Sitting of 27 June 1951

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o 'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  DEE AND CLWYD RIVER BOARD BILL [Lords] [King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Supplementary Reserve
    Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements he intends to make for facilitating the voluntary training of Royal Naval Volunteer (Supplementary) Reserve personnel.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): A number of refresher courses have already been held. These will be extended shortly.
    Mr. Powell: Does the Parliamentary Secretary know that a number of men of this force are ex-pilots and observers of the Fleet Air Arm and that they are going to the R.A.F.V.R. because they cannot get training facilities in the R.N.V.(S.)R.?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, it is a problem, but I hope that before long we shall be able to offer flying training to those officers.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Has the hon. Gentleman observed that my hon. Friend called it the "Fleet Air Arm" and not "Naval Aviation." as he insists on calling it?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, and I am sorry that he has not caught up with the official title.
    Powellasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make half-price vouchers available to Royal Naval Volunteer (Supplementary) Reserve personnel for rail travel between their homes and the places where they begin or end periods of voluntary training.
    Mr. Callaghan: Members of the R.N. V.(S.)R. who are invited to train by the Admiralty are entitled to rail warrants to cover the cost of the return journey from their home towns to the places where they undertake their training courses.
    Mr. Powell: Is it realised that in addition to training undertaken at the request of the Admiralty these personnel undertake a good deal of training voluntarily, and in view of the fact that at least half of them have agreed to undertake service before a general emergency, is it not unfair that they should have to pay the full cost of travel to voluntary training?
    Mr. Callaghan: The officers concerned undertake these duties voluntarily. There is no reason why they should be out of pocket. I will consider the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these officers will have to wear the new stripe? If so, will they have to pay for it themselves?
    Mr. Callaghan: This Question does not ask about that.

    Officers' Working Dress
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to what extent working dress for officers is authorised to be worn; and whether this dress is in all respects satisfactory.
    Mr. Callaghan: This dress is chiefly worn when work is being done in ships and establishments. It is suitable for this purpose, but I am always ready to consider improvements.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: In view of the fact that a monkey jacket and trousers costs £40 now and is apparently expected to go up to £60 in the not too far future, will the hon. Gentleman do what he can to encourage and extend the opportunities for wearing this rig, or any improvement on it, because it is rather under a cloud, I believe?
    Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will point out the times which are unsuitable for it to be worn, I will consider it.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is it not a fact that they are not allowed to wear this rig between transit station and shore residence?
    Mr. Callaghan: That is true.
    Commander Noble: Would it not be better, instead of extending occasions when the other rig is worn, to help officers by some tax free or Purchase Tax concession on the other side?

    Submarines (Safety Buoys)
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why no safety device is used for His Majesty's submarines consisting of a buoy or buoys attached to suitable places in the hull or casing by a magnetic device in such a way that when the ship's electrical system goes dead the buoy is automatically released.
    Mr. Callaghan: Similar methods to the one proposed have been rejected in the past for technical and other reasons. But I will have the existing policy reviewed in the light of the recent disaster.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: While it is admitted that a buoy of this kind is only primarily useful possibly for the saving of life, would it not have cut short the search to a satisfactory extent if an automatic release on a submarine in distress were possible?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure that I agree with the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the answer is obviously "Yes," and that is why I am having the policy reviewed.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the objection mentioned in the first part of my supplementary question comes from a letter from one of his officials as a ground for rejecting any such scheme, and will he consider the scheme afresh?
    Mr. Callaghan: There is only one official voice for the Admiralty in this House, and that is mine.
    Hon, Members: Oh.

    H. M. Submarine "Affray" (Loss)
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he now has any further information to give the House about H. M. Submarine "Affray."
    Mr. Callaghan: The Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, has now convened a Naval Board of Inquiry, which held its first meeting this morning. The work of the Board will be intermittent, but I feel it is advantageous to have it in being whilst the present operations are in hand.
    H.M.S. "Reclaim" and her attendant vessels returned to the position of the "Affray" on Monday afternoon. Because of bad weather there has been difficulty in laying moorings. Observation chamber diving took place last night, but has yielded no further information.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Will the Parliamentary Secretary be able to keep the House informed from time to time, even when his Department is rather low down in the list for Questions?
    Mr. Callaghan

    Victualling Yard, Malta (Appointment)
    Captain Ryderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what circumstances have led to the decision to make the position of Leading Man of Wharf, His Majesty's Victualling Yard, Malta, one to be held by a United Kingdom worker when for the past 60 years the position has been filled by a local entrant; and what will be the increase in the annual cost of maintaining this appointment.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): It has been found necessary to appoint an officer from the United Kingdom to the post temporarily because none of the local entrants can be recommended at present as having suitable experience and qualifications. The increase in the annual cost of maintaining the appointment is £103 per annum in salary and £270 per annum for foreign service allowance. In addition, free passages to Malta will be provided for this officer and his family.
    Captain Ryder: Is it not rather regrettable that this should be necessary? Surely the policy of the Admiralty in this

    1349
    year of grace should be to try to encourage the Maltese. and not to discourage them by replacing them with personnel from this country at added cost to the Exchequer?
    Mr. Edwards: In the first place, no Maltese has ever held this appointment. It has been held for the last 50 years by ex-naval ratings who came from this country and served in Malta. I assure the hon. and gallant Member that it is Admiralty policy to try to train Maltese for these posts, but that as far as the present position is concerned we find that there is nobody suitable and, therefore, we must send out someone from the United Kingdom.

