be of real value for housing purposes over a reasonable period of time. In that type of case it is inevitable that there will be some delays to ensure that the money spent for that purpose is properly spent. It is all too easy to waste very large sums of money indeed on conversions that do not really give us the kind of accommodation we want. I therefore urge hon. Gentlemen not to press us to do, without a proper check, this type of conversion, where I suggest it is essential we should have this proper check.
It is the case that where new conversions and new requisitioning do not require expenditure of more than £250 in repairs to make them fit for occupation, no application need be made to the Ministry. I should have thought that was a reasonable limit under which quite valuable minor conversions can be carried out. If we were to make wider provision for authorities to spend much larger sums without proper check and examination, I am sure that the hon. Member for Streatham would be the first to complain about extravagance and waste.
Sir D. Robertson: No one is more conscious of the need to protect the public purse than I am, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what I said—the cases I gave about human misery. I have files of most agonising letters. Savings of sixpences and pence cannot be set against them.
Mr. Skeffington: Why cannot the hon. Gentleman deal with the question of surcharge of authorities? That is done by other Government Departments. Why

3003
cannot the method be used in these cases?
Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not think that this is a suitable field for surcharge. Authorities should know where they stand. Where a small sum up to £250 is involved in the case of new requisitioning for repairs, required before occupation, no application need be made by authorities to the Ministry; but surely it is reasonable to insist that where larger sums are involved, proper application should be made and a proper check should be instituted to ensure that the best possible use is made of the sums involved.
3004
I assure hon. Members that we are most anxious to assist in every way we can. I believe that the change I have mentioned, which has been notified to the Wandsworth Council, will help in securing a speedier handling of the problems of repair and maintenance as they arise. I insist that the Ministry, far from being dilatory, is dealing with the general run of problems at a reasonable and efficient rate.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.

  RADIO RECEPTION, EASTBOURNE DISTRICT
  RADIO RECEPTION, EASTBOURNE DISTRICT
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)
NYASALAND
  Trade Unionism
  Trade Unionism
  Transport Services
  Transport Services
ROYAL NAVY
  Civilian Workers, Manadon
  Civilian Workers, Manadon
  Dockyards
  Dockyards
  Engine Room Artificers (Promotion)
  Engine Room Artificers (Promotion)
  Warrant Engineer Examinations
  Warrant Engineer Examinations
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  >Propyl-thioracil Supplies
  >Propyl-thioracil Supplies
  Legal Actions
  Legal Actions
  Estates (Distribution)
  Estates (Distribution)
  CHICK FOOD
  CHICK FOOD
  WAR GRAVES, ITALY (RELATIVES' VISITS)
  WAR GRAVES, ITALY (RELATIVES' VISITS)
  ANTHRACITE PRICES
  ANTHRACITE PRICES
CIVIL AVIATION
  Shoreham Aerodrome
  Shoreham Aerodrome
  Brookside Flying Group
  Brookside Flying Group
  INCOME TAX CLAIMS (TIME LIMITS)
  INCOME TAX CLAIMS (TIME LIMITS)
  TRANSJORDAN (DEVELOPMENT LOAN)
  TRANSJORDAN (DEVELOPMENT LOAN)
  GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTRY ARCHIVES
  GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTRY ARCHIVES
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
  Sir Gordon Macdonald. K.C.M.G., having been created Baron Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, of Gwaenysgor in the County of Flint—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  The Lord Shaughnessy—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.41 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day, and of passing the Bill through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PROPOSED MERGER OF B.O.A.C. AND B.S.A.A.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what measures have been taken, or are being taken, to give effect to the proposed amalgamation of B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C. in anticipation of the passing of an Act of Parliament to authorise such amalgamation; and how far will such measures have to be reversed or modified if legislation is not passed?]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, as the noble Viscount is aware, Mr. Booth has been appointed to the Board of
1168
B.O.A.C. while continuing to hold the office of Chairman of B.S.A.A. Similarly, Mr. Whitney Straight has been appointed to the Board of B.S.A.A. The pooling of aircraft on the North Atlantic routes, caused by the withdrawal of the Tudors and initiated before amalgamation was proposed, has been continued. A great deal of preliminary planning is, of course, necessary before the proposed amalgamation can take effect, and this is now in progress. As regards the second part of the question, the answer as it emerges from what I have just said, is that no irrevocable steps have been or are being taken. If, however, legislation were not to be passed, the integration of operations now planned would have to be reversed, with consequent loss of the advantages to which I referred in my statement in this House on March 15.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister what exactly he means by "no irrevocable steps"? I presume that all steps are revocable unless you become hopelessly and irrevocably landed in a bog. What I would ask the Minister specifically is this: Is he making any changes in the administration or in the organisation of B.S.A.A. which are not within his powers under the existing Act and, if so, under what authority is that being done?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the answer, naturally enough, is in the negative. I am adhering strictly to the law. We are endeavouring to steer between the Scylla of impropriety and the Charybdis of procrastination, and we are succeeding.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: A very characteristically Labour attitude!

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CLYDE NAVIGATION (SUPERANNUATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ALFORD GAS ORDER, 1949
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

KIRKCALDY GAS ORDER, 1949
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

MORECAMBE AND HEYSHAM GAS ORDER, 1949
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COLONIAL POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON rose to call attention to the policy of the Colonial Office and the administration of Colonies and Protected and Mandated Territories; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, a few weeks ago we had in this House a debate on Defence which attracted a good deal of attention, and the theme running through nearly every speech was the need for an overall plan and for action conforming to that plan. In Colonial affairs the need for an overall plan and policy is equally plain, and therefore at the outset I would enunciate the principles which I think (and I believe most members of the House will agree with me) should inspire the policy and govern the plan.
I would put five principles. The first is that we are trustees, but we are trustees for all and not for a section or a minority, and we must discharge our trust to all our beneficiaries. The second principle is that the greatest need of all the people for whom we are trustees is improved health and well-being, and the true liberty of the individual to enjoy them. Health and
1170
well-being, and indeed all social services, depend on sound economic conditions and development. My third principle is that economic and social progress depend on co-operation between the European and the native populations—what has so well been called "The harmony of the black and white keys." That, my Lords, is the law fundamental. The fourth principle is that the ultimate goal is self-government. But this evolution will not follow any sealed pattern and may be infinitely varied. My fifth and last principle is linked with the one I have just stated, and it is that the prerequisite of self-government is a capacity to govern. Security, law and order are the guarantees of freedom. A country can have so-called "independence" but its citizens may have no real freedom.
For the policy and the discharge of our trust the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament, but we in both Houses of Parliament all share in that responsibility. It is our duty to see that the policy is wise and right, and that the trust is administered in the best interests of all the beneficiaries. Let us see how far the Government have a policy in line with those principles, and how they are carrying it out. The principle of trusteeship is nothing new. It was the practice long before the dogma was formulated in terms. It was the natural way by which our administrators on the spot did their jobs—and how fortunate we have been through the generations in the natural genius, sympathy and aptitude of those men on the spot! It was not only the men at the top, like Lord Lugard, but the district officers everywhere.
If I take Africa as an example to-day and devote most of my speech to it, it is not because it differs in essentials, and certainly not in principles, but rather because it contains the largest and most typical examples. The system of indirect rule which Lord Lugard evolved, used and developed native institutions, local traditions, local loyalties, but always so that, wisely led and guided, they would safeguard and foster the welfare of all the people. Greatly varied as are the languages, customs and characteristics of African tribes and peoples, they have two things in common. The African Colonies are predominantly agricultural, and they are all lands of millions of small farmers. Not only do these men and women form the vast majority of the people, but upon

1171
them depends the whole life of their countries. They keep themselves; they feed the towns; they produce the exports which, while raising their own standard of living, have created and to-day maintain by far the greater part of the commerce of Africa and pay for its imports. I well remember, when during the war I went out to West Africa, Lord Woolton saying to me that the one thing above all others he did not want to have to reduce was the fat ration. And he added "It depends upon what you can do in West Africa whether we can keep it or not." My Lords, it did not depend upon me; it depended upon millions of men and women in forest and bush who produced the ground-nuts, the palm oil and the palm kernels. They beat all records; they kept our fat ration going—and they, these millions of small people, are the people for whom we are trustees.
The greatest needs, as the greatest interest, of the mass of the people—whom to-day I believe we call "the common man"—are economic prosperity, health and practical education. These three go together and are interdependent. How can we discharge our trust to the common man and give him these? We can help him to produce the best types in agriculture; we can see that he gets a fair price for what he sells, and we can make him independent of the moneylender. On these depend his health and his standard of living. His interest is our interest too. Economic sufficiency and security in Europe and America depend on the development of our Colonial territories and those of other Colonial Powers. Our needs are mutual, our partnership reciprocal; and the development of that partnership calls for the encouragement of the ablest European and American brains and capital.
I wish I could see more evidence that the Government are putting these first things first; that they are advancing on the right lines, and have a plan in accordance with those principles. We have lately debated in this House the unhappy example of the Gold Coast immigration directive. I am not going to discuss that unhappy document to-day, beyond saying that what was so wrong in it was the apparent assumption of conflict of interest between the European and the African. The capital, experience
1172
and brains of the ablest firms are needed. And I say this without fear of contradiction—or, at any rate, informed contradiction. The best firms all want to train and to give every opportunity to the Africans. They know that that is not only the right policy, but that it is good business. I speak now from a fairly long practical experience, and all the best developments that I have seen have been on those lines.
I could give countless examples but I will just take a few almost at random. Years ago, when we had to develop diamonds in Sierra Leone (I think I have given this particular example before to the House) what did we do? We found the ablest and most experienced firm we could—Chester Beatty and his Selection Trust. We gave them a monopoly (shocking!) but on very strict terms, which were willingly conceded. The result was the fullest development, great success, model employers, ideal villages built for the Africans, and revenue to the Colony—a small Colony be it remembered—which in one year when I was back in West Africa amounted to £350,000. Take Colonial timber. When we had introduced a preference on Colonial timber—a preference which I am afraid His Majesty's Government are doing their best to abandon or, at any rate it looks, unhappily, as if they were letting it slip away—we wanted to combine the knowledge of forests which local Governments possessed with the practical experience of businesses in this country. The moment they were approached, all the great timber firms in this country agreed to take forest officers from the Colonies. They taught them the markets, and they learned from the forest officers which timber could be produced in the Colonies. The result was that, taking a typical year or two which followed, the imports into this country of Colonial timbers went up 200 to 300 per cent.
Again, in regard to this matter of timber, and much more recently, there was the case of plywood in Nigeria. How was that developed? A great firm sent out the ablest expert in Europe to make a detailed study on the spot. At great expense, a factory was established which is now producing first-rate plywood—and developing the great resources in that country—from indifferent timber which would not otherwise have been used. And the

1173
factory is giving admirable employment to the native African. Similar things have been accomplished with sisal in Kenya. Without the development of sisal, we and the Americans would have found ourselves faced with the greatest difficulty in the war. How was that development carried out? By soil research on the spot, but, above all, by the co-operation of the ropemakers in this country and the use of their resources. They put their money, their best brains and their research equipment into the business. One result was that a far greater proportion of the plant was able to be used, with great advantage to everyone concerned.
Next, take cotton in Uganda. The Empire Cotton Growing Corporation was an organisation in which from the start the textile industry of this country was deeply interested. Now take just one more example—bauxite in the Gold Coast. When that mineral was greatly needed in the war I picked out the ablest mining engineer I could find in West Africa, and he was put in charge of the whole undertaking. He not only developed it with the greatest technical engineering skill, but immediately built villages for his African workers and instituted bulk purchase. In this case it was the right sort of bulk purchase, and using that method he bought foodstuffs for his workers. I am in favour of bulk purchase of that sort, because the man in question knew what he was doing—which is more than can be said for a good many other bulk purchasers. The foodstuffs which he bought in this way were sold to the natives at cost.
I could go on for a considerable time in this strain. Any one of your Lordships who has had experience of Colonial matters in practice, and has not merely studied them in picture books, could multiply these examples. Certainly, all the West African war effort and achievement—in which I had some share—was on these lines. The good firm will always work on these lines. They have long-term investments and plans. They know that the real partnership pays. The slick, quick exploiter should be resolutely excluded. No one wants him. But, my Lords, exploitation is not the monopoly of the European—or even of the Syrian. The African himself can be the worst; no one who knows Africa will deny that. The African has a great sense of family responsibility—he is wonderful to his
1174
family—but he can be a shocking exploiter outside his family circle. Let me take an example—that of money-lending. In whose hands is that business? It is always in the hands of the Africans. Take cocoa in the Gold Coast. The Minister of State, if he has visited the Gold Coast, must know that every little cocoa farmer is burdened, ground down, by debt to an African moneylender. He does not know what he owes; principal is added to interest, or interest is added to principal, and what the farmer gets is what is left. What are the Government doing about this? It is an evil which is nearly as bad as disease—as bad as swollen shoot, shall we say? The right way to deal with this is to make money-lending on the crop illegal, and at the same time to establish a co-operative credit system which will give to the farmer the credit he needs.
LORD WINSTER: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord, I know, inherited in Cyprus a work which I set on foot fifteen years or so ago, and I am glad that he has intervened. In Cyprus we found exactly the same thing. When I went out into that country I found that every wretched little peasant farmer was labouring under a load of debt. I said: "This is no case for lawyers' assessments; what we have to do is to make moneylending illegal." I then directed that the real debt on these farms should be ascertained, that it should be paid off over a period of twenty or thirty years, and that it should be reduced if it was more than the farmer could stand. Moneylending on crops or estates was made illegal. Next, we set the Co-operative Credit Organisation on foot and I think the noble Lord, Lord Winster, would tell your Lordships that he found it operating successfully when he became Governor of Cyprus. What are the Government doing about moneylending in the Gold Coast?
Where sound economic development has been fostered by Europeans, native agriculture, as well as employment and opportunity, have increased. Take the example of the Dutch Indies where, I suppose, there was a greater application of science to agriculture of all kinds than in any Colonial territory in the world. It was most remarkable. Those people were our most formidable competitors. Some of their production was on great

1175
estates; but a great, and probably predominant, amount was due to the production of the small man—as is the case in Africa. And the standard of native agriculture, native health and native nutrition in Java, with its vast population, was, I believe, higher relatively than in almost any Colonial territory in the world. I have spoken from my own experience, but I would cite two authorities which may perhaps appeal more to the Government. The first is Aggrey, the most practical African visionary of modern times. His watchword, as I have already mentioned in this House, emblazoned on the shield of Achimota College, which he inspired, was always "The harmony of the black and white keys."
My second authority is more recent. May I quote it?
"How can we develop great areas and lift the standard of life of the population except by business-like schemes which have a real commercial object? The two things go together, and we shall not accomplish one object without accomplishing the other. … It is because the scheme is a thoroughly hard-headed and not philanthropic proposition that it will bring real and permanent benefit to the African population. … I say it once again briefly. There is no real alternative at all except stagnation and ever-growing malnutrition."
Your Lordships may be interested to hear that the authority I have just quoted is Mr. Strachey, the Minister of Food. That, at any rate, should carry conviction!
Incidentally, before I pass to the next feature of the trust, I must deplore the obvious lack of co-ordination between Departments. Vast sums have been spent by the Ministry of Food on railway material for ground-nuts in Tanganyika. At the same time the Colonial Office have failed to improve the permanent way in Nigeria and buy enough locomotives and rolling stock to shift the hundreds of thousands of tons of ground-nuts lying on the ground. In a good season the Emirates of Northern Nigeria produce over 300,000 tons for export. To that must be added another 30,000 to 50,000 tons that come from the French Niger Province. The crop is harvested between October and December, and the world badly needs these supplies. The year's crop is normally shifted in six months—nine months at the outside. During the war, with all its difficulties, we greatly increased production and managed on that railway to shift
1176
not only that production but some hundreds of thousands of tons of additional war traffic as well. We knew that new locomotives and wagons would be needed after the war, and the Colonial Office had those requirements in detail before the war was over. I want to know what they have done about it.
To-day, nearly four years after the war, not only is the whole of last year's crop of ground-nuts, 300,000 tons or more, stacked in dumps at the railhead at Kano but I have just read that 44,000 tons of the crop of the year before have also not been shifted. The Colonial Office said it was all right. I do not know why they have taken that view, when we are told that the world is crying out for groundnuts. But the Colonial Office said it was all right, because ground-nuts will keep. I have never believed that. Anyway, that is not a very good encouragement to small farmers in the Emirates to go on producing. The Colonial Office told us not to worry about it, because the groundnuts would keep. We know that they are wrong. Africa is a land of pests, and beetles have now attacked the nuts. The last report I read said that 17,000 tons are known to be infested. I suspect that that is a modest estimate. Now the Government are fighting a costly, and apparently losing, battle against the beetle. What planning! What co-ordination!
I pass to the other aspect of the trust—namely, the constitutional. In the evolution towards self-government we must, equally, discharge our trust to these millions of small men. The test must always be what form of system best serves their welfare and represents their interests. In the interim development, and probably in the ultimate goal, the evolution will follow varied patterns. What suits a large and developed municipality like Accra or Lagos, would be wholly unsuited to the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast, or the Eastern Province of Nigeria, or the Emirates of the North. Nor is there any real pervading sense of national unity in these territories. Anyone who has been there knows that. There is everywhere a deep sense of personal loyalty to the King, but the local loyalties are for the most part very local—to the Tribe, the Chief, or at most a local group or confederation.
If I may, I will give one more personal memory, because I think personal

1177
experience is so much more convincing than theory. Indeed, all my practical faith as a Colonial administrator I have tried to build up on practical experience, coupled with a great faith in the people for whom we are trustees. Fifteen years ago or more, when I was at the Colonial Office, we restored the Confederation of Ashanti, which had been dissipated after the defeat of King Prempeh. Ten years later, when I was in Africa as Resident Minister, I met the Asantehene. He said to me, "You will always be remembered in Ashanti. You gave us back our Federation." I said to him, "Has it made the Ashanti peoples a nation?" His answer was, "To-day almost, to-morrow quite." It had taken all that time, more than ten years, to re-establish even a local unity. The wisest administrators have always built on the best of local customs, local traditions and local loyalties. Under that wise guidance and direction, the Chiefs have retained the traditional loyalty by responsible service to their people, so that increasingly the native Administrations are the instruments of finance and government responsive to the best interests of the people.
Nor, indeed, is there any reason why these varied systems should not operate in different parts of the same Colony and combine in an effective federal organisation, such as that which the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, recently achieved in Nigeria and which began to work so well from the start. I know that there are local elements, small in number and in real influence, who agitate for a system by which they would in effect take control of the great and largely inarticulate majority. To abdicate our trust to such a minority would be the grossest breach of trust. Moreover, the first prerequisite of self-government is the capacity to govern. To-day, in a world where Communists, integrated and directed to a single purpose, seek everywhere to foment and promote suspicion and disorder, to prevent economic recovery and to undermine law and order, the capacity to govern is all-important. Without that, without effective government, there can be no freedom for the individual. All suffer, but the common man suffers most.
The examples are all around us, plain to see—the contrast between wise advance
1178
and weak and foolish scuttle. On the one hand we have Ceylon, where long tradition and experience has bred a capacity for the responsible and democratic government of a mixed community, finding an outstanding example in its wise and greatly respected Prime Minister. That is one great example of wise advance at the right time. On the other hand, Burma is a tragic example of premature abdication, leading to chaos, bloodshed and ruin. The security which depends on government is not merely a local interest. Like defence and economic security, physical security is a universal interest in what is left of a free world.
That leads me to repeat the questions which I put in the Defence debate about the Colonial defence forces, and about the West African troops in particular. These are important from two points of view—namely, the local and the general. Locally, we know from the Communist pattern and plan, and from many examples in Malaya and elsewhere, that the Communist fifth column is organised to foment and stir up trouble whenever it has an opportunity. We should surely have learnt by now that this kind of trouble must not only be suppressed promptly when it occurs but should be anticipated and prevented. Adequate police and defence forces are necessary for this. But the contribution which the Colonial troops can make to our overall plan of defence in the Commonwealth and Empire is far greater than that. The war record of the African troops, East and West, is a great and honourable record. Not only were they able to undertake the defence of all those territories (and remember that in 1942, when we did not knew which way the Vichy French territories would go, we had to keep a large Army maintained ready for action) but they played a great part in offensive campaigns, first in Abyssinia and then in Burma. Experience proved that they were able to provide not only the fighting head but also the maintenance "tail"; they proved good mechanics as well as good fighters.
Africans, too, served as artificers and groundsmen in the Royal Air Force, and there were thousands—I think tens of thousands—in Pioneer units on different fronts. These formations were