  POST OFFICE

    Postage Stamps
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Postmaster-General how long postage stamps of old designs and colour will be valid for postage and revenue purposes.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): All postage stamps issued during King George V's Reign and since are still valid. Stamps issued during the present Reign will remain valid for many years.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Postmaster-General the financial result so far of the introduction of the new series of stamps.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not in a position to make any reliable estimate of the financial result.
    Sir T. Moore: Apart from that, in view of the confusion to both the public and Post Office officials alike, can the right hon. Gentleman really justify this change?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. I am rather surprised at the hon. and gallant Member taking that view. After all, this country has always been known for its alacrity in conforming with international conventions. We were bound to do it in this case.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Postmaster-General how much revenue his Department has lost by reason of the recent change in the colour of postage stamps.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No figures are available, but I have no reason to suppose that revenue has been lost because of the changes in the colours of the ½d. to 2½d postage stamps.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising from the latter part of that answer, will the Postmaster-General reconsider the position if I send him the result of an experiment which consisted of sending a number of letters, stamped, totalling only 1d., With different coloured combinations of stamps, all of which were delivered to an address in London without any surcharge, and does his answer mean that he is surreptitiously re-introducing the 1d. post?
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Postmaster-General how many 5s. and 2s. 6d. books of stamps were issued in 1950: whether it is his intention to alter the proportion of stamps in subsequent issues and to provide some 1½d. stamps; and whether he will issue a 10s. book.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The numbers are: 5s. books, 9½ million; 2s. 6d. books, 42¼ million. The question of altering the composition of books of stamps and of including l½d. stamps in them is under consideration. I do not think there would be a sufficient demand for 10s. books to justify the cost of and added complication in production and stocking.
    Mr. Freeman: In view of the popularity of these books and of their great convenience to all concerned, will my right hon. Friend consider placing notices in all post offices drawing attention to their availability, as there are still many people who do not know that these books are in use?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We have already sold 55 million in a year which is a good indication that the public are aware of them.
    Mr. Gammans: Would it be illegal to sell these books of stamps at cut-price rates?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It would not be legal to contravene the provisions made by the House.

    Goudhurst
    Mr. Deedesasked the Postmaster-General why the postal address of Goudhurst, which was changed from Goudhurst, Kent. to Goudhurst,

    1351
    Tonbridge, Kent, a year ago, has now been changed again to Goudhurst, Cranbrook, Kent; and if he is aware of the waste of paper involved by instructions to residents to alter again the addresses on their note paper.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The present postal address of Goudhurst has been in force since 1941. It is being changed to Goudhurst, Cranbrook, Kent, in connection with alterations designed to improve postal services in the area. I regret any temporary inconvenience which may be caused by the alteration.
    Mr. Deedes: How many alterations of this kind are necessary in other places, what governs these alterations, and who decides that they should be made?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: In order to get the most efficient postal service, the work is always being reviewed. In this case, both parish councils agreed with the alteration.
    Mr. G. Williams: Is the Postmaster-General not aware that "Tonbridge is a very illustrious name?

    Printed Matter
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Postmaster-General whether he will permit printed matter in imitation typewriter type to be posted for 1½d for a maximum of 4 oz., in view of the difficulties of discrimination and also to avoid an additional classification of postal matter.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Subject to certain conditions, circulars in imitation typewriting are admissible at the printed paper rate.
    Mr. Freeman: In view of the great convenience to secretaries and business firms of imitation typewritten letters on certain occasions, even when they are printed, will my right hon. Friend not permit all such letters to be posted without this extra charge?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. I have acceded to the request in the Question and ought not to be pushed further.

    Overseas Forces (Facilities)
    Miss Burtonasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider issuing, for the benefit of both general public and post office staffs, a pamphlet or leaflet
    1352
    giving full details of postal facilities available in connection with His Majesty's Forces overseas.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Full details are already issued to post office staffs. A leaflet, to amplify the information in the Post Office Guide, is being prepared and will be made available for public use as soon as possible.
    Miss Burton: As my right hon. Friend has provided an excellent leaflet giving information to visitors from overseas, I wondered whether he would adopt this suggestion. Is he aware that the existing information in the hands of post office staffs is very unsatisfactory from their point of view, because it consists of various memoranda stuck on top of each other as they continue to be issued? The staffs will be very glad to know that my right hon. Friend intends publishing this leaflet.

    Staff Associations (Recognition)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Postmaster-General what progress has now been made by the Committee set up by him to advise him on the question of recognition of staff associations in the Post Office; and when this body will receive oral evidence from the associations concerned.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question on 19th June by my hon. Friend, the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey).
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although he announced the setting up of this Committee four and a half months ago it has not yet begun to hear oral evidence, and is he further aware that an officer of his Department recently informed one of the applicants that it was extremely difficult to get the Committee together at all?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am surprised that the hon. Member is again so ill-informed. The Committee has already had one sitting, at which it heard a number of people orally. I understand that three other associations have been invited to tender evidence and that the dates have been fixed. I should have thought that this Committee had been making very good progress indeed.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Postmaster-General now saying that dates have been fixed in reply to all applications for the hearing of oral evidence, and is he aware that one member of the Committee has announced that he is now going abroad for some months?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: What I have said is that three of the associations have already given oral evidence, contrary to the view expressed by the hon. Member. Three others have been invited to give oral evidence on two dates that have been fixed. As to the rest of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I have no information.
    Mr. Leather: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the position is particularly acute in the motor transport branch where skilled workers are leaving, and will he see that the position of the Guild of Motor Engineers is given special attention?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: A date has been fixed for them, too, to give oral evidence.

    Commonwealth Telecommunications Board
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Postmaster-General what report he has received so far on the work of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board; when it was received by him from the Board; and when it is to be published in this country.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: An interim report on the Board's activities up to 31st December, 1950, was received by me on the 19th June. I am placing copies in the Library of the House and propose to consider the question of publication when I receive the report and accounts for the first full year to 31st March, 1951.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is there any connection between the fact of the report having been received on 19th June and this Question appearing on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir.

    Unstamped Letters (Surcharge)
    Dr. Kingasked the Postmaster-General if he will abolish the fine paid by the recipients of unstamped letters by reducing the charge levied on such letters to 2½d.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir.
    Dr. King: In view of the rather concise and somewhat ungracious answer of my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is aware that the present imposition of the penalty of an extra charge on the recipient of an unstamped letter is an injustice and that the person who ought to be punished is the person who has committed the offence? Since it is impossible to punish the offender, does not my right hon. Friend think he ought to look into this matter again?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The remedy is in the hands of the recipient. All he has to do is to refuse to take the letter, but so long as he takes the letter I am obliged by Act of Parliament to apply the surcharge.
    Mr. Mellish: While we are discussing the question of a surcharge, would not it be a good idea to send a bill to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What for?
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) sent me a circular which was from some Conservative organization—
    Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question.

    TELEVISION (MOTOR CAR SUPPRESSORS)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Postmaster-General whether, pending their final report, he will invite his Advisory Committee to advise him as to the terms of a draft regulation to require suppressors to be fitted to motor cars for the reduction of interference on television sets.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The Committee was set up for the express purpose of advising me on the requirements that might be prescribed in a regulation and I must await their report on that point.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem is quite unconnected with all the other problems due to interference, that this Committee was set up months—in fact, I think, years—ago, and will the right

    1355
    hon. Gentleman say when he expects this report and, in the absence of it, when he is going to do something to get this advice?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: What I am able to do has been determined by the House, which decided that this was the method. The Committee has been set up and I understand it is now considering the terms of a draft report, and I hope to get it soon.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: What part of the Act precludes the right hon. Gentleman from inviting the Committee to hasten their advice?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: What I am prevented from doing is publishing regulations except on the authority of the Advisory Committee. This Advisory Committee is a highly technical body. They are now drafting their report and I think we should let them finish their work.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    West Ham
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the difficulties being caused to a number of councillors of the county borough of West Ham in not being granted the facilities of the telephone service; and whether he will arrange for these councillors and all public representatives to be afforded the use of the telephone service at their home addresses, on application, to enable them properly to carry out their civic and public duties.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am aware of three such applications. Two can be met on a sharing basis and the third is held up by shortage of plant.
    Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that bookmakers seem to get telephone lines pretty easily, and does he not think that public representatives at least should be allowed to have a telephone without sharing it?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not accept that contention. If my hon. Friend will give me any concrete information about that, I will look into it.
    Mr. Lewis: If the Postmaster-General cares to look at the Press, he will see at
    1356
    any time that lines are being added and that the telephone numbers are given in almost all the national Press.
    Mr. Black: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this particular difficulty is not confined to the borough of West Ham but is general in other places, and will he see what he can do to rectify it generally?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That is my job, to try to overcome this general difficulty throughout the country, but because of the justifiable neglect during the war it will take some time to overcome it.

    Llanberis
    Mr. Goronwy Robertsasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the long list of people in Llanberis, Caernarvonshire, who require a telephone; and what are the plans of his Department for extending the exchange facilities in this district.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Additional cables, as well as a new exchange, are needed before service can be given to the waiting applicants. In view of defence and other urgent claims on our limited resources, regret that it is not possible at present to say when this work is likely to be completed.
    Mr. Roberts: Is it not a fact that the exchange facilities in this town are exceptionally inadequate, particularly in view of the fact that Llanberis is the centre of the new Snowdonian National Park and is doing increasing business particularly regarding tourism?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: While it is a fact that we have the exchange building put up, our difficulty is to get equipment to put into the exchange itself. It is a matter of supply.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is the Postmaster-General aware that in this and in other rural areas in North Wales the exchanges are inadequate, and will he give special attention to the need for telephone facilities in the rural areas?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: A new allocation of capital has been made for development in Wales, and when that materialises I think hon. Members will be satisfied that Wales is getting its fair share.
    Mr. McCorquodale: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that when his Department puts up a building he knows that he has nothing to put into it?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. Buildings are planned a very considerable time ahead. Once we know the buildings are going up we give an order for the equipment, but if the manufacturers cannot deliver the equipment it is not the fault of the Post Office.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Rawcliffe Aerodrome
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet come to a decision as to the future of the Rawcliffe Aerodrome.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Yes, Sir. It has been decided that this airfield is to be retained for Government use in emergency. Negotiations are shortly to take place with the York Corporation on its peacetime use.
    Mr. Turton: Does that reply mean that this airfield will be de-requisitioned, or will it remain on Government requisition?
    Mr. Henderson: That has not been decided. I think we had better wait until the negotiations with the York Corporation are completed.
    Mr. Profumo: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an indication of how many other aerodromes are scheduled in the same way throughout the country?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question relates to Rawcliffe Aerodrome and not to other aerodromes.