1179
built on the old East and West African Regiments, with their proud traditions. Tens of thousands of these men have returned to their homes and been demobilised. They can be a great source of strength. I am sure many of them would be keen to serve again, and other new recruits would be ready to follow their example. And let it be remembered that these men were all volunteers. Of the 200,000 men recruited in West Africa, every one was a volunteer. I asked in the Defence debate what was being done to recruit these men in active formations and in reserves. I did not then receive an answer, but I was promised that I would have one later. I ask for that answer to-day.
I want to add a brief word about Malaya. In doing so I would wish to pay a sincere tribute to the troops and police in the arduous campaign which they are undertaking; and not only to them but to the planters and their families for the fortitude with which they are carrying on in a situation which we can barely imagine, of danger from day to day and night to night. I believe that slow but steady progress is being made in the suppression of the Communist insurgents. All the Malays and most of the Chinese want this. But active co-operation, particularly among the Chinese, is deterred by fear of the future. They have seen the spread of Communism in China, and they have seen the chaos in Burma. I am sure the Government have no intention of repeating the Burma fiasco in Malaya; but I feel sure that the position would be helped, and confidence and co - operation strengthened, by a firm authoritative declaration by the Government that Great Britain will not only restore order in Malaya but will maintain law and order and liberty in that country once order has been restored. That is one certainty which I feel would help.
The other certainty which is required is finance. The people of Malaya are entitled to fair treatment in compensation for war damage, and in the cost of the campaign which is now being waged. Whatever their intentions, the Government statements have been, to say the least of it, equivocal. I am afraid that such action as they have taken has been niggardly. The Minister of State suggested some months ago that a sub-
1180
stantial contribution would be forthcoming from Japanese reparations. I am very sceptical about reparations, both in time and amount; and Malaya is entitled to certainty. Months ago, I proposed that if the Government believed in these reparations they should underwrite them and make a grant to the people of Malaya, recouping themselves when the reparations materialised. It was three or four months ago that I made that proposal, and the Minister of State was good enough to say that it would be carefully considered by the appropriate Departments. I hope that that period of consideration is now at an end, and that the noble Earl will give me an answer to-day.
In conclusion, I would emphasise once again the need for a sound policy, and for plans based on that policy and the principles which should inspire and govern it. I have tested by those principles action—or inaction—in Colonial administration over a wide field, economic, social, constitutional and defence. I hope and believe that the Government accept those principles. From what I have heard in many debates in this House, I do not believe that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would dissent from any of them. But in Colonial affairs, as in defence, while the Government accept the principles and the need for an overall plan which conforms, they give the impression, here and in the Colonial Empire, that they do not know where they are going; that events are their masters, and not they the masters of events. That is not just my impression. I do not know whether your Lordships have read some intensely interesting articles on Africa which have been appearing in the Manchester Guardian. I do not remember reading anywhere more penetrating articles. The editor and author would add to our debt if those articles could be republished in pamphlet form. Certainly the Manchester Guardian is not an unfriendly critic. I hope that I too have not been unfair; and I think I have been completely factual. In those articles the writer says this:
"One brings away an uneasy feeling that events are not so much moving, as slipping and slithering."
Slipping and slithering is no way to discharge our great Imperial trust. I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I intend to follow the example of the noble Viscount who has just sat down and confine my remarks, in the main, to Africa and entirely to what is, I hope, some contribution to an analysis of Colonial policy as I see it. I confine my remarks to Africa, not only because it is the territory with which I am familiar, but because I believe that in Africa can be found sufficient examples of what is happening in other parts of the Colonial Empire, notably in the Far East. In the course of the last two months, two debates on the Gold Coast have been held in your Lordships' House. I do not wish to raise that subject again, except to say that the second of those two debates—the noble Earl who, I understand, is to reply to-day was away at the time—sought to show precisely what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said in the concluding remarks of his speech: that the Government appeared to be slipping; that events were taking charge, and that the Government were following events instead of leading.
If your Lordships consider our Colonial policy in Africa as a whole, I think you cannot fail to be struck by the extraordinary antitheses there, which make one wonder whether there is a plan or a policy behind the whole. Let me take one or two examples. It has been the avowed policy, not only of His Majesty's present Government but of all Governments in the past, so to administer all the Colonies as to have firmly in mind the principle of trusteeship which Lord Swinton rightly said was invented and thought out by us and our administrators long before it became an accepted international doctrine. A particular aspect was to try and encourage development of Africa by Africans, rather than to follow the line of what in other countries is called the development of "Colonies d'exploitation." In other words, we moved away from the Nineteenth Century conception of what might be called the plantation system of development of Colonies, towards a system of development which we see at its best, and have for years seen at its best, in Nigeria and the Gold Coast, where the intense and improving native agricultural production is directed by our advisers and stimulated by modern scientific discovery contributed by our people.
1182
While this policy is being pursued, another policy is being followed to the exaggerated extent (the Gold Coast Immigration Ordinance is an example) of apparently now trying to stop or limit to the maximum degree the use of white and foreign advisers. Yet at the same time the opposite course is being followed in East Africa, where white settlement is being encouraged. We see in East Africa, in the Overseas Food Corporation, an attempt to develop Africa entirely on the Nineteenth Century plantation model with, I suggest, hitherto very indifferent results. That provides a startling contrast, not only with what is being done but with what is being said and advocated in West Africa.
Take, as a second example, the particular products of Eastern Africa. We are trying—again without any visible success at present—to grow ground-nuts. The success is so small that the number of tons of ground-nuts really bear no relation—certainly up to date; they may do hereafter—to the money being spent and the effort being made. We find in East Africa a tremendous effort and expenditure to produce ground-nuts, which have not been produced, and little or no effort of the same sort to produce more ground-nuts in West: Africa where they have been grown, where we know they can be grown and where they are lying at railheads—as the noble Viscount has said, and as all your Lordships know—rotting and deteriorating. That seems to me scarcely consistent. Again, in the East African field the Government have advocated and produced a scheme—preliminary, I hope—for closer union or closer administrative contact between the territories of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. I hope it is embryonic, and only a first step to a closer and more satisfactory development than has hitherto been possible.
On the other hand, in what is called Central Africa, (which is really South-Eastern Africa) considerable efforts are being devoted by the members of His Majesty's Government to prevent a similar closer union. Proposals have been made and have found no sympathetic response. Indeed, there has been a certain amount of hostility in what I believe to be official quarters. I am referring, of course, to the proposed closer union between Northern Rhodesia, Southern

1183
Rhodesia and Nyasaland. We understand that the Secretary of State is at the present moment in those parts, and we hope that this journey will be more fruitful than some of his incursions into that problem have been in the last two years. But there are the antitheses in what is being done in North-East Africa and in what is being done in South-East Africa.
Take another example. The Immigration Ordinance of the Gold Coast, and other Ordinances already in force in Nigeria and other West African Colonies, are trying to restrict the inflow of all European professional, clerical and managerial classes, for fear they should become settlers. I think that matter was fully ventilated during the debate on the Gold Coast. I think it is a great misconception to treat as settlers people who go out on contract to work there for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. They are really an entirely different category of person. But there is the Immigration Ordinance, and by its wording it seeks to restrict the entry of these people into the country. In Kenya, a scheme, sponsored by the Government, in my opinion rightly and no doubt with the full support of the Secretary of State, is promoting the immigration of white settlers and farmers into the country. It seems to me very inconsistent with what is happening on the West Coast.
Now, how are all these curious antitheses to be explained? For they go further than that. We see on the one hand how, in our response to the invitation of our American friends in connection with the so-called Marshall Aid Plan, we have undertaken to develop the Colonial territories of Africa as a direct contribution to the rehabilitation of Europe. The French have done likewise. We must do so. We in Europe cannot be self-supporting in many materials without continuing development of that sort. At the same time, obstacles are being put in the way in West Africa, such as the preventing of persons from going there and carrying out precisely the sort of developments that we are pledged to carry out. I do not wish to quote particular cases, but I have examples of firms who have asked for permission to introduce personnel into the West Africa Colonies, which permission
1184
has been refused. If the noble Earl would like to have particulars of those cases, I should be glad to supply them.
We are also pledged in the Atlantic Pact, morally if not specifically, to place all our resources at the disposal of our friends in that Pact for the defence of the West against aggression. An essential and intrinsic part of that defence must be not only Africa and African resources, but African man-power, and the African military man-power to which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has so rightly referred. How can that be done when at the same time certain elements in West Africa are being deliberately encouraged to feel that within a few years they will have such a form of local or absolute self-government as will make our intervention both unnecessary and undesirable and make it impossible for us to rely upon the military resources which they have placed at our disposal in the past, and which we need to-day for the purposes of carrying out our own obligations under the Atlantic Pact? How can we follow a policy which is designed to give people such absolute independence of the Commonwealth of which we are members as will enable them to contract out of the military obligations that we have assumed, while at the same time we assume obligations for the implementation of which we rely upon their support? I merely quote these matters as examples; they could be repeated ad nauseam.
I must turn to what seems almost an empiric attitude on Colonial administration, which does a thing in a Colony irrespective of the conditions obtaining in that Colony. Your Lordships have debated, and have frequently referred to, the Constitutions of certain Colonial territories; and the Government have—and in my view rightly—taken credit where they have directly contributed to the liberalisation of those Constitutions. I have no word to say against that and I know it has the full support of every noble Lord on these Benches. In 1946, the Gold Coast Constitution was amended to provide for an unofficial majority. In 1947, the new Nigerian Constitution was made, and made workable by the efforts of our noble friend—who unfortunately is absent to-day—Lord Milverton. The previous Gold Coast Constitution had lasted for twenty years before it was amended in 1946. When that modification was intro-

1185
duced. the Government rightly said that they had done this proprio motu, and not as a result of any agitation or pressure put either on local authorities or on the Government in this country. That was absolutely correct in fact and correct in policy.
Now, I admit that times move more quickly, and most of us would probably have felt that a Constitution introduced in 1946 could not possibly have been expected to last for another twenty years. The time scale has been telescoped in the last decade, so that what was a twenty-years' span to the last generation is equivalent to perhaps a five-or ten-years' span to-day. But I do not see what can be the justification in 1948 for beginning again a revision of the Gold Coast Constitution—a Constitution introduced only so recently as two years ago and then very substantially liberalised——unless that justification, as it lies in the mind of the Government, is agitation and rebellion—because that is what the Accra riots were. If that were the justification, it is not one which your Lordships will easily condone. But that is not a solitary example. The Nigerian Constitution introduced as lately as 1947 is now apparently also to be the subject of revision, for in a statement which appeared on April 6, it was announced that the Government of Nigeria had approved the recommendation of the Select Committee of the Nigerian Legislative Council to review the present Constitution; that their recommendation had been unanimously accepted by the Legislative Council, and that steps are being taken, in accordance with the procedure of the Select Committee, to start the review of the Constitution.
Again there, within two years of a Constitution having been introduced, steps are being taken to modify it; and, so far as I know, in Nigeria without at any rate any agitation or trouble parallel to what happened in the Gold Coast. If that action again is taken by the Government proprio motu, it can be susceptible of only two explanations: the first is that the Government desire to forestall or anticipate trouble by a revision of the Constitution; and the second that the Constitution which was introduced in 1947 was found to be so faulty as to require revision. The latter explanation is not one that your Lordships will care to consider. The former seems to be the more likely of the two. Thus we find
1186
no continuity, no set purpose, and even when a change is made it is upset within a short space of time by a new "good idea."
All this leads me to wonder what really is the policy of the Government, since the more I examine the details of what they are doing, the mole apprehensive I become. In the case of the Gold Coast Immigration Ordinance we had good cause to complain of the implication that Europeans are on the whole undesirable in the Gold Coast, have to be restricted and to have their movements governed; that they are unwelcome guests, and guests who ought to be asked to leave as soon as possible. I know I shall be accused by the noble Earl of exaggerating on that point; but I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to one small piece of evidence which makes me wonder whether I am in fact exaggerating. May I read two paragraphs from the speech made by the Finance Member for Nigeria, on March 12, when he was introducing the Budget for that country? He spoke about the use of foreign capital in developing the country, and said something which I will read to your Lordships:
"In some other countries requiring development, external capital is translated into domestic capital by the immigration of settlers, but it is the Government's policy here, and rightly so, that settlement of foreigners and strangers should be precluded. So, if we want external capital, as we do, let us encourage it as far as possible and not attempt to impose conditions which will tend to drive it away to other parts of Africa. I do not know of one country"—
this is a slightly disingenuous statement—
"which in normal times has imposed a restrictive capital policy and yet attracted external capital."
That is only too true. He goes on to make a statement which I hope will not be supported by the noble Earl when he comes to reply. He says:
"I am hoping that the Colonial Development Corporation recently established in Nigeria will do much in the years ahead to develop this country. The Corporation has very substantial capital behind it."
It certainly has; it has the best part of His Majesty's Treasury behind it. He goes on to say:
"It"—
that is the Corporation—
"would come within the category of foreign companies, but it is sponsored by the British

1187
Government and its declared policy is to operate for the benefit of the peoples of the Colonial Empire."
I ask the question directly: Is it, or is it not, the intention of His Majesty's Government that we British people of this country are to be considered as foreigners in our African Crown Colonies? If we are not, that statement must be disavowed immediately. If we are, we are entering upon an entirely new phase of Colonial development which requires a statement of policy from His Majesty's Government at the earliest possible moment.
We can do either one of two things. We can have the Colonial policy to which so many of our ablest and best administrators and thinkers, black, white and brown, have devoted their lives—that is, the development of these countries in a joint partnership of all concerned. I claim that we have the right to be considered a partner. We have devoted our lives, our treasure, our brains and the best years and the best generations of many families to that purpose. We went to what was formerly a Continent not inhabited by European races, and our people have now been there for two, three and sometimes more generations. By their work, by their devotion and by their efforts, they have earned the right to be treated as partners, as we have always considered that they were and as I claim most of the population of Africa also consider them. That is the line that we have hitherto followed, and that is the line that we, on this side of the House at any rate, would like to see continued, because we believe it to be both right and practicable and in the best interests of Africa.
There is an alternative. That alternative is to pursue an empirical policy which goes from incident to incident, changes its mind, adopts one policy in one place and one in another in order to seek, or purporting to seek, the best method of getting out as quickly as possible, while in the meantime our people out there are treated as foreigners in a foreign land. I conclude by saying that in my view, which is, I think, shared by a great many of your Lordships, the time has come for a reconsideration of what our policy in the Colonies should be. It may be that people in this country will find that the second of those two alterna-
1188
tives, which appears to be pursued by the Government at the present time, is right. What we are entitled to have is an expression of the views of His Majesty's Government as to what their Colonial policy is and to what it is directed. It will then be for Parliament and the people of this country to decide whether or not they agree with that policy and with the Government.

RECEPTION TO COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS
3.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene for a moment to make a special announcement which I am sure will be interesting to your Lordships? My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and Mr. Speaker have been kind enough to agree to act as joint hosts at a reception at the Speaker's House on Tuesday, April 26, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., to which all Members of both Houses of Parliament are invited, and at which His Majesty's Government very much hope that all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and their principal ministerial advisers attending the Conference will be present. Individual invitations will not be issued to Members of either House of Parliament, but my noble and learned friend and Mr. Speaker have asked me to express their earnest hope that as many of your Lordships as possible will accept this general invitation to Members of Parliament on Tuesday, April 26.

COLONIAL POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
3.58 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, it is with considerable diffidence that I rise to take part in this debate. It is not my intention, in the short time for which I propose to detain your Lordships, to attempt to go into great detail. Criticisms have been levelled at the Government, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I do not for one moment question his knowledge of his subject, of which I can pretend to have only a small share, but there are one or two remarks that fell from his lips about which I venture to differ from him.
The noble Lord held out as one of the reasons which entitled him to criti-

1189
cise the Government that they were not pursuing an identical policy in all parts of Africa. I should have thought it was recognised by noble Lords who have had direct contact with Africa that there was a considerable difference between the various parts of that Continent. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, who had a share in this work in Kenya, knows that East Africa must of necessity be treated differently from West Africa. I should have thought that the conception of the union of the two Rhodesias was also a matter which stood on a different footing from the positions in East Africa or West Africa. Finally, I would point out to the noble Lord that, even in the smaller area of Nigeria itself, the conditions in North Nigeria, East Nigeria and West Nigeria are so different that it was part of the genius of the constitution devised by Lord Milverton that they were not all treated in precisely the same way, and that quite different considerations were allowed to influence the position of the three territories in that one country.
With regard to the question of whether the Constitution of Nigeria should be revised at the present time, I would say only this. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, seemed to me to suggest that because that Constitution was instituted only two years ago, it was wrong to revise it at the present time. I should have thought it very wise if, as a result not of violent agitation, not of the decision of His Majesty's Government proprio motu, but because there were signs of discontent over the Constitution, His Majesty's Government decided to seek means of discovering whether that discontent had any real substance, and whether the people of Nigeria, if they were properly consulted, had any constructive suggestions to make.
That is the course which the Government have adopted with Nigeria, and it is one which I should have thought was worthy not of criticism but of respect, and possibly of being copied in other parts of the world. The Government first set up a Select Committee to consider in what way the opinions of the people of Nigeria should be consulted. This Select Committee, upon which there served members of His Majesty's Government service in their official capacity, and also all the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, came to some interesting conclusions. They came to the
1190
conclusion that the people of Nigeria ought to be consulted at three levels: first, province by province, and that in consulting the provinces advice should be invited from even the smaller entities of the villages themselves; secondly, that when the views of the provinces had been obtained there should be consultations in larger conferences at a regional level; and, finally, that all these views should be brought together at central level, and that then, and then only, should an attempt be made to decide what was desired in the way of review and revision of the Constitution.
I can see nothing derogatory or undesirable about that; and to suggest that because that procedure is followed in Nigeria some similar procedure must be followed in all other parts of Africa, seems to me surely to misunderstand the position. I hope that I am not misinterpreting what the noble Lord said, but that was certainly the impression he conveyed to me. I should have thought that was a thoroughly satisfactory way in which to proceed.
LORD RENNELL: if I may interrupt, it was certainly not my intention to say that the same procedure should be followed in all African territories; nor that the same conclusion should necessarily be reached in each territory. What I did suggest, and what I maintain, is that the policies pursued in the East and West are mutually contradictory.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That may be the interpretation which the noble, Lord puts on the matter. But that is not how his speech struck me, and I would venture to differ from the conclusion which he appears to draw from the facts.
I think there will be a very large measure of agreement in all parts of the House with what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said in opening this debate. He enunciated principles which I think are regarded as sound by all, or most, of us. Though he indulged in certain criticisms of the Government, I am sure the Government will take them in good part, and that when my noble friend comes to reply he, will reply seriatim to some of the minor criticisms in the same good-tempered manner as that in which the noble Viscount made his criticisms. I have no doubt that my noble friend who followed me in one of

1191
the important positions in the State will, in equally friendly terms, be able to deal with the points which were raised by the noble Viscount.
The real matter with which I want to deal, however, is to point out a fact of which members of this House are no doubt all well aware—namely, that the world is going through very great changes at present, and that it depends upon the wisdom of this country whether we adapt ourselves to the changes which are taking place. A couple of months ago we had in this Chamber a debate upon Foreign Affairs, during which I dealt with the changes that had taken place in the power of different parts and nations of the world; and my special theme was the Dominions. I feel very strongly that the action that His Majesty's Government took at the time in India (in which I had the honour to play some small part) has been of the greatest importance. It was said at the time that in breaking up the Empire, in relinquishing control over India, we were damaging the position of British people who had interests in India. I do not say that the noble Lord agreed with that view. From what he said just now I gather that probably he did not, but it was held in many quarters.
I think it would be said to-day by the commercial interests in this country that they have found that quite the contrary has taken place. I believe that British commercial interests find that in the new set-up in India they have an honoured place. They can carry on their business with great effect, in a way that would probably not have been possible had we attempted to continue to hold down that large, interesting and important part of Asia. Our control may at one time have been all right, but owing to the changes of attitude and of mind of the people, it had become increasingly wrong. I am glad to see that the noble Lord agrees with me because I would suggest to him that precisely the same thing which was taking place in India, and largely through Asia as a whole, is to-day also taking place in Africa.
I would like to quote from one of the Colonial research publications which has recently been issued on the subject of African efficiency; it is Report No. 3. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord
1192
Rennell, that it is important to keep up the physical well-being of the Africans; and it is true that that physical wellbeing is reduced by certain purely physical causes. One is known as malignant malnutrition, which I think means malnutrition which starts while a person is a child and which, therefore, remains, whatever effective nutrition is given to the person later. Another fact is that the European does not always understand that the African does not want to take his meals exactly at the time when the European does; that at the time when the African wants to feed he is not given any food, although food is available at a time when he does not feel inclined to take it.
Further, in the Report, are these remarks:
"Another important handicap to the establishment of greater efficiency is European ignorance of African attitudes. … Related to this is the necessity for retaining the confidence of the Africans, both individually and collectively. … As an impression the view is recorded that African confidence in the European is slipping."—
I am quoting from page 119 of the Report; I am not expressing my own opinion—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have not been there for two years, but nothing could be further from the truth in regard to the time when I was the responsible Minister. If it was true, the war effort would never have been made.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am quoting from this Report. I do not think it is a criticism of some recent policy. What I was trying to convey was that owing to the whole situation in the world, the turmoil that has taken place in consequence of the war and its effects, a new attitude of mind is being manifested by Africans and they are taking a different view towards Europeans from that which existed in days gone by. We must meet that, whether it be in one part of Africa or another. We have to face up to the fact that we have to deal with the psychology of the African in a way which was not considered necessary in days gone by. A long time ago the Africans were looked upon merely as so much labour, to be bought in the market as one bought pieces of machinery or something of that kind. Then, later, there was the paternal