    Changi Airfield (Expense)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Air if he has considered the remarks contained in Sections 33 to 37 of the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee concerning the expenditure of £400,000 on the Changi airfield; and, in view of the waste of money revealed, if he will take steps to reorganise the branch of his Department which is concerned with the
    1358
    making of contracts such as that concerned in this case.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I share the Committee's regret that this nugatory expenditure should have occurred. I have already explained the circumstances in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) on 11th April.
    The failure to appreciate fully the difficulties of the site which led to the abandonment of the original scheme was not the responsibility of the contracts branch of my Department, but of the Air Ministry Directorate of Works. It was due to errors of judgment by the engineers on the spot and in the Directorate of Works and not to defects in organisation.
    Sir W. Smithers: Would it not be healthier and better for the taxpayers if the people who committed these errors got the sack, as they would in any ordinary private company?
    Mr. Henderson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that in dealing with engineering matters it is not always right to blame the technicians responsible. In this case it was not due to any kind of negligence but to the unusual soil conditions which exist in this part of the world.
    Mr. Powell: Does the Secretary of State for Air really mean that His Majesty's Government regard the expenditure of nearly half a million pounds as a "nugatory" expense?
    Mr. Henderson: What I said was that I shared the feelings of the Committee as to the effect of the mistake which was made. In saying it is "nugatory," I was repeating the words used by the Committee.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really wish the House to believe that the soil conditions of this area were not perfectly well known to practically everybody concerned? The excuse he has produced on those grounds is quite obviously incorrect.
    Mr. Henderson: It is an extraordinary thing that the hon. Gentleman should say the unusual conditions were known to everybody, because the borings takes

    1359
    in 1946 were known to the technical experts of the Government of Singapore and, if any one should have known the soil conditions, they should.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that when constructing airfields abroad the works department of the Air Ministry take advantage of the knowledge of men on the spot instead of making wild decisions itself?
    Mr. Henderson: I have just indicated that the technical experts of the Government of Singapore were associated with the technical experts of the Air Ministry at the time these borings were made.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the replies to this Question, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Airfields, Burma
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Secretary of State for Air what financial provision is being made in 1951–52 for the maintenance of the Mingaladon, Akyab and Mergui airfields.
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air what has been the expenditure to date since the signing of the Burma Treaty on the provision of landing facilities at Mingaladon, Akyab and Mergui.
    Mr. George Wardasked the Secretary of State for Air what contribution is being made under sub-headings A, B and C, of paragraph 6 of the Annexe to the Burma Treaty, under which His Majesty's Government undertake to contribute towards the cost of maintenance of, and the provision of technical personnel at Mingaladon, Akyab and Mergui.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Under sub-heads (a) and (b) of Clause 6 of the Defence Agreement with the Government of Burma, which was signed in August, 1947, the Government of the United Kingdom undertook to contribute an agreed amount to the maintenance of Mingaladon airfield, including the provision of technical personnel. By agreement between the two Governments, the operation of the airfield has been taken over on a contract basis by International Aeradio Limited, a British Company, who provide all necessary technical facilities. Our contribution
    1360
    to the running of Mingaladon has therefore taken the form of the payment of fees to International Aeradio Limited in respect of all landings made by Royal Air Force aircraft. This has amounted to about £2,000 since the date of the signing of the Treaty in October, 1947. The same arrangements will apply in 1951 and 1952.
    Under Clause 6 (c) of the Defence Agreement the sum of £48,000 has been paid as our total contribution to the maintenance of Akyab and Mergui for the years 1948, 1949 and 1950. The question of a contribution for 1951–52, which was not specifically provided for in the Defence Agreement, is under consideration.
    Wing Commander Bullus: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman entirely satisfied that our contribution is sufficient to keep these airfields in first class condition?
    Mr. Henderson: I would not like to say that but it is what we are bound to provide under the Agreement and is sufficient having regard to the services that we are receiving.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Are there any R. A. F. personnel in this component in Burma?
    Mr. Henderson: I think there is another question about that.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Is this in fact a subsidy to a private company?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. It is carrying out the Agreement which we made with the Burmese Government.
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Secretary of State for Air what facilities for the landing of Royal Air Force aircraft exist at Mingaladon, Akyab and Mergui.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Air traffic control facilities, refuelling, and other technical assistance, are regularly provided for Royal Air Force aircraft at Mingaladon. Similar facilities are made available at Mergui and Akyab when required, though these airfields are not at present regularly used by the Royal Air Force.
    Wing Commander Bullus: Do we enjoy these facilities on a year-to-year basis, or do we have a long-term arrangement?
    Mr. Henderson: The facilities are provided for, as I have said, under the Agreement, and there is no time limit.

    Accident
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air if an inquiry has been held into the accident involving the death of Wing Commander K. T. Lofts, when he was flying a Vampire aircraft while practising for an air race on 19th May; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. A. Henderson: An inquiry has been held into the unfortunate accident in which this distinguished officer lost his life. As the proceedings have not yet been considered by the appropriate authorities I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will the Secretary of State make inquiries as to whether the Vampire aircraft in question was new when delivered to wing Commander Loft's squadron. Secondly, were all the modifications carried out before it was flown? Lastly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman review the question of flying regulations for air races for this kind of aircraft?
    Mr. Henderson: I should prefer to await the Report.
    Air Commodore Harvey: What about the last point?
    Mr. Henderson: I will look into it.
    Mr. Ward: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that auxiliary pilots are getting sufficient flying practice apart from their annual training?
    Mr. Henderson: I should not like to say that all pilots are but it has never been represented to me that the amount of training was due in any way to lack of facilities.

  WEATHER FORECASTING
  Brigadier Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the need for changes in the arrangements for the making of weather forecasts, and informing the public of the same; and if he will set up a public inquiry at which the whole subject can be investigated in the light of the latest experience and scientific knowledge.
  Mr. A. Henderson: The existing organisation and technical procedure for making weather forecasts in this country are in accordance with the best modern meteorological standards of forecasting. It is, however, the constant endeavour of the Meteorological Office to find ways and means of improving both the accuracy of forecasting and the arrangements for meeting the needs of the public. While I do not consider that any good purpose would be served by a public inquiry, I realise that the subject is one in which there is a wide public interest, and I will therefore, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full statement on weather forecasting in this country.
  Brigadier Medlicott: Does the Minister recall that for this year alone the cost of the meteorological service will be £1,849,000, and does he feel that this tremendous expenditure is justified seeing that the results sometimes are startlingly inaccurate; and ought not some part of this money to be devoted to research into the underlying causes of the rather strange results we get?
  Mr. Henderson: I venture to suggest that this money is well spent. It is true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, that sometimes the forecasting is inaccurate, but I think in 80 per cent. of the cases the records show that the forecasting is accurate.
  Mr. Mitchison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend really think that a public inquiry into the British weather would be likely to serve any useful purpose?
  Brigadier Medlicott: In addition, could consideration be given to providing forecasts at greater distances ahead than a matter of a few hours? Having regard to the great importance to farmers of knowledge of weather conditions months ahead, could not this be done?
  Mr. Henderson: I am advised by the experts at the Meteorological Office that they would not desire to express any forecast beyond 48 hours.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is it not a fact that some of the public disappointment at forecasts is due to the disability under which the forecasting organisation labours by having to make periodical forecasts

  1363
  which are only available, at least in the Press, some time after they have been made, and that the great advantage of forecasts, for example for flying, is the getting of the reports immediately after they are made? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether a service could not be given to the public more on that basis?
  Mr. Henderson: I do not think that that would get us very far, but I will certainly look into the suggestion.
  Following is the statement:
  The existing arrangements for making weather forecasts in this country provide for the extensive and rapid collection of meteorological information as a basis for forecasting and the technical procedure takes account of the latest results of meteorological research, in which British scientists have taken a leading part.
  Weather forecasting has not yet attained the status of an exact science, and a weather forecast has therefore to be interpreted as a statement of the most probable weather development in the light of the information available at the time of making the forecast.
  Compared with most other parts of the world the variable weather of Great Britain makes forecasting in the United Kingdom a difficult business at all times. In recent months the weather has been exceptionally disturbed. This has involved rapid changes of temperature. wind and pressure and has made forecasting correspondingly more difficult. It is therefore not surprising that the number of faulty forecasts this year has been somewhat higher than usual bearing in mind that even in the most favourable circumstances a weather forecast can be no more than a statement of probabilities. All cases of incorrect forecasts are investigated at the Central Forecasting Office at Dunstable, and there is a special research division working on basic forecasting problems with the aim of improving the general accuracy of forecasting.
  Recent measures to improve forecasting services rendered to the public include the introduction of regional forecasts on the B. B. C. Home Service, the introduction of special weather warning services for farmers, and the publicising of facilities for obtaining forecasts from local offices by telephone. The possibility of introducing an automatic service of forecasts by telephone for the greater London area and for other large centres of population is also being examined.
  The Meteorological Office is also advised by a Committee containing representatives of other Government Departments and of the Royal Society, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the British Universities under the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Helicopters (Development)
    Wing Commander Hulbertasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to what extent he is encouraging the development and use of helicopters; and what is his present programme.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply of 25th June by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply on the development of helicopters. As regards their civil use my noble Friend is encouraging all the experimental flying necessary, consistent with the present state of development of the helicopter and the resources available. The present programme is focussed on the work of the British European Airways Helicopter Experimental Unit, which is mainly financed by the Exchequer, and includes the operation of an experimental service between the London airports and Birmingham.
    Wing Commander Hulbert: Does the hon. Gentleman's Department propose to increase the internal helicopter services during the present year?
    Mr. Beswick: Not during the present year.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that London and Birmingham are well served with transport of all kinds, could not this form of transport be supplied to places where it would be far more important, such as the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?
    Mr. Beswick: As I have previously explained, it is not safe to operate a passenger service over water with a singleengined helicopter. When twin-engined helicopters are available the situation will be different.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary able to make any further statement as to the provision of a helicopter landing stage over Charing Cross railway station?
    Mr. Beswick: No, Sir.

    International Organisation (Secretary-General)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry

    1365
    of Civil Aviation in view of the International Civil Aviation Organisation Assembly meeting just terminated and the fact that the Treasury was consulted with regard to Great Britain's contribution to the $84,000 retirement payment to the Secretary-General, what instructions were given to the British representative of International Civil Aviation Organisation as to the attitude which he should take with regard to some revision or reduction of this $84,000 payment; and what is the proposed date of retirement.
    Mr. Beswick: This matter was settled at the Assembly of 1950, which awarded the Secretary-General a retiring gratuity of $17,875 Canadian, being one year's salary, and an annuity of $4,800 involving a capital value of $63,000. The United Kingdom contribution is less than 10 per cent. and our representatives supported the resolution which was carried unanimously after taking account of Dr. Roper's 30 years of service to international civil aviation as Secretary-General to the International Commission for Air Navigation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation. No further instructions were required or given for the 1951 Assembly.
    As regards the second part of the Question, the Secretary-General was due to retire on 21st April, 1951, on reaching the age of 60. but as the Council has not yet chosen a successor he has agreed to remain in post for the time being.
    Mr. Cooper: In view of the recent declaration of redundancies from this organisation of men of undoubted capacity without any compensation, does my hon. Friend think that this retirement payment is justified? If I bring to his notice evidence that has just come to me showing the real cause for the retirement of the Secretary-General, will my hon. Friend look into it with a view to giving instructions to the British representative to have some review made?
    Mr. Beswick: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is "Yes, Sir"; otherwise our representatives would not have agreed to it. With regard to the second part, if my hon. Friend will let me have the information I will look at it, though I am inclined to the view that there will be a difference of opinion as to the facts.