1193
attitude in the administration of the Colonies which was a great deal more humane. But to-day we have a situation in which the African wishes to be consulted, wishes to express his own views and wishes his own views to be taken into consideration and acted upon.
We have in this country, at the present time, a considerable number of students from our Colonies—I think that altogether there are something like 3,000 of them—of whom a large proportion come from Africa. Some of them are women. As part of our Colonial policy, we have decided—I think in the time of the Coalition Government—to set up universities in different parts of the Colonial Empire, and we have taken steps to do so. Now all over Africa we are getting a considerable element of educated and thoughtful native people. I am not going to pretend for one moment that they form a majority or even a considerable minority of the population; I know that they do not. I know that the vast bulk of Africans are still back where they were years ago—that is, in a state of primitive civilisation. But many of these educated men and women to whom I have referred are the natural leaders of their people. That is just as true as it was in this country when large masses of our people were illiterate and uneducated. So, while not being sentimental and ridiculous about it, we have to pay attention to the views which these people hold. That is one of the reasons why we are acting as we are acting in Nigeria at the present time. I venture to suggest that that is the real key to the whole question. The attitude which was adopted towards Colonial dependencies in times gone by has ceased to be applicable to the present situation. We have to take up a new attitude and to take it up in time. It may be that when the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was in Africa, this upsurge had not come sufficiently above the surface to be noticeable even by such an acute observer as the noble Viscount himself. But that every day it is growing is a fact which I believe few people would deny.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I would not like the noble Lord to think that I underrated in any way the advance which has taken place. I enjoyed in my work a great amount of co-operation from Africans.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not in the least suggesting that the noble Viscount did not. All I was saying is that things move very fast in these days, and, owing to the aftermath of the war and all the other things that have happened, a great effect has been produced in Africa.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Would the noble Lord excuse my interrupting him? He said that in the past we looked upon the African purely as so much labour. I would like to say, as one who was out there forty years ago, that I resent that remark on behalf of the Africans. I was Commandant of the Nigerian Regiment and I served under the greatest Governor whom I ever met there—Sir Walter Edgerton. Our one aim was to work in co-operation with the Africans to the fullest possible extent, and, far from looking on them merely as labour, we did all we possibly could for them. They liked us very much and we had a great regard for them. There was no question of their being looked upon simply as labour. As an old Government servant out there, I resent people saying that we looked upon the Africans purely as labour.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am very sorry that I have brought the noble Viscount to his feet to protest in this way. I was certainly making no attack upon him, and I have no doubt that what he says is perfectly true. But I do not think he will deny that there was in the old days a considerable element of British exploitation in Africa, and in the light of that exploitation the African was often looked upon as so much labour, as something to be bought and sold. I had certainly no intention of saying anything to arouse the indignation of the noble Viscount, and if I have done so I am exceedingly sorry I was going to say that there had been this great change going on all over the world in the last few years, and the changes which have taken place in Asia have no doubt produced great effect on the minds of Africans.
There are just two things which I will say in conclusion. In the first place, I would like to draw attention for a moment to a particular matter in Nigeria. We made certain promises with regard to the educational set-up in that country. We

1195
established a university and we promised certain payments, both for capital expenditure and towards upkeep. We promised to give Nigeria a medical school which would rank at the highest level. I understand that, owing to the great rise in salaries and in costs generally in other directions, the money that we have found it possible to provide is not proving adequate to do all that we promised. I think that this is a point which His Majesty's Government will have to consider very carefully. They will have to consider whether having, as it were, built one storey of the edifice which was promised, we should not feel it obligatory upon us to provide enough money to build the second storey to enable the promise given to be fully carried out. If His Majesty's Government cannot do that, then I think they will have to consider very carefully what part of the edifice they promised to build should be held over for a time. What would be fatal, I think, would be to attempt to try to erect the building (I am not speaking in physical terms of building, but metaphorically) inadequately and leave an unsuitable and ineffective university where only a first-class university should be available. In that connection, I would like to remind your Lordships of the size of Nigeria and of its population. Nigeria has a population something like half that of the United Kingdom, but the number of children of school age is about comparable with that in this country, because the people of Nigeria have very much larger families than do people here.
Finally, I want to say that I have the greatest faith in the British people, by reason of their many qualities and particularly because their institutions are flexible and not fixed. Because we have done certain things well in the past, that is no reason why we should pursue, in the future, our past methods. It is our great genius that we are able to adapt ourselves to changing circumstances. My contention is that whether we want to develop the life of our Commonwealth and its resources, or whether we are anxious merely to pursue the lesser end of preventing the spread of Communism and preserving the loyalty of our Empire, the great and important thing is that we should keep abreast of the times, understand the psychology of the peoples who are dependent upon us and, so far
1196
as we possibly can, meet their views and satisfy their aspirations. I believe that is the task that the present Government have been pursuing. I do not suggest for one moment that it is not also desired by the members of other Parties; I believe it is a fundamental principle of all Parties in this country. It is because I think that that is so that I welcome the debate which has taken place in your Lordships' House to-day.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE: My Lords, the importance of the issues we are considering to-day cannot possibly be exaggerated, for the questions which concern our Colonies, Dependencies and Mandated Territories are also the problems of all the other undeveloped and backward countries in the world. When we remember that between 1,000,000,000 and 1,500,000,000 of the world's population are in those backward countries, the significance of finding the right answers to these problems must be present in all our minds. For my part, I believe that the future of the world, the continuance of civilisation as we know it, and the advancement of the economic and social conditions for these hundreds of millions of people depend on two things—the maintenance of peace in the world and the development of the latent resources of these backward countries. With regard to the first, it seems to me that the world is showing great statesmanship and great vision. The evidence of that is the Western Union, the Atlantic Pact and the contemplated Agreements in other regions for maintaining the security of the nations there. With regard to the other problem, that of how we are to bring about the development of the backward countries, it seems to me that we are showing neither statesmanship nor vision, and it is very doubtful whether we are exercising even reasonable common sense upon it. I do not propose to follow the interesting line taken by the previous speaker, who dealt with various problems in individual countries. I want to address myself only to what appears to me to be the fundamental policy upon which we have to decide, and upon which everything else will depend.
Before doing so, I am afraid that I must delay the House for a few minutes to make clear why I attach such im-

1197
portance to this aspect of the question. On several previous occasions I have wearied the House with my view that, if we are to realise any of the ideals we have for an advancement in the economic and social conditions of the world, we have to get down to the problem of the development of the backward countries. I am glad to be able to say that there now seems to be fairly general agreement on that. The outstanding evidence that this is so lies in the Resolution passed by the United Nations Assembly in Paris last December and in the fourth point in President Truman's Inaugural Address to Congress. Both emphasise the urgent need for the development of the resources of the backward areas. If we are to achieve that development, we must have scientific, economic, financial and social experts and we have to remember (and to my mind this is almost a more important question) that great economic and social problems will arise in all these backward countries, in the train of such development. The handling of these difficult and complex changes will require men of great competence and experience.
The backward countries to-day, however, have no experts, no men of experience and competence, who can handle these fundamental changes in the economic and social structure. These countries will have to obtain the assistance of experts from outside, from more advanced countries, and that assistance must be given in the fullest measure. In the face of that problem, I think we have to recognise that there is a tendency to-day to try to go too far and too fast. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, will not think I am being too critical if I say that, while I accept everything he has said, the policy that was applicable fifteen years ago is probably not quite applicable to-day, I think we are trying to change that policy far too rapidly, because of the obsession for political questions, the things that have been almost the life-blood of so many members of the Government and the Party that support them. I think they lay far too much stress on the political side of these questions, upon the development of systems of government and, above all, on the recognition of the trends of the minds of these people. I recognise that full well, but has the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, given the
1198
proportion of educated persons in these communities? And how far can he say that they always represent the point of view or the best interests of the mass of the people of their own country?
We ought not to be paving lip service to every sort of idea just because it is said to be based on nationalist aspirations for self-government or for independence. We have to examine these things a little more carefully. A great many of the people who go from these backward countries to be educated in a foreign land have not the opportunity of absorbing all that that country has achieved, through the generations, for its own people, and often they obtain wholly false ideas. I go so far as to say that, in face of the great issues that we are up against, it is arrant stupidity to be spending nearly all our time in the United Nations (as I venture to say is being done), arguing at unlimited length about different theories of government in the Colonies and dependent countries, usually with the background that we should yield to any pressure group which raises the cry of national aspirations. I am sorry if many people do not agree with me on that, but it seems to me that is the way we are now behaving. In my view, we are imperilling the interests of millions upon millions of native people whose destinies are to-day in our hands.
I also venture to say that, if this course is to be pursued, the Government will make it very difficult to carry out their own declared policy. As I understand it, their policy is that future developments in the Colonies must be conducted for the benefit of the native populations; and that increases in trade and production should be reflected in a rising standard of living and steady social progress. As evidence of their desire to get on with the job, they have in various forms, over a period of years, provided something like £350,000,000 for development and other purposes. I will not weary the House with details, but to me, that is all to the good. I go so far as to say that it has been far too long delayed, because I believe that in the past we have not given to these Colonies the measure of economic assistance which we should have given them.
At the time when the British Government have taken this action, and when Britain's policy is to make this great

1199
contribution towards developing backward countries there is a move in the world which makes it clear that international assistance towards that objective will be forthcoming in great measure. President Truman's declaration is the outstanding evidence of that. All this, it would seem, should open up a new vista and a new hope for the unfortunate natives that, at long last, they might look for real advances in their economic and social standards, and in their general conditions. I have the greatest doubt, however, whether such an advance will come about, because it seems to rue that now, when there is this opportunity, we have all gone "woolly-minded," and are prepared to abdicate our position of leading the world on this question of the advancement and help of backward peoples: we are really abandoning a position that we should maintain. After all, with their long tradition of Colonial administration, the British have forgotten more on this question than the great majority of the nations of the world ever knew. My appeal is that we should not abdicate our position, although it seems to me that we are doing so.
I would like to refer to our Colonial policy in the past. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that it must be modified to suit changing times and changing conditions, fundamentally, as in most things, the great principle must remain. It may have to go at an accelerated pace, but do not let it go at the pace at which it has apparently been going in some places. I suggest that the principles that have governed our policy in the past are these: To protect and afford security; to establish freedom and justice; to maintain law and order; to afford financial assistance towards economic advancement and social welfare; to guide and encourage the development of their own social, economic and political institutions; to give them an increasing share in controlling and directing their own affairs; and to accord them self-governing rights when the suitable stage of development has been reached. I do not think that anyone will quarrel with the correctness of that as the policy, but there may be arguments as to the pace at which it should be carried out.
I feel that we are to-day trying to accelerate the pace to a ridiculous degree.
1200
What it comes to is this. If we go on as we are, we shall reach the point where we hand over these vast native populations to a small group of intellectuals—as they generally are—who have raised the flag of their nationalistic aspirations. Those people, generally speaking, have not the education or experience to control and govern the destinies of great masses of people. They certainly have not the knowledge and experience necessary to adjust these vast economic and social changes that take place; and they have not at their disposal the necessary competent staffs to help them to do these things. In some cases, they are not even honest. In that connection I would commend to your Lordships the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in this House on January 19 last. Even assuming that they possess all the honesty in the world, they just have not the capacity for doing what is required; they must seek help from outside. It is a grievous thing that the general trend in every one of these Administrations is to refuse to co-operate with others from outside in carrying out developments. Indeed, a great number of the Administrations work secretly against such co-operation.
It seems to me that if we pursue our policy of granting self-government before the countries are ready we shall do an incalculable disservice to these people whose destiny is in our hands. And, incidentally, we shall make impossible the task of those who are trying to administer these territories in this atmosphere of uncertainty and doubt. There is no question but that to-day in the Colonial Service—a Service whose record in the past is certainly one of the great glories of the British people—there is uncertainty, anxiety and a growing and deep sense of frustration. That is a position which should never have been allowed to arise. And I say the source of that is the Government policy. I maintain that there is not the strength and clarity in that policy to make possible the conduct of this great service, which is responsible for handling of large populations. I say that the time has now come, if we are not to get into an impossible and hopeless position, when there should be a new affirmation of where we stand. I suggest that that affirmation should be that we are going to follow the traditional policy of

1201
this country with regard to dependent peoples—namely, that we are going to help them, and guide them to the point where ultimately they can govern themselves. On that basis, it would be possible for the Colonial Service to carry out their function and maintain their great traditions of the past.
Why should we hesitate to be bold and say where we stand on this? Surely our record is good enough to justify anything we might do. Let me remind your Lordships that we have embodied into this British Commonwealth countries which we have populated, countries which we have conquered and countries with vast native populations. All those countries we have guided and protected, and to all of them we have eventually given full self-governing rights. Examples of the first group are Canada, Australia and New Zealand; an example of the second—a country we conquered—is South Africa; and examples of the third are India, Pakistan and Ceylon. Surely, that is a good enough record for us to be prepared to reaffirm our faith in our own destiny in helping in this great problem of the backward peoples who comprise far more than half the population of the world. Surely that is good enough for us to face the task of real leadership. We could then once more become the great Power that we were in the past, a Power that did more than any other country to help dependent peoples and native populations.
4.40 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I rise for a few moments to talk about our colonisation in Eastern Africa. My excuse for doing so is that it is just forty-three years since I first went out to what was then British East Africa, and I have seen vast changes, not only in the country itself but in the conception of our colonisation there. When we first went out, the railway had just reached the lake. There were approximately 600 white people in countries as big as France and Germany, and they included the officials and those employed on the railway. In what are now called the White Highlands there were vast stretches in which one could walk for twenty, thirty, or forty miles, and not see a single native, or at most one or two wandering people. In response to invitation, settlers took up land there and proceeded to develop it. The land
1202
looked good and the climate was perfect. Your Lordships will bear in mind that although we did not get the best of the land—by far the most fertile part was left in the native reserves—that which remained was good enough. You will be surprised to know that at that time not only did we think we were doing a good job of work, but the people in this country thought so too. Even the papers talked about "pioneers of Empire," "the brightest jewel in the Crown," and things like that. At that time the phrase "exploitation of the native" had not ben invented. We could not do much exploiting for the time being, because there were no natives there. But I expect that I am one of the people who the noble Lord considers looked on the natives as "labour," which, for some reason, he finds a derogatory term. I thought that rather surprising, because I seem to remember a Minister of the Crown saying that anyone who was not Labour was not worth a tinker's curse.
LORD QUIBELL: Quite right; there is nothing wrong in that.
LORD CRANWORTH: I read in a newspaper the other day an article about colonisation in East Africa. In it occurred the statement that when the white colonists arrived they destroyed the whole natural economy of the African and, therefore, the quicker they went the better. It is true that we did destroy the whole natural economy of the native; but what was that economy? I remember it well. The native was not there in great numbers, and one tribe, the Masai, did their best to keep them down. Disease was rife and they faced periodic starvation. The African native was, and I think is, an improvident person. When there was a good harvest he ate, waxed fat and had children. Of course, periodically there are droughts followed by famine, and then the native just starves. About two years after I went there we had a small drought—not a heavy one—followed by famine which was not on a widespread scale, but several hundred natives died. I remember within a hundred miles of Nairobi myself counting just on 100 natives dead under a tree, where they had fallen to die of starvation. Some eight years after that there was a much worse drought, followed by a much worse famine, but that time, so

1203
far as we know, not a single native died of starvation.
We did change the natural economy of the native, but was that for the worse? I would not have thought so. In fact, I am not at all certain that it would not have been better for the natives if more land—of which there was a great deal which was completely unoccupied, and which for the most part is unoccupied now—had been handed over to white settlers. Your Lordships must remember that in the settled part of Kenya—the part from which practically the whole exportable surplus comes—there must be at least one hundred natives where there was one before. They are all well fed, and all able to have employment if they so wish.
As I see it, in that part of the country at the present moment there are two great problems. The first is starvation, which is being accelerated by the destruction of the fertility of the land through bad farming and erosion. I said that when we went there we cured disease, we totally stopped the brutalities of the Masai and we totally stopped starvation. As a result, the natives who have great fertility—greater than the European, though not so great as the Indian—are increasing rapidly. Even so, there is enough room to-day in the land reserved to him, were it not that his methods of farming (coupled, with the fact that his internal economy is largely four-footed, and consists for the large part of the goat, which is the worst enemy of soil fertility) are causing the soil to be destroyed at an enormous pace. It will not be long before there will not be enough ground for him to maintain himself. I know that the Administration in Kenya are doing a good deal to stop soil erosion, but I do not believe they are doing enough. I think they could take stern steps in that regard. I doubt whether anyone has the right to destroy the fertility of the soil. They might even consider going almost as far as the authorities go in this country with regard to people who destroy the fertility of this Island.
I was rather struck the other day by a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. I could not help thinking that there was a certain amount of truth in his statement that 150 years ago we went to India and found 100,000,000 starving, and 150 years later we moved out and
1204
left 300,000,000 starving. That is in spite of the vast sums of money which have been spent and the immense trouble we have taken during that century and a half to increase the supply of food there. I should not like to think that, when the time comes for us to leave Kenya, we shall leave the same result in that country.
Another problem is the growth of nationalism which is being sponsored by international Communists. That is a menace, perhaps not an immediate one but a real one. Nor is it a new one. Forty years ago I can remember the cry "Africa for the Africans." Then we have the cry, "Kikuyu for the Kikuyu: Kavirondo for the Kavirondo: Wanyamwezi for the Wanyamwezi." I do not know whether we are doing much about this problem; the time will come, sooner or later, when the cry of nationalism will assume very great importance. Moreover, one must remember that the Communist has a certain advantage in Africa, in connection with what is called the "colour bar." The Russian Communist has no colour bar of any kind. We for our part say that we have no colour bar; and that is true. But we have another bar, in as much as we do not like mixing freely with people who do not wash, or with people who are not well educated or who are immoral, and so on. I am sure there are directions in which we show a great deal more discrimination than anything in the Communist's code, and he derives advantage thereby. On the other hand, we have a certain advantage, which is that, in the main, the African, certainly in Eastern and Central Africa, is very fond of the Englishman. My experience is that he welcomes his old master when he goes back; the Englishman finds himself welcome in all sorts of places. That was the case in my time, and I do not believe that things have vastly changed now.
There are two matters which I should like to mention to the Minister who is to reply. The first is that the African, like a great many other people, is fond of a certain amount of pomp and ceremony. He also likes a certain amount of discipline—as anyone who has served with the African tribes knows. The higher the standard of discipline in an African battalion, the greater the rush to join it. There is nothing peculiar about that, for it applies in this country also. These natives like soldiering; they like