    Scottish Flying Club
    Mr. Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will now give the reasons for refusing the Scottish Flying Club permission to train at Prestwick Airport.
    Mr. Beswick: When this application was made my noble Friend consulted the interests concerned, including the users of the airport, and after careful consideration of all the circumstances decided that Prestwick was not an appropriate location for the club.
    Mr. Rankin: While I appreciate the difficulties that face his right hon. Friend, could I ask my hon. Friend if he will look into the possibility of providing alternative accommodation for this flying club, whose members played a very distinguished part in the Battle of Britain?
    Mr. Beswick: Certainly. We will give them all the assistance and encouragement possible.
    Sir T. Moore: Since the Minister is not allowing Prestwick Airport to be fully occupied by Scottish Aviation Limited, a private enterprise company, surely he can find some room for these amateur flyers, who may ultimately be called upon to play a part similar to that of the Battle of Britain pilots?
    Mr. Beswick: I understand that it was Scottish Aviation, to whom the hon. Member refers, who among others were particularly against the idea of having the flying club at the airport.

    Air Services, Scotland
    Mr. Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (1) why the introduction of new aircraft on Scottish routes has been delayed;
    (2) if he will state the reasons for the shortage of aircraft which led to the recent suspension or curtailment of Scottish air services.
    Mr. Beswick: Shortage of raw materials and labour troubles experienced by the contractors have delayed the conversion of Dakotas to Pionair aircraft for use on the British European Airways Corporation's routes. The consequent general shortage of passenger capacity

    1367
    for their summer schedules forced the Corporation temporarily to curtail or suspend several services, including three in Scotland which have now been restored.
    Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend will recollect that we were promised that Marathons, Vikings and Ambassadors would be in operation a year ago to replace the out of date Rapides and Dakotas. Could he tell us who or what is causing the delay, and if any steps are being taken with regard to firms that default in the implementation of their contracts?
    Mr. Beswick: I have already stated the reason for the delay in the case of the Pionairs aircraft. In regard to the other aircraft it is a different question.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that six Marathon aircraft are awaiting delivery at Blackbushe Airport. Is it not a fact that they are not being delivered because of a shortage of pilots, yet only three years ago B. E. A. C. were sacking pilots as redundant?
    Mr. Beswick: I do not accept that statement. In the first place my answer referred to Pionair aircraft.

  ERITREA (EDUCATION)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proportion of pupils have graduated to the highest class in Eritrean schools this year; whether they are issued with a school-leaving certificate; and how many, and what proportion, have learnt English.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Only one of the middle schools, which are the highest existing schools, has been established long enough to have a fourth year or top class. All 17 pupils attending this class this year have passed their final examinations, which include English, and will be issued with local school leaving certificates.
  Mr. Freeman: In view of the great disadvantages that these children suffered both during the war and for 10 years of Italian occupation, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything is being done to enable all children in Eritrea to get a proper education in order to catch up with this long delay?
  Mr. Morrison: We are doing all we can, but my hon. Friend must not expect a sudden jump from nothing to British standards of efficiency with multilateral schools and all the rest. This is a big advance, and I do not think it is discouraging.

  FOREIGN OFFICE STAFF (SCREENING)
  Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what grades of the Foreign Service does the ruling that membership of or association with the Communist Party or other Communist-influenced or dominated organisations is a bar to employment on work the nature of which is vital to the security of the State apply; how many members of the Foreign Office have been removed from their positions for the above reasons; and whether he will give an assurance that the Prime Minister's statement of 15th March, 1948, has been and will be rigidly enforced.
  Mr. H. Morrison: As regards the first part of the Question, the Prime Minister informed the House on 15th March, 1948, that no one who is known to be a member of the Communist Party or Fascist organisations, or to be associated with them in such a way as to raise legitimate doubts about his or her reliability, should be employed in connection with work the nature of which is vital to the security of the State. This ruling applies without any regard to grade throughout the Foreign Service.
  As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to replies given to the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. de Chair) on the 18th June and the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) on the 25th June.
  The answer to the last part of the Question is "Yes."
  Major Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in replying to a Question last week the Minister of State said about Mr. Burgess that he was not known to have had
  " associations with Communist circles of a kind which throw doubt on his reliability."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 31.]

  1369
  May I ask the Foreign Secretary, in view of those precise words, which Communist circles, in the opinion of the Foreign Office. are respectable?
  Mr. Morrison: I am sure, whatever my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the hon. and gallant Member may confidently take it that it would be right.
  Mr. Edelman: In supporting the purpose of the Question, may I ask my right hon. Friend also to keep a look out for Fascist fellow travellers and those with Fascist associations?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I think it has been clear ever since the announcement by the Prime Minister that it is treated on the basis of equality, and I shall not forget them either.
  Mr. Braine: Does not recent experience suggest that Communists most dangerous to the safety of the State are rarely those who are open members of the Communist Party, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing feeling in the country that no ex-Communist, nor anyone with Communist affiliations, should be employed in any position of trust?
  Mr. Morrison: I am not without some general sympathy with the hon. Member's view, but it really is not wise to be so dogmatic and so rigid from the point of view that there is never any hope that any human being will ever see the error of his ways and reform.