1205
seeing the saluting of the flag, and so forth. There is nothing wrong in that. Surely our own people like seeing such things as the Lord Mayor's Show and the Trooping of the Colour. I am sure that ceremonial has a good effect on the native, and I believe that to be the probable explanation of the apparent riddle of how it is that these native soldiers fight so bravely and obstinately, often without pay or food. I may be wrong, but I cannot help feeling that we are lapsing a little in our respect for pageantry and pomp. I was a little distressed—possibly quite wrongly—when I heard the other day that the Governor's House in Nairobi was being given up to become a school. I am aware that it is to be a school for white boys, that the school was badly wanted, and that this was a great act of sacrifice on the Governor's part. Nevertheless, I felt that it must be doubtful policy to do a thing like that now; I should have thought that it would be possible to do something in the way of erecting temporary buildings, so that the Governor's House might remain as it was.
The other point which I wish to commend to the attention of the noble Earl who is to reply refers to education. I know the noble Earl will say—and quite rightly—that we do a tremendous lot for education in these places, but I wonder whether it is altogether the right kind of education. The last time I was there I went to see a native school. It was a very good school indeed, and the boys looked splendid in their uniforms; everything was spotlessly clean. They had organised games and other amenities. I said to the schoolmaster, "Your feeling ought to be one of great pride." He said, "As a matter of fact, my feeling is one of deep sorrow." I said, "Why is that?" He replied, "I cannot see what future there is for these boys; there are but two alternatives: either to be a black-coated clerk in an office or to be a political agitator; there is no other." That is a serious thing for a high-minded man to say, and I wonder whether we have done enough to see that these people are given some way of making use of their knowledge. I am sure we ought to do far more in the way of technical education than we do now.
I am afraid that my "King Charles's head" will now reveal itself. I feel that I must say a word about ground-nuts. I
1206
grew my first crop of ground-nuts forty-two years ago. I know the sort of place in which ground-nuts are grown—and more nasty spots I do not wish to see. I admit that I saw these places in rather deplorable circumstances, for my partner and I lost our money in growing groundnuts. On the other hand, we obtained our experience; and I cannot refrain from pointing out that it was our own money we lost and our own experience we gained! I agree with other noble Lords in deploring the present position over ground-nuts. I believe there is one fundamental reason for it, and that is the failure to realise the intense hostility of Africa to any new enterprise, and the intense antagonism with which she meets attempts at subjugation. I am talking of something I know experto crede. During the years that I was in Africa, I started five major enterprises and several subsidiary ones. I gave myself a bit of advice which I passed on to my friends at the same time. It was this: "If you are going to start a new enterprise, take a piece of paper and a pencil, and after getting all the information you can, and making the most conservative estimate you can of what you are going to get and going to spend, then divide what you are going to get into two and multiply what you are going to spend by two; and if it still shows a substantial profit it is worth looking into." I myself have followed that plan closely. Of five enterprises I started, four failed; only one—and that, I believe, was the most unpromising—succeeded.
I think that less money might have been lost if the original promoters of the present ground-nuts scheme had taken pencil and paper in that way. I have asked a good many people about this scheme, and I have had a good deal of correspondence from those on the spot. I find adverse and conflicting statements, but I also find unanimity on three points. The first is exasperation at the lack of planning, at the failure to take local advice and at the lack of forethought. I confess that it is difficult not to agree with that view. Secondly, somewhat to my surprise, I find a unanimity of opinion that this job has got to be made to pay, to be made good; slowly, more carefully, with much more intensive planing, it must be made a success. The third point of unanimity is that the scheme should continue under the ægis

1207
of the Colonial Office, and not under that of the Ministry of Food. Those are three items of agreement which I commend to His Majesty's Government.
I think we must all concede that, during the next few years, the future of our Colonial government is going through great trials. I believe that we shall come through them all right, but only if we have faith in our Colonial policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said in his remarkably fine speech, that policy that we have set out to follow is not one of Party: it is one of a country. It has been agreed by all Parties. There-fore, it is not sectional. If we have faith in that policy, in my view we shall come through. After all, we can think of a greater Empire than ours that lasted a great many centuries. But, if we vacillate and go hither and thither, and grant these countries self-government long before they are capable of assuming it, then we may see the whole of our Colonial Empire crumble like a pack of cards.
5.2 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships for the first time, I hope you will extend to me that indulgence which is customarily shown to a newcomer to debates in this House. The bulk of the discussion to-day has dealt largely with the Colonies in Africa. My only justification for rising to speak is the reference to Malaya which was made in the speech of the noble Viscount who opened the debate. It so happens that, until just a year ago, I was stationed in Malaya in connection with one of the legacies of the late war about which we know a great deal—that is, food shortage. I am not going to burden your Lordships with any talk about that particular question now. I mention the point only because it meant that I was stationed in that area for two years and was thus given an opportunity, which for a member of the Foreign Service is an unusual one, of studying conditions in that area and, indeed, beyond. As I say, that is my justification for rising to address your Lordships to-day.
In the first place, I shall talk of Malaya and Singapore as one unit. They are now, of course, two separate Colonies, but, for convenience of reference, I shall look upon them as one. I would point out
1208
that from what I might call the external side of the question, there was never any doubt in anybody's mind before the late war that that particular area was of great importance to the whole British Commonwealth, from every angle—from the angle of raw materials, from the angle of policy and also from the angle of defence and strategy. If that was true before the late war, I submit to your Lordships that it is infinitely more true to-day. There have been great and fundamental changes which lead to that conclusion. Your Lordships will remember that before the last war we had a fairly secure anchorhold in the Middle East. There are many other respects in which the situation has since fundamentally altered. For instance, there have been great constitutional changes and the emergence of three self-governing Dominions. There is also the question of Burma and, lastly, there are the more recent events in China.
The point I am trying to make is that if, before the late war, Singapore occupied and held a key position in our whole chain of world policy, since the war the importance of that focal point has been infinitely increased. I need not remind your Lordships of this, for you probably have the map of the area in your minds. Those who have been out there know it intimately, and those who have not have a fairly good idea how the lie of the land runs. There is a mountain backbone which runs up the whole of the Peninsula, finally reaching into the Asiatic mainland. One of the effects of that has been that, for generations past, communication East and West, West and East, has perforce had to turn the corner at the extreme southern tip of the Peninsula. As I say, the map will show your Lordships that fact, but it took a Stamford Raffles to appreciate the importance of that aspect. It was that great man who, by negotiation, acquired Singapore for the British Crown.
The importance of Singapore has continued and grown. It is a free port, as we all know it has a wonderful, safe, deep-water harbour. The importance of the port grew until, just before the last war, if my figures are right (for I am always bad at figures), it was about the third largest port in the world. There we were. And, thank God, there we are back again since the war. I do not wish to labour that angle much further, save

1209
that I personally am convinced that it is absolutely essential that we should hold on there and show no flinching in the maintenance of our position throughout that area on every ground—on the ground of economic resources, on the ground of world policy and on the ground of strategy.
I mentioned the fact that I had been sent out there to look after this problem of food shortage. As a matter of fact, "food shortage" is an under-statement; it was an actual threat of starvation. I am not going to burden your Lordships with the details, save to mention that in this one respect it became clear in the very early phases of the study of this problem that it was possible to cope with it only if we developed common planning and common thought; in other words, a sort of "local regionalism"—I think that is the proper phrase. It was no good just Malaya and Singapore sitting there and talking about this question; we had to bring others into the orbit. They were deficit areas; we had to bring in the supplying areas. Finally, we evolved a system whereby representatives of all the surrounding areas, British and foreign, used to come to Singapore once a month, sit round a table, pool their ideas and plan how to defeat this common threat. My Lords, hunger is a common denominator. The empty stomach is nobody's particular intrigue, and on that basis of technical, humanitarian justification we used to meet and help each other out.
The point I am trying to make is that I believe, on the principle that "great oaks out of little acorns grow," that this was a small example of the application of regionalism in its best form. I have always felt, down in that part of South-East Asia, which should be particularly susceptible to that form of treatment—again, if you look at the map you will see why—that that way of handling our common dangers and problems ought to be enlarged and developed. It is, of course, perfectly obvious why it is difficult to do so. There are a vast number of differing creeds and races in that area. It is not too easy to get them together on other types of questions, but on the question of the food shortage we did so get them. They used to come and sit round the table; they were all intent on discussing the common problem—hunger—and it all worked very well. I hope
1210
this system may grow and foster, but it would be foolish to pretend that in other and less contentious spheres it is going to be so easy to develop the same system, though I repeat my hope that it can and will be done. For I feel strongly that there is a great deal to be said and done to relieve it.
Obviously it is not for me to talk about the internal administration of Malaya. I had little to do with that, except for being in close contact; it was net on my particular plate. Now I do not know if I am speaking a little out of turn, but it did seem to me, the local situation being as involved, intricate and difficult as it is, that possibly the gubernatorial set-up there is slightly top-heavy. I can say that the more readily as I was myself somewhere about the sixth wheel of the coach—as such I used to labour along behind and do my best. Admittedly, conditions are entirely different from the pre-war set-up. And it is perhaps not fair to judge the present set-up entirely by what it was pre-war. Previously, however, there was one authority who was installed in Singapore—a dual-purpose "big gun," if I may use the expression: namely, the Governor of Singapore and High Commissioner for the Federated Malay States. That worked well enough. It is true that there was then no Colony of Borneo or of Sarawak, such as exist now. At the same time, there was in fact only one man and now there are five, and the position does seem slightly top-heavy.
My Lords, I have detained you long enough, and time is getting on, but there is one further point I would make. I am sure all your Lordships realise the importance of Malaya in the chain of defence and every other aspect I have mentioned. This outlawry and banditry should be suppressed—it must be suppressed. It is not a Nationalist movement. Anybody who is informed on it will, I think, bear my statement out. It is in no sense a Nationalist movement at all. There have been attempts to compare it with such movements in other near-by territories that are Nationalist; it is not so in Malaya. There is a Communist Party there; there has been one for a long while. There was a plot which fortunately misfired and went off at half-cock. Since then there has been this body of miscreants, of murderers, only a few thousand strong, roaming the jungles, shooting up innocent, hard-working

1211
planters, and otherwise creating bloodshed. Nothing that one can say about them is bad enough. The sooner they are eradicated the better. I personally feel sure they will be eradicated; but it may take time. That is the first requisite. My second point—and I am sure your Lordships will agree with it—is that every assistance that the local authorities need should be given to them without stint. When I say "local authorities" I include the planter who risks his life day and night—indeed every minute. He never knows when he is going to be shot up, perhaps from behind a bush no further away than the opposite Bench. Everything that can possibly be done should and must be done to alleviate the lot of these courageous people, and I am sure that is the wish of everybody in this House.
Now I come to the question of self-government. I know nothing in regard to Africa (except the extreme North-East corner, which is not a Colony), but so far as Malaya is concerned surely there can be no more difficult area in regard to this problem. As the name implies, it is the land of the Malays—a grand people. But there are other racial factors which have to be considered in dealing with this extremely delicate question. It has not been made any easier by the unfortunate White Paper about which we have not heard so much lately, which put things wrong and created for the first time a formidable Malayan opposition which I do not believe ever existed before. Altogether it made things very difficult. But as a result of a hard year's work, in which I have no claim, the situation is back on better lines. None the less, I think the eventual attainment of self-government, or whatever you like to call it, should be a very well-thought-out, careful process. We should be very careful in regard to how the stages are developed, one after the other. Festina lente, if it applies anywhere, applies essentially in Malaya.
5.18 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as the ridiculous follows the sublime so I rise to offer, on behalf of myself and your Lordships, our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, for his most interesting and informative speech, and to express the hope that he will
1212
address us again very soon. He speaks with an authority second to that of few of your Lordships; and that is as great a compliment as can be paid to any Englishman. He particularly deserves our thanks for his service as a Proconsul and as an Ambassador during the dangerous years of the war, and for the fine work he did in his last appointment in South-East Asia. I am glad that I have the opportunity of following him on this particular subject, because it is about Malaya that I wish to address a few words to your Lordships this afternoon. But before I do so, I should like, if I may, to revert to the general constitutional position which has been discussed already this afternoon by several of your Lordships.
Listening closely, as I have done, to all the speeches I think that two strands have run through them. One is that in a Colonial Empire of some 60,000,000 people in varying stages of economic, political, religious and social development, generalisation is not only wrong but dangerous. But there is one principle which has clearly stood out, and that is that both major political Parties in this House and in the country are resolutely determined that self-government shall ultimately come to those Colonies that desire it. We can fortunately say this with a great deal more firmness and conviction than we could in the years before the war, since our word can now never be doubted. The world has seen what we have done in India, in Pakistan, in Ceylon and in Burma, and knows now that we intend to carry out our word.
None the less, it seems to me that there are two provisos to that declaration which ought not to be forgotten. The first is this. Are we not right in saying that we must reserve to ourselves certain rights when self-government, given to a Colony, carries with it independence and the right to leave the Commonwealth, and might possibly endanger our national security and our Imperial communications? After all, that is what the Americans have done with regard to Hawaii, the Philippines and Panama and, to a certain degree, in the British West Indies. It is certainly what the Russians have done in the eleven States of Europe which they have conquered. Why, therefore, should we too not have

1213
the right to retain some safeguards if we are asked to break any vital link in our Imperial strategic chain?
The second point is one which has already been made, but which I should like to reinforce. Power must not be transferred to one political or religious faction in a Colony. It must be transferred to the people as a whole. Nor must it be transferred in conditions in which chaos and a complete breakdown of the political and economic life of that Colony are certain. Have we not learned the lessons of Ceylon and Burma? In Ceylon we handed over power to able, conscientious men, men of integrity who are fired with the determination to do all in their power to promote the prosperity of their country. In Burma we handed over to murder and bloodshed. Despite this lesson, there are still some people in this country, hovering on the lunatic fringe, who are quite prepared to hand over 60,000,000 of our fellow citizens to any energetic Anglophobe whose demagogy has been spectacular enough to capture the headlines. Frequently, Communists in the Colonies attack our "Imperial tyranny" over Colonial people, regardless of what is exercised over satellite States behind the Iron Curtain. In many instances, one is led to wonder, as one reads their outpourings about the Imperial tyranny which we are supposed to exercise, what sort of fate the Colonial peoples would meet with under Russian dictatorship.
What is the answer? What is the reply to Colonial Communism to be? The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in his interesting speech has already touched upon it. It is, of course, that we must do everything in our power to educate Colonial peoples in that democracy which is the best weapon against Communism. And that will not be an easy task. Lord Pethick-Lawrence mentioned Colonial students. It is unfortunate that one or two of the leading Anglophobes in West Africa and the West Indies are men who have served a period of apprenticeship as students in this country, and who are strong Communists. Whose fault is that? I submit that it is ours. I submit that something must be wrong with the way we are attempting to educate Colonial students in this country. It seems to me that what happens is this. They—and I refer particularly to West Indians and West Africans—come across to this
1214
country, having perhaps met a few Englishmen in favourable circumstances in their home territory, and when they arrive here they get the cold-shoulder. They meet with difficulty in the matter of accommodation, and so, all too often, they find themselves herded into hostels. For the first time they come up against the colour bar working at its worst.
I wonder how much trouble in West Africa and the West Indies can be attributed to a colour bar exercised by some tactless landladies in Bloomsbury and Bayswater. That is where the trouble occurs, and as a consequence these young people become easy prey to the Communists. That is our responsibility. It is our responsibility to do all we can to improve conditions in the welfare of Colonial students in this country. I know that the Government have done a fair amount about this. The East and West Friendship Council has been set up and is, I believe, working well. Many of the learned professions who receive a number of students are taking this question of welfare seriously. But we as taxpayers are responsible for seeing that this question of Colonial welfare is properly tackled, because we, throne the Colonial Welfare Development Fund and the British Council, are responsible for half the cost of the education of these students.
I should now like to take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. I wonder if we are educating these students in the right subjects? Are we not producing too many lawyers and too many accountants, and not enough doctors, engineers, agricultural experts and scientists, men able to bring forward the development of the Colonies when they go back to their homes? What we are trying to train is the lower ranks of those who will be engaged in the building up of democratic organisations. What we want is fewer potential Prime Ministers and more potential borough councillors. Speaking for myself, I have no doubt as to which is the more important of those two offices.
Secondly, what are we doing in the Colonies to educate the people of the Colonies in the difficult art of self-government? It seems to me that the first and primary consideration is literacy. We should now be making great strides towards raising the general standard of

1215
education throughout the whole of our Colonial Empire. That seems to me to be far preferable to the negative attitude of suppressing Communism, which would then go underground and, possibly, recur somewhere else. I know that we have had to face this problem in Malaya. But, after all, Malaya is practically at war. It seems to me that we have to do a great deal more to teach the facts of Colonial economics to those who it is most important should have a full knowledge of them. I would like to touch on another of the points dealt with by Lord Cranworth—namely, the effect upon the native economy of the British arrival in Africa and Malaya. Here we suffer a great disadvantage, we are continually attacked by vernacular newspapers of the countries concerned and we do very little to answer back effectively, because anything which appears, at our inspiration, is regarded merely as Government propaganda and is treated as such.
I would like to call the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, whom we all welcome back to his place to-day, to a publication known as the Malayan Monitor, which comes out in this country, and which circulates here and in Malaya. It is printed in England and is published, I believe, by a Chinese Communist. It is full of virulent Communist propaganda. In one or two of the most recent editions references were made to the British soldiers in Malaya as murderers, and there were exhortations to the Malayan police and soldiery to desert and go across to the other side. Is it really wise that we should tolerate that sort of publication? Is it fair to our soldiers and the police that we should permit it, and do nothing about it just because we are a democratic country, and so do not believe in suppressing other people's publications which carry views contrary to our own? One would like to think that if the Communists themselves were in power they would extend to us the same freedom as we allow them. I cannot imagine the Daily Telegraph or the Tory Challenge having a large sale from the bookstalls of Moscow. It seems to me that the problem of self-government cannot be solved by doling out ballot papers and trade union cards. We have surely to devise some system of self-government—not necessarily dependent upon the immediate introduction of
1216
the ballot box. This may not yet be entirely suited to the political education and background of some primitive peoples.
May I turn now to the question of Malaya? I would like to preface my remarks by referring to a recent broadcast of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, the Commissioner-General. Referring to self-government he said:
"This is a promise which we shall not break; our purpose is to unite and gradually transfer rule, and we shall support with all our hearts any movement seeking to associate Malays, Malayan Chinese and others owing undivided loyalty to Malaya in a brotherhood of all peoples inspired by common patriotism."
Naturally we all agree with those sentiments. But a very interesting comment was made in one of the leading vernacular newspapers Utusan Melayu. It described this statement as
"A promissory note on which the date for payment of the loan has been left blank."
That, surely, is the whole crux of this matter. What does the writer of that article expect? Does he expect what I might call a Mountbatten date to be put on the promissory note? Do we really want, as Lord Killearn has warned, a second Burma? Can we really put down a blank date as to when we hand over power? Surely the date which we write in for handing over control in Malaya is the date when the Malayan peoples have shown themselves, to themselves, to us and to the world at large, as ready to rule themselves peaceably and efficiently. They know they cannot do it yet. As the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, said, they have a war on there. That has to be cleared up.
Furthermore, the relationship between the Malays and the Chinese themselves has to be resolved. I am glad to say that in the last few months rapid strides have been made in this respect. Malay-Chinese good-will committees have been set up, but the establishment of one committee was immediately followed by the throwing of a grenade at Tan Cheng Lock, a prominent Chinese, by one of his own compatriots. But Malay-Chinese organisations are being organised on a Federation basis, and I trust that the Government will do everything they can to welcome and further these organisations and do everything else they can to solve this difficulty.