  TREATIES (OBLIGATIONS OF ASSISTANCE)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the treaties by which this country is committed to military action or war under certain circumstances; and what are the principal conditions of those treaties.
  Mr. H. Morrison: With permission, I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of these treaties, all of which have been published.
  Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether the information will also show how many of these treaties are subject to periodical revision and how many are permanent?
  Mr. Morrison: I think that it is published in the treaties themselves, but I will look into the point my hon. Friend has put to me.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend consider adding to his list any cases in which this country might be involved in war involuntarily by reason of other circumstances than participation in treaties?
  Mr. Morrison: I think the best thing is, when my answer is published, for my hon. Friend to be good enough to look at the treaties when he will be able to judge on that point.
  Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend tell us to what date he proposes to go back in publishing this list of treaties?
  Mr. Morrison: The first date is 1373.
  Following is the list:
  The following treaties, to which His Majesty's Government are a party, contain obligations of assistance:

  The Anglo-Portuguese Treaty, 1373;

  The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty, 1930;

  The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, 1936;

  The Anglo-Polish Treaty, 1939;

  The Anglo-Turkish Treaty, 1939;

  The Anglo-Soviet Treaty, 1942;

  The Charter of the United Nations, 1945;

  The Anglo-French Treaty, 1948;

  The Brussels Treaty, 1948;

  The Anglo-Transjordanian Treaty, 1948;

  The North Atlantic Treaty, 1949.

  U.N.E.S.C.O. (CHINESE DELEGATE)
  Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British delegate at the Plenary Session of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation voted in favour of admitting a representative of Chiang Kai-shek as the Chinese delegate.
  Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend is misinformed. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State stated in reply to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) on 11th June, the United Kingdom delegate voted for a proposal to postpone a decision regarding a change in the Chinese representation in the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

  1371
  Since the Chinese Nationalists have so far occupied China's seat in U.N.E.S.C. O., and since the Rules of Procedure provide for retention by a member delegation of its seat until a decision is taken to expel it, the Chinese Nationalist representative will continue to occupy China's seat at this session of U.N.E.S.C.O. This is, however, a very different matter from voting to admit a Chinese Nationalist representative.
  His Majesty's Government still believe that delegates from the Central People's Government should represent China in the United Nations. In view, however, of that Government's persistence in behaviour which is inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter, it now appears to His Majesty's Government that consideration of this question should be postponed for the time being.
  Mr. Fletcher: May I take it from that reply that there is no inconsistency between the vote given at U. N. E. S. C. O. and the general policy of His Majesty's Government to recognise the Central People's Government of China?
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I think my hon. Friend can be perfectly happy on that point. It does not in any way invalidate or prejudice the view of His Majesty's Government vis-à-vis the recognition of the Central People's Government of China.
  Mr. Duncan Sandys: Whilst welcoming the Government's decision to reverse their policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or at any rate to postpone it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or postpone the implementation of it indefinitely, will the right hon. Gentleman say how it was that they took so long to come to this very obvious conclusion?
  Mr. Morrison: I think it is a great pity, when I was getting on so well with my hon. Friend, that the right hon. Gentleman should stand up and try to make mischief. I can only say that I think the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question is quite unfounded and unreasonable.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say what possible service to education, science, or culture in China can be rendered by Chiang Kai-shek representatives on this organisation?
  Mr. Morrison: That raises rather wider questions in relation to U. N. E. S. C. O. itself, but the practical question that we have to face was what practical service would be rendered by an academic debate about the admission of one government or another at this point when we have the position in Korea which faces us with a practical situation. Our position is not prejudiced, but we do not think it wise to become involved in a rather purposeless argument at this point.

  HUNGARY (PERSECUTIONS)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the renewed persecution in Hungary of the Church and of those sections of the community which might be opposed to the regime, what action he proposes to take in pursuance of the Human Rights Clause of the Peace Treaty.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to questions on this subject on 20th and 25th June, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. Gammans: Must there not come a stage when we can no longer maintain normal diplomatic relations with a country which behaves in this way?
  Mr. Morrison: In all these matters of diplomatic relations there is a balance of considerations which have to be taken into account, and I am not sure it would be wise to commit ourselves to a breach of diplomatic relations about this.

  ARMED FORCES

    Korea, Helicopters (Rescues)
    Wing Commander Hulbertasked the Minister of Defence how many British personnel have been rescued by the use of helicopters in the Korean operations.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): At least 13 naval personnel have been rescued by helicopters. The only available figures for the land forces cover all Commonwealth units in Korea and amount to 21. The necessity for such rescues has not arisen in the case of United Kingdom Royal Air Force personnel.
    Wing Commander Hulbert: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether these are British or American aircraft?
    Mr. Shinwell: They are American aircraft.
    Wing Commander Hulbert: Are there no British helicopters in that theatre of war?
    Mr. Shinwell: Not at present. It is proposed, as soon as possible, to use British aircraft.
    Commander Maitland: Have any decorations been given to the Americans for their very gallant rescues on these occasions?
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say.