1217
There is one thing which we British can do: we can respond generously to the appeal which appeared in a letter from Mr. Malcolm MacDonald in Monday's copy of The Times asking for funds for Singapore University. We can, of course, give money to Malaya. As announced in another place a few days ago, we have given £6,000,000 towards the cost of the war in Malaya—not a very handsome sum, compared with the £20,000,000 that we gave to the Burmese, whose loyalty now turns towards Moscow. It was a token in earnest from the hard-pressed British taxpayer. But we ought to give more. The Prime Minister of Johore, Dato Orin Bin Jaafir, called it (if your Lordships will forgive the un-Parliamentary language) "lousy" and a "flea-bite." Not a very happy or helpful attitude. One can only hope that his remark was intended for internal consumption. But we can do more than put money into Malaya. We can put in British brains, energy, service and initiative; and that country wants initiative more than it ever wanted it before.
What, however, is happening in Malaya? There is uncertainty everywhere. British, Malay and Chinese alike look over their shoulders, not knowing what is coming next. Certain unscrupulous people are jobbing for employment when we go. That is not good. That situation cannot be anything but unhealthy for Malaya. Unfortunately, we find that same uncertainty in too many places throughout the whole Commonwealth and Empire. We find everywhere the disastrous effect of our apparent failure, or unwillingness, to govern. I do not want to introduce a political note into my remarks, because I think Colonial affairs, like defence affairs, should be as free as possible from Party politics, but in the past some of the extreme supporters of the noble Lords opposite have not helped. I hope they no longer hang their heads in shame at the thought of the British Empire, or blush for what we have done, or maintain that no great Power should have Colonies at all.
I do not know whether noble Lords opposite have yet read a little manifesto published yesterday about future Socialist policy. I am not suggesting that they should read it; I am merely asking out
1218
of politeness whether it has come to their notice! Mixed up among the sugar and cement are some references to the Colonies. I have not had an opportunity of studying the manifesto in detail, but I should like to see a firmer declaration of policy on the lines which the noble Earl who is to reply is, we hope, to give us later on. We have all heard the catch-phrase, "Let us face the future." The future of the Colonial Empire is something that they should at least regard as a heavy responsibility, and I hope that the Government will protect the Colonies in future from their too extreme friends. Heaven knows, we have enough opposition from outside! Russia finds in the United Nations Organisation an invaluable means of attacking us in Colonial affairs. This is the only chance she has of beating democracy in the Division Lobby—with the aid of South America and the Arab states.
In conclusion, it seems to me fantastic that we should be working for greater unity in Europe and, at the same time, be prepared to witness and encourage the break-up of the British Commonwealth and Empire. Either we believe, as I believe, that the creation of the British Commonwealth and Empire was the greatest triumph of the British race, and that the existence of that Empire is the greatest force for good and peace in the world, or we do not. Either we are a Colonial Power, or we are not. We cannot be a slightly Colonial Power. As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, began by saying, we are the trustees for 60,000,000 people. We must make it clear, and the Government must also make it clear, that nothing will deflect us from our intention of carrying out that trust.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, it is exceedingly difficult to speak after listening to the interesting speeches on this subject, but I should like to turn especially to the strategic aspect of the question. From the strategic point of view, our Colonial dependencies must be regarded as the bases throughout the world, not only for our sea power but also for our air power. This far-reaching and powerful arm must extend itself over the world, but it will not be able to do that unless it has properly equipped bases, which require far more room than the old naval bases and might have to

1219
be situated well inland. When my noble friend Lord Ailwyn last Wednesday asked a Question in your Lordships' House about the strategic advantage that would accrue to the Atlantic Treaty Powers if Spain were allowed to come in, the answer from the Government Front Bench was that, in inviting States to join the Pact, more than strategic considerations must be borne in mind. That was a platitude of the worst sort. A platitude is defined in the dictionary as, "an empty sentence made to sound important." Of course, all these factors are taken into consideration, but I suggest that there are periods we must pass through in which the strategic factors loom very largely. We are now passing through one of those periods.
The bases we have occupied in the past have not been a fortuitous collection of ports which happen to be nicely situated in various ocean routes of the world. They were acquired by farsighted men. The noble Lord, Lord Killearn, in his interesting maiden speech, mentioned Sir Stamford Raffles, but there were many more who acquired these places. The Governments of the time and the traders went to those places and traded, building up a pro-British community round those ports. Those bases made us a great Power in the world. In 1894, when the Kaiser sent his "mailed fist" out to the East, it could not get to the East because we would not allow it to obtain coal, and in various other ways we showed our power over the sea routes.
What is happening to-day? Starting from the Far East and working backwards, we find Hong Kong and Singapore with troubled hinterlands; Rangoon, Calcutta, Bombay, Trincomalee and Karachi are gone; Suez, Alexandria and Port Said are gone. Even the Suez Canal, which used to be described as the lifeline of the British Empire, has gone. We have given up our position in the Middle East and the Canal is within easy range now of our potential enemy. The flag remains flying in Cyprus—but I will not say anything about that because we are to hear views about that island in a moment. The West Indies are in a continual state of upheaval, notably in Trinidad and Jamaica, and odd things are happening in Antigua.
1220
There remains the African continent. We have heard a great deal this afternoon about our bases there. Anyone who looks at the map can see the extraordinarily important position Africa now occupies in our strategic position, especially East and West Africa. I have been told by a member of your Lordships' House who is a great authority on this subject—unfortunately, he is unable to be here to speak this afternoon—that these Colonies can supply almost all we want. The bases in East Africa were found inconvenient in the last war, although we were driven to them when we lost control of the Indian Ocean. Those bases could still be developed into powerful air bases, and air power will be able to do much that ships used to do in those waters.
Reference has already been made to the recent debate in your Lordships' House when my noble friend Lord Rennell introduced his Motion. It does not look as though matters in West Africa are very happy. Yet there we have to consider a position which is the key position on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. It appears that in that particular locality, and in others about which we have heard, firm and continuous government was lacking, when everybody could see that it was mostly required, when men came home from the war, and so on. These uprisings against our power have been permitted. The extraordinary Ordinance which was quoted provides evidence that all is not well in that part of the world.
I suggest that the essential consideration of a satisfactory base is, first of all, that it shall be situated among a strong, virile, friendly population from which it can draw all that it requires in the way of man-power for defence and security, and which will provide all the technicians and mechanics necessary for the upkeep of a base to look after the munitions and outfit of all the three Services. Malta was a case in point. It is now rather small for its purpose. These conditions can, I understand, be found in East and West Africa. We have heard that Colonial troops were of the greatest value in the last two wars; they fought in many parts of the world, and particularly in Burma, that sorry example of having gone too far too fast. If full use is not made of the Colonial troops, what substitute have we for the Indian Army, which did great service in all parts

1221
of the globe, both in peace and war? We have now lost that Army. Colonial troops of all arms, including all the ancillary services, have given proof of their worth, and that they can form self-supporting units. Would it not be a wise policy to extend that so far as we can, and make every use of it? No doubt this would mean restarting training camps and schools on a large scale. But what dividends that would pay! Once they were in working order, large numbers of trained technicians and mechanics could be turned out every year—men who would answer the description of those for whom my noble friend Lord Mancroft asked. Surely, with men under your control like that, something could be done in those districts to inculcate some high principles and stimulate pride in the connection they have with the British Commonwealth and the common purpose for which we are all working.
What is certain is that we want bases, and we want them supported by a contented population, proud of their connection with the British Commonwealth, and proud of fighting in the service of their King. But you will not get that among the natives so long as we go on in the way we do, always decrying the British Commonwealth. Here is this great British Commonwealth of Nations, and we are told that so and so has hesitated whether they will come in or not. They ought to go down on their knees and beg to come in. If they do not like it, let them join the United Nations, from where they can sling mud at the British Empire, to whom they owe everything.
5.46 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I from these Benches add my tribute to that already paid to the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, for his most valuable and successful maiden speech? After certain recent events to which the noble Earl who preceded me referred, I feel that perhaps the right motto for Governors is to be "seen and not heard." Nevertheless, I will venture to make a few comments upon the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in introducing this Motion. I listened to that speech with great interest, and also with the respect which is due to one who has held the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies. While I would not wish to make any comment this afternoon upon
1222
the policies which the noble Viscount pursued when at the Colonial Office, there is no doubt that his administration was marked by a vigour, energy and imagination which has not always been apparent in the holders of that office. In fact, I think the Colonial Empire has suffered very much indeed in the past because the Office of Secretary of State for the Colonies has not been regarded as highly in the hierarchy of the Cabinet as it should have been. For what my opinion is worth, I think it is an Office for which the Prime Minister to-day should always choose one of the most competent of his colleagues. Had that always been done, I am sure our Colonial affairs would have been in a much better state than we have sometimes found them.
In listening to the speech of the noble Viscount, I am bound to say that I detected no fundamental criticism of the principle or policy in regard to Colonial affairs which is being pursued by my right honourable friend to-day. Certainly there were many criticisms—and we have heard many criticisms from other speakers—but, to my mind, those criticisms represented mere differences of opinion as to how certain tasks should be carried out. Of course, it is always the case that we are apt to think that we can do the job better than the man who is doing it. I feel that the criticisms during this debate have been more in the nature of criticism of the way in which a particular job in the Colonies is being done than criticism of the principles and policy which animate the administration at the Colonial Office at this moment. I must confess that I was glad to hear the noble Viscount appeal to the Government to produce a plan for their Colonial administration, as the other day he invited the Government to produce a plan in regard to defence. I can remember a great deal of criticism and scorn that has been heaped upon my Party in the past as being a Party of planners. Certainly we have known times when it was represented as rather discreditable to wish to do any planning, and when the good old methods of trial and error, ad hoc and improvisation, and so on, were considered to be the proper way to run a country and an Empire. I am glad to notice that conversion has taken place in that respect, and that it is now generally agreed that government is something that is probably

1223
rather better planned than left to haphazard day-to-day action.
The noble Viscount several times referred to the principle of trusteeship in regard to the Colonial Empire. I would certainly agree with that in the sense that it implies that we have a great responsibility for these territories and for these people. But I myself, in my views on this subject, at any rate—I will not put it higher than that—wish to move forward beyond the principle of trusteeship, of a guardian looking after a minor, and get on to the idea of co-operation and partnership with these people. I noticed with great pleasure that in the noble Viscount's speech he paid a most generous tribute to the Africans when he said: "It was not I who produced the fats and the oils out of Africa during the war; it was the Africans themselves who did it." I feel that in the spirit of that tribute lies the real key to future Colonial administration; that over and above the principle of trusteeship—which we may perhaps accept for the present—we should have also this idea of co-operation and co-partnership. Certainly we have much to build upon there. Loyalty to the King was also mentioned in the speech, and in Cyprus I myself, in spite of a great deal of political turmoil and agitation which went on during my term of office, could see the very deep spirit of loyalty to the Crown which existed underneath that surface of turmoil and agitation.
A great deal has been said this afternoon about self-government, and about not going too fast. I endorse a good deal that has been said under that head. Certainly there can be no going back on our policy in that matter, and I would not suggest that for a moment. To educate the Colonial peoples up to self-government must remain our policy. But to my mind that implies also a certain duty upon the Colonial peoples themselves who, in certain cases, must accept the fact that they have to be educated up to the point where they are fit to undertake the responsibilities of self-government. It is a two-sided affair. It is not only that this country wishes to give self-government, but it is the duty of some of the peoples concerned to recognise that they must educate themselves until they are fit for it.
1224
There is always this danger in talking about self-government. If one says to people: "What we want to do is to educate you to govern yourself," they very naturally respond: "But we are perfectly fit to govern ourselves. What are you waiting for?" I have had some experience of that in Cyprus. Our offer of a constitution to the people of Cyprus—which would have guided and educated them along the road of self-government—was rejected by an opposition movement led by the mayors of the four largest towns in Cyprus. It was brought to my notice that not one of those towns had a fire brigade which could be called a fire brigade in any sense of the word, and had a big fire broken out in any of those towns the town would have been burned down. I felt that it was a little early for people who could not even run a fire brigade to claim self-government. I am speaking seriously about this. So serious was the matter that I had to remove the fire brigades from the municipalities, and entrust them to the police force. When we talk about self-government, those are matters which have to be borne in mind, and people must realise their responsibility for allowing themselves to be guided and helped along the road to self-government.
The noble Viscount said something which is very much in my heart indeed. He spoke about our duty to help the farmer in our Colonial territories. He asked: What is the Government doing, about that? I should be very happy for any noble Lord who is an expert and interested in agricultural matters to pay a visit to Cyprus to see what the Government are doing to help the farmer. Cyprus has essentially an agricultural economv—it is an agricultural country. In that Island there is a Department of Agriculture which is carrying out every conceivable experiment, with a view to assisting the farmers and the peasants in their work. Experiments about manures, about seeds, about fertilisers, about rotations and so on are being carried out. Livestock of all descriptions are being imported from this country and from Ireland, in order to improve the livestock of the Island. A system of agricultural shows has been introduced and is stimulating a great interest amongst the agricultural community, and leading to many improvements in the

1225
agriculture of the country. I will not dilate further upon these experimental stations which the Government have set up, but as an example it might interest your Lordships to know that at one of the deciduous fruit experimental stations I found no fewer than forty-three types of apple under trial, with a view to finding out which was the most suitable to grow in Cyprus. Therefore, I think it can fairly be said that in one Colony at any rate—the only Colony for which I am in a position to speak—the resources of Government are very energetically devoted to assisting the farmer in his work. It includes attention to utilisation of the soil, and also to erosion.
Certainly in Cyprus the greatest service that the Government have rendered to the farmer, and to the peasant, was to free them from the clutches of the moneylender. I most fully endorse what the noble Viscount said about what has been done in Cyprus to that end. He spoke with complete accuracy on that subject, and the part he played in it is well known. But if we are to get the farmer out of the hands of the moneylender he has to be provided with credit at certain moments. The ideal way is through the co-operative society and through the co-operative movement in Cyprus; and in that way the farmer and peasant have indeed been rescued—the moneylender has been almost put out of business. Just before I left I was very sorry indeed to notice that there were one or two signs on the horizon that the moneylender was beginning to perk up again. The only way to keep him out of business is through the co-operative movement. I was sorry to notice one or two indications of hostility, in quarters where hostility ought not to exist, and I had to do my best to combat and defeat it.
The noble Viscount spoke about forestry in Africa, and he emphasised the great part which was played by private enterprise in developing the forests. He gave the credit for that work to private enterprise. There is a tremendous task on foot in Cyprus to reconstitute the forests, which have suffered so terribly in the past from the ravages of the goat, from indiscriminate cutting and, I am sorry to say, in the remote past, from arson. The forests of Cyprus should represent an asset worth millions of pounds to the Island. Apart from the fact that
1226
they provide for home resources a wonderful source of timber—which has at present to be imported from abroad—the denudation of the mountain-sides has, of course, led to soil erosion and to a great loss of fertility and productivity in the country. But in Cyprus we are able to tackle the task and reconstitute the forests through a Government Department; no private enterprise is involved at all. What is being done in Cyprus in reconstituting the forests has the admiration—I could almost, say of the world, because there are many international conferences on this subject of forestry, and at all those conferences Cyprus always comes up for high commendation and mention for what is being done in restoring her forests. But that, as I say, is the work of a most capable Conservator of Works and a very capable Forestry Department. Private enterprise does not come into it.
Mention has been made of Colonial defence affairs. The position in Cyprus is rather a sad story. I found when I arrived there that there was a Cyprus Regiment—and I also found that the Guard at Government House was provided by the police. The Cyprus police force is second to none, and I have many times paid my tribute to them as a very remarkable body; but it went against the grain to be guarded by the police while there was a Cyprus Regiment in the Island. Therefore, I arranged that the Cyprus Regiment should mount the Guard at Government House, and I also took two honorary A.D.C.'s from the Regiment. These things gave great satisfaction to the Regiment and, I think, in Cyprus generally.
Unfortunately however, while that Regiment was very keen indeed—I used to go to their passing-out parades and so on, and saw that for myself—when, having been brought up to a very high degree of efficiency and discipline, they were sent abroad, they were put on to menial and routine jobs; and the ardent spirit went out of the officers and men very quickly. What was worse was that in spite of my representations on the subject, the Regiment was eventually disbanded. At the time I left the Island it had become so attenuated that it could no longer mount a Guard at Government House. The disciplinary effect among the officers and men, and

1227
also the political effect, were very unfortunate. It may well be the case that I shall be told that there is an intention to reconstitute that Regiment, possibly as an anti-aircraft defence regiment; but it was an unfortunate thing to allow the Regiment to be disbanded. That step should have been avoided; and some very fine officers indeed had their spirits broken because of it.
The last point to which I wish to refer in connection with Colonial administration affairs is the matter of personnel. It was a source of great regret to me to find how difficult it was to fill certain posts and appointments which were vacant in the Island. For more than one most important appointment I never got a candidate at all. The Colonial Office did everything they could, but the fact remains that they were unable to find candidates for a number of highly important posts that remained vacant during the whole time I was there. It is not my wish to apportion blame or criticism in this matter, but it did seem to me very regrettable that here in the Colonial Service there should be this dearth of recruits from suitable personnel.
In conclusion, I would say this. Certain remarks have been made about the Government this afternoon in regard to Colonial policy, such as that the Government do not know where they are going. The word "scuttle" has been used, as have such phrases that the Government is "slipping," "slithering" and so on. Well, my Lords, it fell to my lot in Cyprus to have several important, crucial, I will almost say critical, matters to discuss with the Secretary of State, and we were always able to come to an agreement. If I had any criticism to make it would be only that I was sometimes surprised how long it took him to find that he completely agreed with me! I must say that in all the conversations and transactions which I had to conduct with the Secretary of State, I certainly received no impression that the Government did not know where they were going, or were "slipping" or "slithering," or anything of the sort. What I did find was a Cabinet Minister who had the clearest ideas in his mind of the policy which he desired to follow and is, in fact, following in regard to the Colonial
1228
Empire. If ever there was a man who is out to help in these matters, who sees his policy perfectly clearly and is pursuing it single-mindedly, it is the present Secretary of State for the Colonies.
But, of course, the Government's task in this matter is a difficult one. It is that of ending anomalies which inflict injustice on the indigenous people while at the same time endeavouring to do the minimum of injury to the interests of our own people who are concerned. That is their task. They have to end a system which, I do not think it is denied, partook largely of the nature of exploitation—and to end such a system without inflicting hardship is, I feel, an almost impossible task. The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, said that we were accelerating the pace too much in our Colonial policy. That is always said about any new departure from policy. When Stephenson gave us the first railway in this country there was a clergyman who got up in the pulpit and preached that it was contrary to the will of Almighty God that mankind should proceed at twenty miles an hour. The same thing was said about the abolition of slavery: that we were going too fast. Yet who would wish to turn back that page in history? The abolition of slavery was probably the most disinterested act of statesmanship which has ever been accomplished in the history of the world. It may be that, in proportion, and in more moderate terms, the same sort of thing will be said about the Colonial policy which His Majesty's Government is pursuing to-day.
But let the last word I utter be no word of commendation on the Government's policy. Let me pay a tribute to the personnel of the Civil Service as I made acquaintance with it in Cyprus. Whatever may be the Government's policy, and whatever may be their task of administration, in the long run it all conies down to the men in the Colonial Civil Service. While I was still on the Island I was told that one of the high officials of the Customs and Excise Department had come to the end of his period of service and was retiring. I invited him to Government House to luncheon, in order to congratulate him upon his long and excellent career and to wish him happiness in his retirement. As I looked at him at the table, I saw that

1229
he was a man of modest and simple appearance and demeanour; and I thought to myself, "Here is a man who has served all these years in the Levant and during that time transactions in goods worth millions of pounds must have gone through his hands as a matter of duty." I know perfectly well that even in the Levant nobody thought it was worth his while to go to that man and offer him a little something in order to get his goods cleared, or anything of that sort. It is upon that complete honesty and incorruptibility of these servants of the Colonial Civil Service that in the end the successful conduct of our Colonial administration turns. I am glad to have the opportunity of paying this tribute to them.
6.11 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, first of all said that there had been no criticism of the Government; but in the latter part of his speech he proceeded to try to answer some very grave criticisms which have been made against His Majesty's Government. I for one regret that I have heard nothing which relieves my uneasiness that His Majesty's Government really are slithering down a slippery slope. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said that times change. I well know that. I am a fourth generation which has lived and worked in India. Of course times change. They always have changed and they always will change, but that does not mean that we must divert from our path like a flock of sheep every time we hear a dog barking one side or the other.
We are the heart of an Empire, and we must therefore have our principles. I see no harm in having those principles asserted and reasserted from every Bench of your Lordships' House. The principles are that as trustees we intended to lead in partnership, one by one, in good time, each of the Colonial territories to a goal of self-government within the British Commonwealth. These things are often stated, but do we always know exactly what we are talking about? What do we mean by "government"? Noble Lords opposite belong to a Party that tend to think of government in terms of school dinners and free spectacles, but what is the good of free dinners if your children are kidnapped on the way to school?
1230
What we mean by government in the Colonial Empire is the first and elementary principle of government, which is law and order. If British rule cannot give law and order, then all the frills and furbelows of Government are in vain. I will return to the question of law and order in a minute.
Meanwhile, what of our second factor, the time table? The answer surely is that there cannot be a timetable. A timetable must be completely flexible, but our resolve, of course, must remain inflexible. The final goal can be attained only when the peoples are ready to take over and provide at least as good law and order, and at least as good justice, as we are able to provide at this moment. Any premature departure before that goal is attained would be a complete and absolute betrayal. The time of our stay will, of course, reflect the capacity of the people themselves. We must not skimp it if it seems to us that in certain cases our stay is long. The length of our stay is much more a reflection of the capacity of the people than it is likely to be a reflection of the incapacity of our leadership. If people cite the case of India, India was handed over to the class of people who had ruled on behalf of the Moguls, who had ruled before us for two hundred years. In Africa, the contrast is great. One or two generations ago, our ancestors, and in some cases even our fathers, rescued these people from the most barbarous and savage conditions under their chiefs. Rather should we compare our timetable with Burma. In Lancashire they say "clogs to clogs in three generations." His Majesty's Government have produced "chaos to chaos in three generations." We must never hand over power until the people are completely ready for it. Having rescued them from savagery, and having had them know better things, it would be unthinkable for them to return.
To come back to the question of law and order, which is the root of all government, law and order mean the police and, in the last outcome, the Armed Forces. Are the Colonial police all happy, contented and at full strength? Police work means information. Is the money there to buy the information and can we be sure that informers can feel secure after having given that information? The Governors, the men on the spot, presumably take the advice of their

1231
police chiefs. Are we sure that His Majesty's Government take the advice of the Governors, or do they attempt to rule from Whitehall with the aid of some Fabian handbook? Here in this country law and order have been established for so long that I think we do not realise the terrible disaster it is to a country when the police cannot protect the people. We talk about the "Iron Curtain" and the fear that lies behind, but that is nothing to the fear that exists in a Colonial people if bands of men become stronger than the law.
To-day, the threat all over the Empire is Communism—not the Communism of the political party and the political belief, but the Cominform striking at us through the Colonial Empire, using as its tool the ambitions of the ambitious and the primitive, savage instincts of the people which are never far below the surface. We have been brought up to believe that free speech and the right to form free Parties are an essential principle of democracy. That is all very well if those Parties play the game of democracy, but when one sees Parties which are used by unscrupulous men with a view to attaining power—and we know that once having attained power they will never relinquish it—one begins to wonder whether that is indeed a political Party within the meaning of the words. I do not think we must regard Communism as a political Party in this way. Its aim is to secure power for the few, and in the Colonial Empire the people are only one or two generations away from savagery. Its triumph would put the people back precisely to where we found them. White tyrannies are bad enough, but history shows that there is nothing worse than a black tyranny.
I submit that we should deal with subversion as the men on the spot think fit. If it pays to show no mercy, show no mercy—because these people know none. Do not be afraid of driving movements underground. The dangerous people are already underground, and the enormous proportion of the population will not follow things underground; they will not belong to a movement which a strong Government does not countenance. The Brazilian Government, who have had to deal with this precise problem, have worked in that way, I think without regrets. Of course, we must combine
1232
strong government with the utmost co-operation between blacks and whites. There again that is where the Communists will try to thwart us. In Brazil, where there was no colour bar or no colour consciousness, the Communists came on the scene and they have worked on the blacks to make them conscious of their colour and to make them believe that the whites are their enemies. That is a diabolical thing to do in one of the few countries in the world where whites and blacks have for years played and worked together at all levels of society.
To sum up, we are trying to teach the Colonial peoples the art of self-government. That includes the acquirement of tolerance, patience and justice—qualities which are not very common in combination in this world to-day. We believe we can do it, but it takes time. Let us assert our beliefs and, above all, never let down the people through whom we are working, nor let them think we may let them down. The people will get impatient at our timetable, and their impatience will be played upon by those who seek to establish a tyranny, with themselves as tyrants. It is our duty to protect the people in our charge from these movements; and, above all, if we are to keep the respect of these people, we must never give them cause to think we have lost faith in the direction we are going or that we can be blackmailed.
6.22 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I think you will all agree with me that we are greatly indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for initiating this debate. I think we all agree with the noble Lord who said that it was of prime importance for the Prime Minister to bestow the portfolio of the Secretary of State for the Colonies on one of his ablest colleagues, and fortunately in the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, this country had that. Before I go any further let me add the good wishes of all noble Lords who sit on this side of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, on his maiden speech. It was a speech we all found not only interesting but also amusing, and I am sure noble Lords on all sides of the House hope that we shall often hear him speak again in the future.
This debate on the whole has had a slightly African bias. That is natural,

1233
because two-thirds of the Colonial Empire lies in Africa. A great many questions have been asked to which the noble Earl will be replying when I sit down, and when he replies we shall listen with the greatest care. Those replies will be considered far outside the walls of this great Council of State, as many fundamental issues are involved. There was once a time when we in this House could have debated Colonial affairs in isolation, but now they are so bound up with foreign affairs and defence affairs, and even domestic affairs, that the whole lot must be considered together in relation to one another.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has called upon the Government to announce a clear policy, to re-affirm the old convictions. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, also asked a number of questions, one of which was whether the legislation taking place on the West Coast of Africa means that we in this country are regarded in that part of the world as foreigners. I would like to add one question of my own—namely, if we are considered foreigners, do we produce and shall we continue to produce prodigious sums of money to assist that country? I would like enlightenment on that point from the noble Earl. Almost every speaker said, at some stage in his speech, that we in this country have full responsibility for more than 60,000,000 of these Colonial peoples. Indeed we have, and I do not think that responsibility has ever been heavier on us than it is at this very moment. The responsibility lies through the British Parliament with the British voter and taxpayer. Let me read to your Lordships the result of a "Gallup poll" taken by the Central Office of Information the other day. Three per cent. of those who were approached imagined the United States of America was still a British Colony; over half could not mention any single British Colony; three-quarters could not tell the difference between a Dominion and a Colony, and more than three-quarters thought that every British Colony paid tribute in some form of gold to Britain. My Lords, that is a lamentable state of affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence warned us most carefully that this was a changing world, and that our policy must change with it. We
1234
are all grateful for his advice. But this Empire has lasted where all others have crashed, because it has been progressive where they were static. It always has moved with the times. The others were rigid and inflexible, and time moved past them and they broke down. If we need Lord Pethick-Lawrence's advice on that score we are lost already, because we have lost our power to move with the times, and I doubt whether we could ever catch up with it again. He is right: we move in different times now. In the last ten years two other Empires have grown up. There is the Russian Empire, which has taken in eleven more countries of Europe since this war ended and runs them under a tyranny which even the ancient Persians world have h ad-difficulty in exceeding, if not indeed equalling.
I do not suppose there has been an event of greater significance to the civilised world in the last two centuries than one that has gone by comparatively unnoticed—that in regard to China. As the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, reminded us, its effect will be felt in Malaya, and that effect may well spread like the ripples on a pool until it reaches further and further towards the heart of the Empire. Then as Lord Mancroft reminded us, the American Empire has grown up. They have never been backward in maintaining their vital interests in Hawaii, the Philippines and elsewhere. Almost overnight they acquired the bases in Newfoundland, Jamaica, Bermuda and Trinidad. But that is an Empire which means no harm to anyone, unless some nation should attempt to upset the peace of the world.
Then there is our own Empire, which has been here a very long time. It is worth remarking at this point how it grew up. It grew up in a great variety of ways but in no single instance by the deliberate policy of any single British Government. Three countries I know well—Jamaica, which was occupied after a war with the Spaniards, Malta, which joined of its own accord, and Uganda, which was exchanged with the Germans for Heligoland. The transaction was described by the then Prime Minister as "a suite of clothes for a trouser button." Some trouser button! It very nearly lost us two wars. But since I have been alive, and before, a constant campaign of slander has been directed

1235
against us. It has always been said that we held on to the British Colonial Empire by military force—whereas in fact not one in three of our Colonies had ever seen a British soldier before 1939; that they paid us some form of tribute in taxation—a gross distortion of the truth; and that they formed a great trading preserve into which no one else was allowed—an assertion to which figures give the lie.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said in his excellent speech—in which he gave us a microcosm of what Africa was like as he first knew it and the changes that have taken place since then—we have done little to fight that slander. It is one of our weaknesses, or perhaps a demerit of one of our virtues, that we regard the justice of our case as self-evident. If you do not make a case in these days, in this propaganda-filled world, it is assumed that you have no case to make. Formerly, slanderers without, and Jeremiahs within, were all agreed on one thing: that if a world war ever broke out this same Colonial Empire would seize the golden chance to dissociate itself for ever from us. What actually happened in Africa? In the year 1939 there were 19,000 African troops under arms. By 1945, purely by voluntary recruitment, for we could put no conceivable pressure upon them, the number had grown from 19,000 to 375,00. In three notable theatres of war they earned themselves great glory. Most noble Lords who have spoken have already touched upon this point.
At the moment we have great forces against us. With regard to Communism, as we know, as far back as 1925 Marshal Stalin, or perhaps he was then Mr. Stalin, laid down to a large audience the simple plan by which, he argued, the metropolitan countries of Europe could be destroyed by stirring up trouble in their Colonial possessions. His speech was delivered with all the turgid oratory of revolutionary Marxism. It was in fact a directive on how to create revolution in three easy lessons. And the Communists have not relaxed their efforts. They have intensified them. We have worked in this country and Empire as hard as any country, and a great deal harder than most, to make U.N.O. a success. It is a very sad thing that the Trusteeship Council of U.N.O. should be
1236
used in the way it is used in seeking to embarrass the Government of this country. Trusteeship has been discussed to-day. We have administered trusteeship for many centuries and know what it involves. In fact, it is we who invented the word. It was not invented in 1945 to use in exactly that sense, but in a Parliamentary Committee in 1837. We have put up from the Trusteeship Council of U.N.O. with interference with our Dependencies which Russia and the United States would never have considered putting up with. I think we have shown the most admirable forbearance. If U.N.O. is going to succeed, it will be as a group not of single nations but of groupings. If the only grouping that has stood the test of time and the smoke of war is to be dissipated, U.N.O.'s chances of success are very small.
When you live in a persistent air of slander, as we have done, it has its effect. A certain defeatism has grown up in this country, and now that we have vociferous public opinion showing itself for the first time in this way in so many of the British Colonies I think the growth of that spirit has been accelerated. There has grown up, too, a curious foggy way of thinking—which is, I consider, quite understandable—among our fellow-citizens, who, having read some of the publicity about the Colonial Empire put out over the last three years by different Departments, are beginning to wonder whether we are in the Colonial Empire in order to work as partners with the people there, or whether the Colonial Empire exists to produce margarine and oils for us as soon as possible and in the greatest abundance. Then we have the eternal propaganda put out by those contemptible pigmies whose sole stock in trade is to read and rewrite history to hang their heads in shame at what they have rewritten. In our time we have all met those who loudly boast of the shame they feel for their country, and who vilify long-dead statesmen. I think we all share the same reaction to them—that theirs is the only line of thought in the world that it is impossible to respect.
The expression "slip and slither" has been used to-day and the suggestion behind it has been denied by the noble Lord, Lord Winster. But, with all these circumstances, many outside observers are driven to the conclusion, on looking

1237
round the Colonial Empire, that we have, forgotten how to rule because we no longer believe in our right to rule. Some countries, emboldened by that, have gone to considerable lengths. From Guatemala there has been a demand for British Honduras and fantastic claims have been put in from certain countries to parts of the Antarctic.
I do not share Lord Winster's admiration for the work of his colleagues. Under the lire of criticism which has been levelled at them from all sides and from different points I believe His Majesty's Government have become benighted, beyond the point where the short view stops, and short of where the long view begins. I believe that, by trying to be everything to everybody, and with all the necessary hesitation and apology that goes with that, we have got to rather a dangerous pass. I think it can be said with absolute truth that in Malaya we are dealing now with a situation which should never have been allowed to grow up. In West Africa—the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, discussed the merits of this case in the last debate, and I will not go into it again—I think we are heading towards a dangerous position.
No one has a higher respect than I have for the personnel of His Majesty's Colonial Service. I had the honour to serve in it some fourteen years ago. I believe that they are suffering from a feeling of frustration and uncertainty which in the long run can have only an adverse effect on their efficiency and upon the tasks which they have to carry out. The question is this: Are we going to shoulder our responsibilities squarely, to guide from Britain and develop the territories under British rule, hand in hand with the people of those countries; or are we going to surrender those responsibilities in response to the criticisms which have been uttered, and consign those countries, perhaps, to the same terrible prospect as Burma faces at this moment? There is no middle course. We, on this side of the House, could never consider the latter.
Noble Lords have made a number of points which I will just run over very briefly. In view of the great kaleidoscope of colours, creeds and castes in the Colonial Empire, with one Colony like Bermuda, which has a Parliament going back to the Seventeenth Century, and
1238
several of them so near the stone age still that they have no Parliaments at all, it is impossible, as Lord Mancroft said, to generalise. I think there are three hard facts, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has spoken and to which nearly every speaker has subscribed, which must be borne in mind. The first is that political independence can come about only when economic independence has been secured, and only then when the capacity for government—ir other words, the capacity to be independent—exists. The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, in his most interesting speech, said, under this head, that he thought perhaps the preoccupation of the Government was too much with the political and too little with the economic. I leave it al that. He is a great authority on the subject on which he speaks. The second point is that in all African Colonies, and many others besides, Colonial peoples cannot hope to make headway without European leadership, European capital and technical help. This help will count for nothing unless we can take some Colonial peoples along with us in partnership, as Lord Winster so exactly expressed it. Last of all, there has been a great deal of talk about the part we have to play in the future. I believe that Britain must reconcile herself to playing her part in many of those countries long past our life-time and possibly for many decades to come.
To go briefly over these headings—it is difficult to make a short speech on such a gigantic subject—everyone agrees that there can be no sealed pattern, just as there can be no timetable for handing over government. No real political independence can exist without its economic side. Unless we have economic independence, we have no real control over our destiny. We are pledged to help and work with these countries until, in the words of one document, "they can stand by themselves in the strenuous conditions of this modern world." How many and complex are the factors that come in! How many of these countries have what are called "plural societies"—different religions which are bitterly opposed to each other and different races within the same territory who are far more: dissimilar at the extremes than are the nations of Europe? We sometimes hear the expression, "Give them their freedom." We cannot give freedom, as a

1239
present is given, or as a reward is conferred. Freedom is something that is achieved by one party and recognised by the other. It cannot be given. If you can transfer power to a people, it must be to the people as a whole, and not to any handful, however forcible a pressure group they may represent. We are wedded to the Westminster form of Government, but if we went to any of these countries and said, "Here is the ballot box; get on with it," what would happen? Take Fiji; Indian immigrants heavily outnumber the original Fijian population. The small but vigorous white settlers in Kenya, who have done so much for that country, would be swamped if the ballot were administered in such a form.
Too soon or too late! One of the most successful examples of the work of the Colonial Office is Ceylon. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has drawn attention to it. We have gone on in perfect harmony, until Ceylon had achieved strength and independence. Now she is a free and equal country beside us. What a monstrous disservice we would have done to the people of Ceylon if, twenty years ago instead of last year, we had sought to leave them and handed them a ballot box! On the question of Colonial forces, I think the case of the Ceylon Regiment, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, was a monstrous one. It is generally assumed that as a country proceeds further and further towards running their own affairs, so it is accorded a greater and greater share in its own defence. Every single British Colony, Mandated Territory and Protectorate acquitted itself most manfully in the last war, either in the military sphere or in the production of the necessary articles of war.
In the last three years the African Continent has increased several times the significance that it had before. It must be a great buttress of a great defensive system. Before the war there were several famous regiments in Africa. They were all one arm; numerically they were inconsiderable, and acted more or less as police battalions. When the war came they were recruited up from 19,000 to 375,000. What we need in Africa, and perhaps also in the West Indies, and in other parts of the Empire, are small skeleton divisions of all arms. However
1240
tiny they may be, every man should be a potential N.C.O., so that in time of war, by recruitment and training, they can become full divisions. War now is not merely the declaration of war. For this cold war which Russia has launched, we need the Colonies as we have never needed them before: for at the behest of Russia (though no declaration is made) in half-a-dozen countries triggers are pulled and bullets fly. If we are going to have an African Force of that kind, we must give the proper inducements to secure the right kind of British officer to serve out there.
I come to the question of Western Union. An arrangement in Malaya was described by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, as the best example of regionalisation he had seen. The gathering together of those countries who believe in freedom and are prepared to defend it is called Western Union. In almost everything we have ever had to do in the past, geography has been against us. For once, geography is on our side. Those nations of Western Europe which are with us have as their wards almost the whole of the rest of the African Continent that is not British Africa, or the Union of South Africa itself. It was a long time ago that General Smuts first preached the idea of an African Council by which nations would get together, regardless of their frontiers and without the slightest detriment to their sovereignty, to fight those things which do not recognise frontiers—disease and famine, the tsetse fly, the rinderpest and other scourges. If we could devise such a modus operandi it would open up a great vista for Africa, and Africa, in turn, would open a great vista for Europe.
The Colonial Service has been described in glowing terms to-day. Certainly no praise is too high. One thing is certain about the Colonial Service; that is, that we must have the best people or none at all. Only the best will do. If we are to attract the best people into this onerous form of service, requiring separation from home, we must have foresight. As more and more the Colonial people become educated, and more and more English-born officials are succeeded there by locally-born ones, so more and more must any candidate having knowledge of the Service be excused for thinking that it is a shrinking asset. We

1241
on this side of the House are the last people to advocate a slavish desire for security, but there is a degree of security that every prudent person must desire. I should like to hear from the noble Earl what are the future plans when English-born officers are replaced by native-born officers. Men in later life know almost certainly they will not obtain jobs in England. The Devonshire Report made some interesting recommendations, some of which have been carried out. I would like the noble Lord to inform me on that point.
When I joined the Colonial Service in 1934, I found that if you had done twenty years in the Service, you might have a fair chance of some day becoming a Governor. In those days the Colonies were more or less isolated. Now they are hitched to world politics and world economics. If a man has spent his active years in a remote part of Africa, it is almost manifest that he does not know any wider field, and many people in the Colonial Service are beginning to fear that the chances of their getting to the top of the tree are becoming more limited as the years pass. The Devonshire Report laid down that all those who were selected for the Colonial service should undergo an initial course of instruction that certain officers should be selected to do another course a year or two later to compare notes and improve their experience, and that certain other people who have done nine or ten years' service should be brought back and given a special course, roughly equivalent of that given at the Imperial Defence College. I should like a specific answer on what effect has been given to those recommendations.
A number of questions have been asked, and I think we shall all listen with the greatest interest to the answers which the noble Earl gives. One afternoon is a short time in which to deal with this subject. I will detain the House no longer, but will just remind noble Lords of some historic words of Lord Curzon. I said earlier on, quite advisedly, that it appears to some observers outside that perhaps we have lost our genius for ruling because we no longer believe in our right to rule. These words, I feel, supply a complete answer to that. They are from Lord Curzon's valedictory address in India and they are as applicable to the Colonial Empire now as they
1242
were to the India of his day. Lord Curzon said:
"Remember that the Almighty has placed in your hands the greatest of his ploughs in whose furrows the Nations of the future are germinating and taking shape. To drive the blade a little further in your time, and to feel that somewhere amongst those millions you have left a little justice, or happiness, or prosperity, or sense of manliness, or moral dignity, or spring of patriotism, or dawn of intellectual enlightenment, or stirring of duty, where it did not before exist—that is enough. That is the Englishman's justification in India. It is good enough for his watchword while he is here, for his epitaph when he is gone."
My Lords, it is good enough for our watchword, too.
6.52 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I shall not attempt to vie with the periods of Lord Curzon. I think your Lordships will agree that we have had a long and exceedingly interesting debate, worthy of the high standard we expect or such occasions. Before I go any further, I should like to join in the congratulations that have been showered, I fear in somewhat embarrassing profusion, on the: noble Lord, Lord Killearn, on his delightful and instructive maiden speech. I happened to be in South-East Asia at the time when the noble Lord was packing his trunks to go home. I heard many accounts from those on the spot, men in the most favourable position to judge, of the invaluable work that the noble Lott had done in preventing famine, owing to the calamitous rice shortage, and in promoting inter-Governmental co-operation during the difficult times after the war. The noble Lord has an unrivalled knowledge of China and South-East Asia, and I can assure him that his views will be welcome and sought whenever those subjects are being discussed in this House.
I am also grateful, as other noble Lords have been, to the noble Viscount opposite for moving this Motion in a speech which, if I may say so without being presumptuous, seemed to me to be exemplary in balanced judgment and of constructive quality. It is one of the most useful functions of this House to scrutinise at regular intervals, in the spirit of a Council of State, the broad principles of policy pursued in different fields by His Majesty's Government. I think your Lordships will agree that the time has been well chosen by the noble Viscount opposite for an-

1243
other discussion of Colonial policy. I welcome the opportunity he has provided to restate the principles which guide my Department, and to examine carefully, as he has invited me to do, their application in the circumstances prevailing in the world to-day.
It is fortunate that the starting point of so many Government policies, for defence, for foreign relations, and for Commonwealth co-operation, as well as for the Colonies, is not in itself a matter of Party controversy. This wide area of agreement gives these policies far greater weight in the outside world than they would otherwise have. I was glad to notice that the restatement of Conservative policy by the noble Viscount was in complete accord with our views on these Benches. I accept—and I am sure my right honourable friend would accept it, although I have not had the opportunity of referring the matter to him—the view that there is a need for an overall plan for the Colonies. I also accept the five points which the noble Viscount enumerated as being essential to its fulfilment. The special value of this non-Party approach to Colonial matters is that it convinces our foreign critics that the policy they decry is not a mere aberration of the Party in power at the moment, and that it fortifies our many friends in the international field in the knowledge that the policy they are backing will not be reversed after a General Election. Moreover, the loyalty of the Colonial peoples to the United Kingdom and Commonwealth must depend in considerable measure on their belief that our devotion to their interests is a British policy, because it is based on the will of the British people. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth said—I think it was also mentioned by Lord Mancroft—about the first requirement of a broad policy for the Colonies being that it should be a national policy.
But there are divergencies, of course, in the Colonial field between different United Kingdom Administrations. They are to be found in the way that these principles have been applied in practice; in the emphasis that has been placed on this, that and the other aspect of policy; and in the speed, energy and imagination with which the economic development of the Colonies and their social and political
1244
advancement have been pursued by successive Governments. Our main purpose (I willingly re-define our policy, and I hope the definition will not sound too platitudinous—perhaps if it is platitudinous that may be regarded as a virtue) is to guide the inhabitants of our Colonial Dependencies to responsible self-government within the Commonwealth, in conditions that will give them a fair standard of living and freedom from oppression. I think that includes the essential points mentioned by the noble Viscount opposite as being indispensable prerequisites to self-government.
The principles behind this policy may be summarised as trusteeship and partnership, for in the working out of our policy for the Colonies we are moved by a sense of responsibility for their welfare which can properly be described as "trusteeship." Yet a sense of responsibility is not in itself enough to evoke the response that is required for progressive change. That is why our disinterestedness of purpose must be combined, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, rightly emphasised, to an increasing degree as social and political evolution continue, with active co-operation as equal partners with the Colonial peoples in the achievement of our joint purpose. Trusteeship alone conveys a suggestion of immobility and passive acquiescence, and savours faintly of patronage and condescension. In relation to the Colonies, it has sometimes been misunderstood to signify the attitude of a guardian towards a minor. This legal analogy is entirely misleading, for trusteeship without partnership would avail little, if at all, to bring our goal within reach.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster (he is not here at the moment, but I hope he will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow) when he said—not in so many words, but with this meaning—that nothing of lasting value could be achieved without the full and active co-operation of the Colonial peoples themselves at every stage in the work we have undertaken on their behalf. Coming from the noble Lord, with his personal experience of Colonial administration, the point came with special force. It is our first duty to encourage by every possible means, by the development of local government institutions, by suitable constitutional arrangements, the growth of a representative, intelligent and responsible

1245
public opinion in each Colonial Territory. It is through the growth of such a public opinion that local communities can play an increasing part in the executive and legislative functions of government, and will be able to make their own wishes and aspirations felt in fostering the development of their territories.
May I turn to some of the economic policies which are directed to the establishment of conditions which, in our view, must precede self-government? If the Colonies are to be able to stand on their own feet in the conditions of the modern world, their economies must be stable and capable of sustaining the Government services which are essential to an efficient and orderly society. Our primary object in fostering the economic growth of our Colonial dependencies is to develop their resources for the benefit of their inhabitants and to make economic prosperity the basis for social advance, so as to build on ground that will not subsequently give way.
The three essentials of economic development are money, materials and men. Money to-day is no longer the obstacle it used to be in the past, The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, referred to the very large sum available now for the development of the Colonies, and noble Lords are aware of the large sums voted under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act to be spent during the years between 1946 and 1956. All Colonial Governments have been invited to prepare ten-year development plans financed from their share of these funds, to be supplemented by local revenues and such sums as they may be able to raise by borrowing on their own credit. These plans are designed to improve the capital equipment of the Colony by expenditure on roads, harbours, railways and so on, to develop its natural resources for agricultural and mineral production and, at the same time, to expand the social services to match the rising standard of living.
The ten-year plans of twenty-nine separate Colonial territories have been submitted for the approval of the Secretary of State—of course, this has all been done since the war—and, of those submitted, twenty-four have already been approved and are now in full operation. These Governmental activities are supplemented by the operations of the Colonial Development Corporation and the Over-
1246
seas Food Corporation, which have powers and funds to undertake large-scale commercial ventures which lack the quick returns or substantial profits usually necessary to attract private investment. All these activities of public bodies—and I should like to emphasise this, because I think it is a point which has been misunderstood—are intended to supplement and not to supplant the operation of private enterprise, which we welcome as a most useful and, indeed, valuable ally in the development of the Colonies. There are thus, as I have said, ample financial resources in existence to stimulate Colonial development.
But it is far more difficult to find materials than to find money. Local raw materials exist, or can be produced, in abundance, but modern techniques demand much in the way of steel, cement and machinery which can come only from the industrial countries. Here we are brought sharply up against present world shortages. By the careful use of our limited dollar resources and by the planned allocation of home production, most of the essential needs are being met. For example, we have recently arranged for a greatly increased allocation of steel to the Colonies from home supplies. But money and materials by themselves are useless without men with sound health and technical qualifications to use them fruitfully. This is also essential for the successful functioning of the local administrative machinery, for 96 per cent. of the Civil Services in Colonial territories are recruited locally. I think that is a figure which, to some people, may be a little surprising, and it shows the ground which has already been covered in the direction of manning these Services by local personnel.
Of course, education has a very important part to play. We are fully aware of that, and we are looking to the new universities and university colleges in the West Indies, West Africa, East Africa and Malaya, to turn out the local scientists and technicians who must be found to guide the productive efforts of the Colonial peoples. We must match skill in direction with an increased productivity in the individual workman, and here improved health and better balanced diets can make a vast difference. Incentives to increased output must also be found in a more plentiful supply of consumer goods, without which inflation can-

1247
not be kept in check or the standard of living effectively raised.
As production expands we are looking to the marketing arrangements necessary to ensure stability and a fair return to the producer. Long-term contracts have been arranged—for which, in certain cases, the noble Viscount opposite has expressed approval—for such products as sugar and citrus fruit juice from the West Indies, whereby a guarantee is given by the United Kingdom Government to purchase all the exportable surplus over a period of years at a price which can vary only between prescribed limits. Such a contract gives confidence to the producer and encourages him to expand his output, and for the purchaser it creates a reliable supply of staple commodities. As an insurance against fluctuating prices, stabilisation and development funds have been set up for the benefit of many groups of producers—for example, the Uganda Cotton Fund and the West African Cocoa Fund. Part of the abnormally high prices now current for such products is paid into these funds which are used in many ways: to improve the amenities of the workers, for research in improved strains of plants and the battle against plant disease, and to be drawn on later if the world price seriously declines. At the end of 1948 the total resources of these various funds amounted to £81,000,000, which I think your Lordships will agree is a very useful cushion against trade recession.
The expansion of Colonial production has for us an importance rivalling its importance to the Colonial peoples concerned. The Colonies have a vital part to play in the European Recovery Programme. Many Colonial products are dollar-earning or dollar-saving—for example, rubber and tin from Malaya, where output has been maintained and improved in spite of the present disturbed conditions. The Colonies also sell to the United Kingdom and Western Europe many raw materials which would otherwise have to be purchased with dollars. By expanding dollar earning production and restricting hard currency expenditure, the Colonies have converted an adverse balance with the Western Hemisphere in 1946 into a substantial net credit balance in 1948, all in the course of only two years. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a magni-
1248
ficent contribution to the hard currency resources of the sterling area, and I am sure it is fully realised in the Colonies themselves that the trading strength and financial stability of the sterling area is an essential factor in their own prosperity.
This is the major interest which the Colonies have in the success of the Marshall Plan, but it also has for them other advantages. For instance, we are arranging with the United States under this plan to get the services of a number of technical experts, such as geologists and surveyors, to till the gaps left in the Commonwealth output of such specialists by the restriction of training in the war years. These experts will help with the much needed survey of Colonial resources required to release the great potential wealth as yet unexplored, and to push forward the development of transport in Africa, which is equally necessary if the resources of this Continent are to play their full part in the development of the wealth of the world. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, will agree, after hearing this story, that we are really doing our utmost to open up these economically backward territories within the British Commonwealth Dependencies.
Physical development is only part of the overall advance which is required before Colonial peoples are equipped to face the problems of self-government. Social progress must accompany economic expansion. It has sometimes been said in criticism that, in the allocation of funds, social welfare receives greater consideration than economic development. But I do not feel that there is any reason for describing pure water supplies, improved nutrition, preventive and curative medicine, technical and trade education, and many another social need, as other than vital factors in economic activity. Much important work has been done recently in medical research, and very valuable work is proceeding in the various fields of trypanosomiasis research. The fight against the tsetse fly is of the utmost importance to the future economic development of Africa, and I can assure noble Lords that it is proceeding vigorously. The malarial mosquito is in retreat. Cyprus can now claim to be free from malaria, and striking advances are being made in British Guiana and Mauritius.
But education is the vital social service. I have already referred to the formal

1249
education at the new universities, which we hope soon will supplement the excellent results already obtained from the older foundations, such as Hong Kong. At the other end of the educational ladder, experiments in what has been called "mass education" in Africa are perhaps even more novel and exciting. Community development is the term we now use for this movement to stimulate initiative amongst social groups in Africa. Here a whole community are encouraged to come together to learn to read and write, to hear about the outside world, and to learn simple lessons in health and sanitation which must be widely diffused in clear terms if the people are to be revitalised. In this essay in self-education great stress is laid on better agricultural methods, and people are encouraged to construct for themselves, from local materials, the schools and dispensaries, minor irrigation schemes and soil conservation works, for which they might have to wait a generation if they relied on the few overworked experts of the central Government and the supply of imported equipment. This is a very great new development in the technique of social advance in the Colonies.
What I have said is but a brief and necessarily incomplete sketch of the work which is being done to create the essential practical basis of political advance. People must be taught to govern themselves, and the best teaching is practical experience in conditions where the task is not too large and the result of mistakes is not too serious. Hence the emphasis which is now being placed on the development of local government. The old policy of indirect rule followed in many of our territories was democratic, in the sense that it left the local or provincial affairs of the Colonial peoples to be managed to a very great extent by the traditional authorities, the chiefs and rulers, recognised by the people themselves. For some time, however, we have been seeking, while recognising the structure of native society, to adapt this policy to modern conceptions by evolving towards more flexible forms of native administration which give room for the progressive and often younger elements of Colonial societies to play their part. This system, we hope, will come more and more closely to resemble genuine representative local government as it is known in the older
1250
democracies. We are encouraging the growth of more broadly-based local units by forms of tribal federation, and by creating regional organs which have advisory, deliberative and, later, representative powers. Such development is strengthening among the people a sense of social obligation, and is providing the experience and opportunity which will fit them to work the institutions at the centre.
I have so far dealt mainly with the economic measures which are leading to a higher standard of living and a larger capacity for self-government. But I should like now to say something about what we are doing on the political side to promote constitutional development, and to take as an example of what has been happening recently in the Colonies the changes that have been occurring in our African territories. I think Africa is the best example, because not only is it the largest area we administer but it also contains the vast majority of His Majesty's Colonial subjects. Representatives of the local African communities (and in East and Central Africa the immigrant communities) already play an important part in the formation of policy, both through their membership of the Legislative Councils and in an advisory capacity, and the local communities are finding an increasing plat: in the higher ranks of the civil service.
But it is recognised that this is not enough. If political and social development are to go forward smoothly and effectively, experience shows that the local population as a whole must feel that their representatives are in a position to exercise a real influence in the course of events. Representatives of the local communities must therefore be brought into the executive side of Colonial Governments at a high level. There have for some time been unofficial members of Executive Councils, but these have had no specific responsibility for executive departments of government but only a general say in matters of policy that come up for discussion before the Governor's Executive. In the West African territories there have since the war been African unofficial members of the Executive Councils. The time has now come to consider moving another stage forward in West Africa. The Coussey Committee in the Gold Coast, on the basis of the

1251
White Paper issued by His Majesty's Government last August, are considering the question of appointing African members of the Executive Council, drawn from the Legislative Council, who would have definite responsibility for groups of departments. This is a stage in evolution, and not by any means what is commonly regarded as the final step. In Nigeria, one of the questions which will be considered in connection with the forthcoming review of the constitution will be how to bring Africans on to the higher executive side of government, especially on the regional level.
During the last ten years much progress has been made in developing the unofficial side of the Legislative Council in Africa. Most territories now have unofficial majorities on their Legislative Council, majorities consisting almost entirely of Africans in West Africa, and of Europeans, Indians and Africans in East Africa. These unofficial majorities exercise a very important influence on policy through their powers in legislation and finance. But it is not simply a question of electing or appointing a sufficient number of unofficials to legislative assemblies. The key to successful democratic development is the existence of a solid and representative body of public opinion. It is essential that the unofficial members of Legislative Councils should be closely linked with this public opinion through a proper system of representation. Hence it has been necessary to devise a system of representation linking the unofficial members of the Legislative Councils with local public opinion in the towns and rural areas.
It is to meet this essential need that in most African territories a system of indirect election of African members has been built up, starting from the Native Authorities through Provincial, and in some cases Regional, Councils to the Legislative Council at the centre. This system is working successfully in a number of territories. It is ensuring that the unofficial members on the Legislative Councils represent not simply their own views but the views of the people for whom they speak. It is ensuring that the Legislative Councils are not merely representative of the more advanced and politically-minded groups in the capital cities and some other main centres but
1252
also of the great bulk of the population spread over the territories as a whole. Thus, in considering constitutional reform in Africa it is now necessary to reckon not only with the educated element; nor only with the native authorities and chiefs, but with the bulk of the people who form the population of a territory. This leads naturally to the conception of sound local government institution in Africa as the only healthy basis for political advance. The aim is to secure an effective system of local government not only in the towns, but in the rural areas as well. In all this we agree entirely with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who, I think, has given no indication of any difference of opinion during the course of my remarks.
Our object is to make local government bodies representative not only of the traditional elements of the population but also of the rising middle classes, the farmers, the industrial workers, and the educated minority, all of whom have a great part to play in the development of these institutions in their home areas.
So much for the broad survey. Now I should like to deal with one or two specific matters which have either been raised in the debate or are of topical interest—I shall endeavour not to continue so long that any of your Lordships expires from fatigue or hunger! May I say a word about Malaya, because it has bulked more prominently than any other territory in the debate? On my return journey from Australia and New Zealand I was able to spend a night in Singapore with Mr. MacDonald, our indefatigable Commissioner-General for South-East Asia, and this gave me an opportunity to hear from him what has been done to stamp out lawlessness in Malaya during the past ten months. There has been a modest, gradual but steady and uninterrupted improvement in the situation. This should not lead anyone to underestimate the dangers that must still be faced, or to indulge in the sort of optimism that leads so easily to a slackening of effort.
Your Lordships may wish to have some account of the way in which events are shaping. I mentioned to your Lordships, on February 23, that the peak of bandit activity in Malaya was reached last November. Since that time there

1253
has been a steady decrease in the number of bandit attacks, until in the last week of March there were no more than sixteen, compared with an average weekly figure of sixty-five during November. This is the lowest figure for any week since the disturbances began. That week, too, was the first since the start of the emergency in which no single civilian was reported to have been killed. Moreover, our operations against the bandits are continuing on a considerable scale. The police and military forces—and I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid to them by the noble Viscount—assisted as occasion demands by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, are carrying out some sixty or seventy combined operations every week, in the course of which they have already killed or captured over 900 of the enemy. The total number of the enemy is small, so that, although it is only a small number of men killed or captured, it represents, comparatively, a fair proportion of the total enemy involved.
The Government's determination to handle the situation with the utmost firmness has brought about a general improvement in the morale of all the communities in Malaya. This is shown principally by a striking increase in the supply of information about bandit activity. The success of military operations in jungle warfare largely depends on information which enables bandit camps and hide-outs to be detected and destroyed. The authorities in Malaya fully recognise that one of the most important factors in ending these disorders as quickly as possible is the extent to which the Chinese community show willingness to co-operate with the forces of law and order, and to live on good neighbourly terms with the other communities which make up the population of Malaya. The inauguration on February 27 of the Malayan Chinese Association, to which reference has already been made, which is supported by most of the influential Chinese in the Federation and which has as its object the restoration of law and order and the promotion of good will between the races, is, therefore, a particularly heartening event. Another recent event which promises much for the future of Malaya is the formation of the Communities Liaison Committee on which leaders of all the
1254
principal communities sit and which is now meeting regularly for the discussion of means whereby the different races can work together for economic and constitutional progress.
Meanwhile, production of the two major commodities of Malaya, rubber and tin, continues at a most satisfactory level, despite the hardships and dangers to which those responsible for its maintenance are in many cases still subjected. I should like to associate myself most warmly with what has already been said by way of tribute to the steadfast efforts of the planting and mining communities in Malaya. Interesting evidence about the absence of unrest in Singapore is furnished by the municipal elections which took place early this month for the first time since the war. The election campaign and the voting on polling day took place in a completely orderly manner and aroused widespread and keen interest throughout the territory. The most notable feature of the electoral campaign was the absence of any reference to racial issues and to any attempt to win support from the electorate on a communal basis. Meanwhile, preparations are going forward in the Federation for the registration of Federal citizens, which is an indispensable preliminary to the establishment of an electorate for the several Legislatures in Malaya. A registrar was appointed some time ago, and the necessary organisation will be completed at the end of this month.
I hope that what I have said will indicate to your Lordships that although there is still a long way to go in Malaya, and nobody should blind himself to that aspect of the problem, steady progress has been made. We are gradually overcoming the violence of the Communist bandits, and, in spite of the dissention and unrest they have sown, we are restoring communal good will and preparing the ground for a greater measure of democracy These are practical steps in carrying out the broad policy from which violence cannot deflect us and which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has most usefully underlined by his statement of our intentions in another place this afternoon. The statement made by the Prime Minister is the very assurance for which the noble Viscount opposite asked in the course of his speech.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I understand that the Prime Minister gave it most fully?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I understand that that is the case. Several noble Lords have mentioned the need for vigilance in the matter of internal security in the Colonies. All Colonial Governors are alive to the dangers of Communist propaganda, and counter-propaganda is being organised on our side in addition to the provision that is being made for improving security intelligence. A review of the latter has recently been held, and training arrangements for new personnel have been set up. In addition to a drive for counter-propaganda and better security intelligence, a general effort is now being made to review the condition of Colonial police forces and to give every assistance to Commissioners of Police in strengthening the organisation of their forces. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will be glad to hear this, for he expressed a certain amount of anxiety about the condition of the police in Colonial territories. For this purpose, the strengthening of the organisation, the Secretary of State has recently appointed a Police Adviser. This gentleman has already visited Cyprus and is now visiting West Africa, and his reports will be of the utmost value in showing where our help can be most effective. But, of course, the most effective answer to subversive activities is to remove the causes of complaint and dissatisfaction among the population of the Colonies. Our constitutional reforms and plans for economic development are calculated to create in the course of time a reasonably contented and loyal public opinion. The effects of these changes are, however, bound to mature slowly, and we are by no means unaware of the likelihood that agitators will exploit every possible grievance in the meantime.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred to the dangers inherent in the spread of Communism among Colonial students in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, also emphasised the importance of these students as the future leaders of their communities in the territories from which they come. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that most Colonial students are immune from Communistic influence, and I am sure that he would not expect us to do anything to interfere with the political
1256
views of any section of students in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, there is no doubt that bitter dissatisfaction arising from personal problems often leads to extreme political views, and we are doing what we can to help students to solve their personal problems and to prevent them from feeling embittered and frustrated as a result of their sojourn in this country. We are particularly anxious about some of the private students who come here, most of whom are ill-provided for financially and lack the academic qualifications possessed by scholarship students. We feel that many of these students would have done better and been far happier if they had completed their education in the Colonies, and we are asking Colonial Governors to consider the establishment of student advisory committees to discourage students from coming to this country without suitable financial backing and academic qualifications. Those already here can get help and advice from the Colonial Government liaison officers, who have been appointed since the war by an increasing number of territories to look after the personal welfare of students in this country.
I am proceeding rather at random from one subject to another, and I hope your Lordships will forgive this somewhat disjointed story. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, raised the question of Colonial defence. The noble Earl, Lord Cork, also referred to the importance of Colonial troops. The importance of military forces in East and West Africa and in other Colonial territories is fully recognised by His Majesty's Government. The future organisation of these forces is now being carefully considered by the appropriate Departments in consultation with the Colonial Governments concerned, and in this review we are of course taking into account not only the local rôle of these defence forces, but also the rôle which they might be called upon to perform in Commonwealth defence. I cannot say more at this stage and I am sure the noble Viscount would not expect me to do so. It is under active consideration at the moment. I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the comments on this point made in the course of his speech.
It is difficult for me to know when to stop because I am afraid of wearying

1257
your Lordships, causing intense fatigue and imposing an unfair strain on your Lordships' attention. However, if I may, I will deal briefly with one matter relating to the West Indies. As your Lordships are aware, the ground is being prepared in the West Indies for the establish-merit of a Federal Constitution. A Standing Closer Association Committee was set up to study and to recommend the form of Federal Constitution most in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of our West Indian territories. This Committee has already held two meetings, of which the second took place last month. The outcome of these is not being published pending the consideration of the views of the Committee by the Governments of the territories represented. But it is extremely satisfactory that sufficient agreement has been reached for unanimous recommendations to go forward for the drafting of a Federal Constitution for the West Indies. I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to congratulate the Standing Closer Association Committee on the excellent progress they have made in their work, under the patient and skilful guidance of their Chairman, Sir Hubert Rance. I thought that might interest the House as being a report on the latest large-scale constitutional development in the islands.
Now I think I ought to say something about West Africa, as that has been a topic dealt with at some length. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, referred again to the Gold Coast and I thought he suggested that the Government there were drifting away from events. I cannot accept that suggestion, and I hope that what I say will refute the assertion made by the noble Lord opposite. I am afraid that on the subject of immigration restrictions I cannot add anything to what was said by my noble friend the Leader of the House on March 17. Discussions on the subject of immigration procedure are still proceeding between the Gold Coast Government and the representatives of business firms, and it will not, of course, be possible to make any further public statement until the outcome of these discussions is known.
Since last month's debate in your Lordships' House there has been one development of some importance in the campaign against "swollen shoot" in the
1258
cocoa plantations. The Gold Coast Government have submitted to the Legislative Council their proposals for an intensified cutting-out campaign, and the Legislative Council have agreed to increase expenditure on this programme by £500,000 during the year 1949–50. It is also encouraging that responsible opinion throughout the Gold Coast is accepting the proposition that cutting-out is the only effective remedy for this disease. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, I would like to assure him that any Englishman, Scotsman or Welshman, who goes to any Colony is not a foreigner but enjoys all the privileges of British citizenship.
May I now add one word about the groundnuts scheme, and also deal with the ravages of the trogoderma beetle among groundnut stocks at Kano? The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has directed attention to the problem of groundnuts in Nigeria. We are fully aware of the importance of making the best possible use of this valuable product, both from the point of view of the local population and to increase the fats available at home. The failure of transport to remove the groundnut crop as soon as it was harvested has resulted in the piling up of 44,000 tons of old crop at Kano, in addition to the 276,000 tons of current crop which is now ready for clearance. These figures are entirely correct, and are corroborated from official sources. The piling up of this quantity of groundnuts has been due to the shortage of locomotives, rolling stock and equipment to maintain the railway line required to handle the traffic. Owing to these transport difficulties, the amount of nuts carried by rail fell off badly between March and August of last year. But an improvement resulting from the arrival of new locomotives was reflected in the amount carried for the next six months—namely, August to January last—and this improvement had by last month just about made up for the falling off in quantities carried during the previous period.
This improvement is expected to continue with the arrival of new locomotives and wagons. By June of this year the monthly railings—I understand that that is a technical term for the volume of nuts carried by rail, and has nothing to do with the more familiar use of the word

1259
"railings"—should have gone up from 30,000 tons to about 36,000 tons a month. The second half of the year should show an average figure of about 38,000 tons a month. At 30,000 tons a month, the rate is just about sufficient to clear current crops, including French ground-nuts. Anything above this starts to overtake accumulated stock. Thus, with railings reaching 38,000 tons per month, stocks at the end of October will probably be about 100,000 tons, as compared with about 150,000 tons at the same date last year. The whole of the 1948–49 crop should be cleared by January, 1950. We are doing our utmost to improve the efficiency and carrying capacity of the railway. The supply of locomotives and wagons for the Nigerian railways this year is proceeding satisfactorily. I could give the noble Lord the details, but perhaps it would be more convenient if I were to give them in the form of a Written Answer rather than in debate, as this is perhaps a somewhat technical subject for those who have not a special interest.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Would the noble Earl follow the excellent example of Lord Bruce, and append them to Hansard, if that is in order? I noticed that Lord Bruce did it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will do that if it is possible. The noble Viscount opposite also drew attention to the ravages of the trogoderma beetle among ground-nut stocks at Kano. As soon as this pest was detected, measures were taken to prevent the spread of infestation and to cleanse infected stock before export. About 14,000 tons have already been treated, and a further 8,000 tons remain to be treated. At present only 75 tons have proved to be a total loss, which I think is a comparatively small figure in relation to the total amount of the accumulated stocks. Because of these preventive measures, I can safely say that if further infestation occurs—and I hope it will not—it will be speedily and effectively dealt with.
I should like to say one thing about the noble Viscount's reference to the indebtedness of cocoa farmers in the Gold Coast. I think the problem has changed somewhat since the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was in West Africa. High prices
1260
for cocoa in recent years have greatly reduced the difficulties of the cocoa farmers. Quite apart from the considerable amounts which individual farmers have saved, the Gold Coast Cocoa Marketing Board have accumulated very large sums in their stabilisation fund. In that way, thanks to the prosperity of the cocoa industry, most of these farmers have succeeded in clearing off their indebtedness. But it is also our policy (and one which will, I am sure, be approved) to encourage the growth of co-operative societies to provide an alternative to the moneylender as a source of credit. I am most grateful to your Lordships for the many constructive and helpful suggestions which have been made in the course of this long and interesting debate. I will certainly submit them to my right honourable friend for his earnest and immediate consideration, and I sincerely hope they will help both us and the Governments in our Colonial territories to proceed with the utmost efficiency in the discharge of our duties.
7.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, first of all, let me say that I entirely withdraw my suggestion that the table should be appended to Hansard. I am advised that the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, committed the greatest possible social and constitutional solecism in what he did. But I will certainly arrange to put down a non-oral Question as soon as we meet again, and I shall be much obliged if the noble Earl will give me the figures.
VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE: I am afraid that I entirely refute the suggestion as to my action, and I offer no apology at all, because my action saved the House from being worried with all those figures.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I interrupt to say that I welcome the statement of the noble Viscount? I confess that the incident to which the noble Viscount referred had escaped my notice. It is entirely wrong that details that have not been given in the House in debate should be entered on the official records. I will take up the matter, and I hope that this procedure will not be followed any more.
VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE: In view of the very severe rebuke that I have received from the noble Viscount

1261
the Leader of the House, I would like to point out that it shows that progress goes on al] the time, and that we should ever watch these progressive moves that are taking place! In the Parliament of Australia, of which I was a Member for some time, I think we were as jealous of great precedents as any Parliament in any other part of the Empire, including this, the Mother of Parliaments. The practice that I ventured to suggest should be followed here is one which is pursued in the perfectly respectable Australian Parliament. As it is a practice which is followed in my own country, I really cannot apologise for suggesting that it should be adopted here.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I would remind the noble Viscount that we, too, enjoy Dominion status.
I am certainly not going to make a speech at this stage and forfeit thereby the very charming compliments which the Minister of State paid me at the beginning of his remarks. I merely thank him most sincerely for an extremely interesting and informative reply—one of the most interesting and most informative replies that we have had in any debate in this House, if I may say so. It was a reply which was worthy of the debate. I would add an apology to the House that, for reasons entirely beyond my control, I was unable to be in the Chamber for three-quarters of an hour or so during the debate. I was delighted to hear the Minister of State say that we were in complete accord on the principles which I had ventured to enunciate. I am sure that that statement will give confidence and encouragement all over the Empire.
I would only add that I most warmly agree with what has been said as to the great opportunities that are open to Africans in what the Minister called, as I did also, "our great partnership." There is a tremendous field of opportunity and service. There are many Africans already, and there will be many more hereafter, fully qualified to seize those opportunities. And I would assure my African friends—of whom there are many—that to give that service they do not need to wait for their country to attain Dominion status. There is a tremendous field open now in the administrative Services. I was present at the initiation of some very good young Africans as district officers. They were
1262
the sort of men who will certainly rise to be Provincial Commissioners. There are great openings in commerce—and commerce is only too anxious to afford more—in local government, in whatever central Legislative Councils may exist (and they are and will be varied) and also—and I am glad to think that I was present again when this was initiated—on the Executive Councils and Cabinets of Governments. There are certainly great opportunities there, and the more the Africans take advantage of them the greater will be not only their success but also the success of the partnership. Once more I thank the Minister of State for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATION OF ENACTMENTS (PROCEDURE) BILL [H.L.]
7.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am bound to say that the temptation to follow what I understand is the Australian practice is almost irresistible! I should very much like to hand in my speech and have it taken as read. But I am afraid your Lordships have very properly condemned the proposal, which, I must say, shocked me to the core!
I am sorry that this Bill deals with a highly technical subject. It is a difficult little Bill to understand, and I must take the opportunity of explaining and expounding it. It is a Bill which, I am quite certain, is in no sense controversial. I am, in some sense, the author of it. It was suggested by me to Sir Granville Ram and I have discussed it with representatives of all Parties. I have invited criticisms, and I have had them. In particular, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon—he is not present to-day, I am sorry to say—has given me the benefit of his criticisms, and I thought those criticisms were well-founded. I have myself largely recast the Bill from its original form in order to meet those criticisms. I have always made it plain that I was not going

1263
to introduce this Bill unless it was agreed to by all Parties. It is not to be regarded in any sense as a one-Party measure. It is really the product of an effort which we have made together to pool our brains and our resources.
I have never concealed from your Lordships that I am deeply concerned and distressed, as any other Lord Chancellor, no matter to what Party he belonged, would be, at the state of our Statute Book at the present time. Its state is chaotic. There are a tremendous number of Statutes in the Book which ought to go altogether, as they are no longer necessary. There is an immense amount of work to be done in the way of consolidation, and there are a number of general tasks to be carried out. I became convinced that the first thing to do was to try to set up a separate branch of the Parliamentary draftsmen's office to deal solely with consolidation. I realised it was necessary to have that matter dealt with by men not concerned with the current day-to-day legislation, because experience has taught me that if you try to get one of those people to concentrate on consolidation you will be told by your colleagues that he has too much to do in the way of current work to be able to consider it. As I have said, this is a highly technical matter, and the work must be done by highly trained people. I was fortunate enough to persuade Sir Granville Ram, who had been the head of the office, when he retired, to take charge of this branch of the office and to concern himself with consolidation. I set up again the Statute Law Committee. I have been able to get a Statute Law Revision Bill covering the period up to 1800. I hope this year to introduce a new Bill for the period 1800 to 1948. I hope that by the end of this year I shall have a complete revised edition of the Statutes. That has been an immense work but it has been well worth doing. I have also set up a Committee, under the Chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simonds, to consider the possibilities relating to the codification of income tax law. That Committee have reported. The task of codification is an immense one which will take years to carry out, but I believe that we have now discovered the way to attack the problem, and the work is proceeding.
1264
I come now to the topic of this Bill. Consolidation, with skilled draftsmen, presents this great advantage: it takes very little Parliamentary time. You have a Joint Committee of both Houses consisting of highly-skilled people, and you have a draftsman going before that Committee. If he is able to satisfy the Committee that what he has done is merely to reproduce the existing law—and that is fundamental—the Committee pass the Bill, and it takes no Parliamentary time. But, be it observed, if there are doubts on the existing law, he has to reproduce those doubts and to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that there are those doubts, and he has always—and we rely upon him for this—to reproduce the existing law. Sometimes it happens, particularly in dealing with old Statutes, that it is almost impossible to consolidate without making some changes. We shall have illustrations of that from time to time if I get my way in carrying this Bill. There are certain minor changes which must be made if we are to consolidate at all. That is why I have introduced this Bill. But I want it to be confined entirely to minor changes.
This matter of minor changes is of the utmost importance, and I want to be able to have some machinery whereby I can introduce these minor changes into a Bill without sacrificing the benefit of a Consolidating Bill by opening the door to all sorts of other amendments. For instance, I contemplate bringing in shortly a Bill to consolidate the Marriage Acts. There are a large number of them, many going back a very long time. I find it is impossible to do that unless I can get some minor amendments, but if, in consequence of introducing a minor amendment, I am going to open the floodgates to many other Amendments, I shall most certainly be told, "There is no possibility of finding Parliamentary time for that." So I cannot do anything about it.
This is the scheme which we have evolved at the present time. If a draftsman who is preparing a Consolidation Bill comes across ambiguities, anachronisms, or anomalies which, though of little or no practical importance, would obstruct the re-statement of the law in clear and modern form, he would prepare draft amendments of the existing enact-

1265
ments and would draft his Consolidation Bill as if these amendments had already been made. I emphasise that these amendments must be confined to "corrections and minor improvements" as that phrase is defined in Clause 2 of the Bill. The amendments would then be laid before Parliament in the form of proposals contained in a memorandum by the Lord Chancellor, which would also contain explanatory notes. In the case of Scottish legislation, the memorandum would be by the Secretary of State. Before the memorandum was laid, notice of it would have been published in the Gazette, and anyone interested would have been able to obtain a copy of the memorandum.
The Consolidation Bill and the Lord Chancellor's memorandum would then be referred to the Joint Committee of both Houses which deals with Consolidation Bills. It may well be that in the case of a Consolidation Bill which includes amendments in the law made by this new procedure, Parliament might desire to add other members to the Joint Committee, but this is a matter of procedure which we can settle later on. The Joint Committee would go through the proposals contained in the memorandum, having the draftsman before them as a witness, and would consider any representations made to them with respect to the proposals, either by Members of Parliament or by anyone else. The Committee would no doubt call as a witness any member of either House who asked to appear before them. I attach importance to that and should like to emphasise the rights which members of your Lordships' House and of another place will have in this matter. I do not wish it to be thought there is any possibility of amendments of the law being proposed without people having a full opportunity to give their views about them.
After the Joint Committee have considered the memorandum, they would then inform the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker (Mr. Speaker has been good enough to say he is willing to take on this task) which of the amendments they were prepared to approve, and would ask the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker to concur in this approval. I must draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the Joint Committee would not
1266
approve any amendments, nor would the Lord Chancellor or the Speaker concur, unless all of them were satisfied that the amendments were not of such importance that they ought to be separately enacted by Parliament. I emphasise that point. After obtaining the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker, the Joint Committee would examine the Consolidation Bill and make any amendments in it which might be necessary to give effect to the alterations made by the Committee in the Lord Chancellor's original proposals. If they were satisfied that the Bill, or the Bill as amended by them, as the case might be, re-enacted the existing law with such corrections and minor amendments only as had been approved by the Committee with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and of the Speaker, they would report accordingly.
Once the Committee had reported in this way, the amendments would, for the purpose of further proceedings in Parliament, be deemed to have become law, so that from that stage onwards Parliament could treat the Bill as not doing more than consolidate the existing law. It would, of course, be only for the purpose of further proceedings on the Bill that the amendments would be deemed to be law, so that, if the Bill were not proceeded with, the amendments proposed by the Lord Chancellor would be of no further effect. The advantage of this procedure is that, when the Bill had been reported by the Joint Committee, no amendments would be in order at any stage on the Floor of the House and the Bill would thus have all the advantages of an ordinary consolidation measure. Of course, if either House disagreed with the amendments which the Joint Committee had approved, they could oppose the Bill at any of its remaining stages and the final decision, would therefore always rest with Parliament as a whole.
I accept the proposition that it is for the authority of Parliament, and only of Parliament, to make alterations in the law, and I hope I have shown your Lordships that nothing in this Bill seeks to undermine that authority. I believe your Lordships will agree with me that this Bill will effect a very useful improvement in our procedure for dealing with the big problem of consolidation, which we

1267
already have undertaken. If this Bill becomes law at an early date, as I very much hope, I propose to introduce a measure dealing with the consolidation of the enactments relating to marriage, which are contained in many Acts, many of them very ancient. This is the weapon which I want to enable me to put our Statute Book in comparatively good order. This measure has been hammered out by all Parties and I believe your Lordships will find it a useful one. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, on behalf of my friends on this side of the House, I give the warmest possible welcome to this Bill which has been so clearly and succinctly explained to us by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I had the privilege of "being in" on all the negotiations, and I am certain, as all those are who had any part in helping the Lord Chancellor on this are certain, that we cannot get the effective consolidation of some of the Statutes which most need consolidation without a provision of this kind. We were all at one about what we wanted to do. The difficulty was to find a way of doing it that would make sure that we were not, by a consolidation enactment, making any real change, or major change, in the law. I believe that here we have found the way. I think the Bill is admirably drafted and that your Lordships will agree that every possible safeguard has been put in, while leaving it a completely efficient instrument for its purpose. If, by any chance (though I think the possibility is remote in the extreme) either House of Parliament should consider that, even with all these safeguards, some major alteration had got into the consolidation proposals, they would have it perfectly clearly before them and could reject the proposals. This is an excellent Bill, for which we should be extremely grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSULAR CONVENTIONS BILL
7.59 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Henderson, has asked me to move that this Bill be now read a third time, and as the hour is late I will do so as briefly as I can. The noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, ventured yesterday into a field which he told us was unfamiliar to him. I can only say that if the noble Lord were ever in need of a job, I would give him a testimonial as a teacher of constitutional law. The sentiments he expressed and the way in which he expressed them alike were wholly admirable. I have been drawn into this matter by the wiles of my noble friend and asked to deal with the legal point involved. I think that point is a simple one. It is, of course, for the Executive to advise the Crown as to the making of Treaties. This can be done, quite constitutionally, without Parliamentary approval at all. At the same time, any prudent Executive, knowing that Parliament is its master, would not be so foolish as to disregard that fact in making any important Treaty. It is, therefore, the accepted practice that before an important Treaty is finally entered into by ratification Parliamentary approval is sought. The first proposition is that, as a matter of legal theory, treaty-making power is a matter on which the Executive can advise the King without prior reference to Parliament.
The second proposition is equally clear. It is that the making of a Treaty does not alter the municipal law of this country. Accordingly, no subject can be charged with breaking a Treaty unless he breaks the municipal law. An illustration was given in the discussions, either yesterday or a few days ago, of a fishery treaty, where there is a restricted part of the sea, let me say, between ourselves and the Norwegians, under which our fishermen are confined to one certain area and the Norwegians to another. If that is all, it is impossible to prosecute one of our people for fishing in the wrong area, or a Norwegian for fishing in the wrong area. To do that would require alteration of the municipal law; in short, the Treaty will have to be given the force of law. As your Lordships know, it is consequently quite common, after a Treaty is

1269
made, to pass a Statute giving that Treaty the force of law, so that all the lieges are bound to observe the conditions of the Treaty.
I think that is as far as I need go on the legal points. I do not think those propositions would be challenged by any competent lawyer—and amongst the class of competent lawyers I certainly include the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley. He did not seek to challenge them. The point of all this in relation to the present Bill is this. There is no doubt that the Convention contemplated by this Bill would bring about a change of the law. The position in regard to consular houses is extremely difficult. He would indeed be a bold man who would take it upon himself to assert what the law is in that respect. I am not going to do so. But I concede at once that Clause 4 does bring about a change in the law, because that clause says that you cannot enter one of these houses—except in cases of fire, or something of that sort—save with the consent of the person in charge, or save with the consent of a Secretary of State. That is not the existing law; that is an alteration.
Because the Convention would involve an alteration in the law, we come to Parliament and ask Parliament to pass this Bill, Clause 4 of which provides the point about the alteration in the law. I think it is plain, therefore, that whatever else we are doing we are not seeking to undermine the authority of Parliament; nor are we seeking to get away from the two propositions I have enunciated. The real question in this case is: Aye or No, is it right and is it wise that Parliament should give this power? That is not a legal question, but a question of policy. And I venture to think it is a wise step, and is much the better thing to do.
I would point out one other fact. The scheme of this Bill is that this provision may be brought into force by means of an Order in Council. That is the effect of Clause 6 (2). An Order in Council may be revoked by a later Order in Council. Therefore, if Parliament thought that the Executive were acting foolishly in this matter, they could assert indirect pressure upon the Executive to make the Executive promulgate a Second Order in Council reversing the first Order. If you imagine that Parliament is becoming the
1270
sort of Parliament you would have in a completely servile State, then we need not bother about it; in the first place, that is never going to happen, and, in the second, it would be no good speculating if it did. So long as Parliament remains free and master of the situation, the Executive, I hope and believe, can always be brought to book by Parliament; and if the Executive does wrong, then there are ample means of making it go right. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a useful little Bill, and that it contains all the safeguards which one would expect in a matter of this sort. Accordingly, I beg to move that this Bill be read a Third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
8.8 p.m.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, despite the charming compliments which the noble and learned Viscount was good enough to pay to me, I am not going to venture further than I need, now or on any future occasion, into the question of constitutional law. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for explaining the legal points involved in this Bill. It is not the intention of noble Lords on this side of the House to obstruct the passage of the Bill into law. On the other hand, I do not apologise for having moved the Amendment I moved in Committee yesterday. Parliament should be very jealous of its powers, and I think that precedents are rather like grains of mustard seed—I have noticed it even in my short Parliamentary experience—small precedents grow into very large trees. I feel that we must look carefully to see whether we are creating a small precedent which might be expanded by a future Parliament. With that short comment, I would like at this late hour just to thank the noble and learned Viscount again, and I hope that the Bill will pass into law without further obstruction.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
HURST PARK RACE COURSE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
MOUNTBATTEN ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Personal Bills Committee on the Petition for the Bill, made and to be printed: Bill (in the form approved by the Personal Bills Committee) presented, and read 1a.
SOUTH SUSSEX AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1949
Special Procedure Order (together with a certificate from the Minister of Health): Laid before the House, pursuant to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SURTAX AND INCOME TAX STATISTICS
  SURTAX AND INCOME TAX STATISTICS