    Income Tax, Rule 9
    Wing Commander Hulbertasked the Minister of Defence if he will bring the provisions of Income Tax. Rule 9, to the notice of all Regular and Reserve officers in the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am looking into the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion and will write to him when I have completed my inquiries.
    Brigadier Head: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said recently was correct, the Treasury undoubtedly owe the Services very large sums of money owing to ignorance of this Rule?
    Mr. Shinwell: I understand that the Service Departments are discussing this very complicated matter with the Treasury.
    Captain Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause the letter to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT instead of sending it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because it is of general interest to all hon. Members?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is a fair point, and I will consider it.
    Mr. Profumo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these proposed discussions are bound to take a long time before they bear fruit, and that what we are interested in is what should happen in the meantime? Is he not aware that 90 per cent.
    1374
    of the officers in His Majesty's Forces do not know that they have a right under Rule 9? Will he make it well known to all officers, until there is a result from these discussions, that they have a right under Rule 9?
    Mr. Shinwell: I will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT and give that question consideration.
    Wing Commander Hulbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite this matter as much as possible, and will be also go into the question of how many years back this Treasury Rule will be retrospective as far as officers are concerned?
    Mr. Shinwell: I will do my best to expedite the inquiry, but I cannot commit myself.

    Dentures and Spectacles
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence to what extent men in the Services are now being charged for dentures and spectacles.
    Mr. Shinwell: Since the introduction of the National Health Service, members of the Forces have been entitled to free dentures and spectacles; previously they received free dentures and Service pattern spectacles only. The position is being reviewed.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Meat Ration
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Food if, in view of the arrival of convoys of Argentine meat, he can now make a statement with regard to the promised increased ration; and when the present price of meat will be increased.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) on 25th June.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Why does the Minister of Food insist that all the meat that comes to this country now from South America should go into store and should not be used to increase the ration? Is he withholding the increase in price until the ration is also increased?
    Mr. Willey: No. As my right hon. Friend said, we have to rebuild stocks, but we shall increase the ration as soon as supplies allow.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister bearing in mind the fact that in the autumn there will be a flush of home produced meat and, therefore, there is no reason why the Argentine meat should not now be distributed on the ration?
    Mr. Willey: We have that very much in mind.

    Unclaimed Rations
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Food what percentage of the total rations to which the public is entitled has not been taken up during the first rationing period of the new ration books.
    Mr. F. Willey: The rate of take up of rationed foods is estimated at 3-monthly intervals and a detailed survey is being made during the current rationing period. As soon as the results are available, which will be in August, I will send the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

  AFRICA (MALARIA CONTROL)
  Mr. John Arbuthnotasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now considered the Report of the Malaria Conference in Equatorial Africa to which reference was made in the Adjournment Debate of 11th July, 1950; whether he has noted its recommendation 3 (1); and what action he has recommended the Governments of African Colonies to take to implement this recommendation.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cook): My right hon. Friend has recently received the printed report of this Conference. Its contents are at present being studied and he hopes soon to consult the Governments of African territories regarding the recommendations adopted by the Conference.
  A great deal of malaria control work in urban areas is already being undertaken in a large number of British African territories. Control of malaria in rural areas presents a difficult problem, but experiments with insecticides have now been conducted in East African territories
  1376
  over a number of years. The Medical and Insecticide Advisory Committees of the Colonial Office have recently considered the formulation of a further experiment in the control of malaria in a large rural hyperendemic area in East Africa, and these proposals are now being studied in East Africa.
  Mr. Arbuthnotasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) to what extent the Malaria Control Organisation in the East African territories under his supervision is suitable and adequately staffed to undertake the training of junior staff for the executive control of malaria in rural areas by the use of residual insecticides
  (2) whether any action has been taken or is contemplated to enlarge the scope of the East African Malaria Unit, which is largely financed from colonial development and welfare funds, to constitute a training organisation.
  Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend is at present in communication on these matters with the Chairman of the East Africa High Commission and the Governors of the East African territories, and he hopes to be in a position to make a statement when he has had an opportunity of considering their views.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: When is that likely to be? Will it be in a matter of weeks or months?
  Mr. Cook: It is difficult to say at this stage.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (E. C. A. ASSISTANCE)
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what conditions were attached to the grants of $7,700,000 announced by the Economic Co-operation Administration to British overseas territories for their development.
  Mr. Cook: Details of the administrative procedure for obtaining the grants are under discussion with E. C. A. The only conditions of substance are that, as the grants form only part of the cost of each project, the recipient Government shall find the rest and complete the project within a reasonable time.
  Colonel Hutchison: When the conditions, which I understand are in negotiation, have been finally decided upon, will the hon. Gentleman make them available, because some of the Colonies have been forced to refuse aid of this kind owing to the conditions attached on earlier occasions?
  Mr. Cook: I will see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman gets a copy.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS (IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS)
  Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many police constables and officers of customs, respectively, there now are in the Falkland Islands Dependencies to enforce the Falkland Islands Dependencies Immigration (Restrictions) Ordinance, 1936, against small and irregular numbers of people.
  Mr. Cook: There are one police officer and two customs officials in South Georgia, but none in the Antarctic part of the Dependencies. Although there are, of course, British Survey posts at a number of points in the Antarctic Dependencies, it is not considered practicable to apply the legislation to which the hon. and gallant Member refers in those territories.
  Commander Noble: Would the hon. Gentleman say what is the point of having this Ordinance unless it is applied?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Arising out of that supplementary question, may I ask the Under-Secretary whether he will give some further answer? It appears to many of us that the few people who are in the Falkland Islands now are placed in a hopeless position and that this House, having given assent to this legislation. ought to see that it is carried out.
  Mr. Cook: His Majesty's Government are still of the view that this matter should be settled at the International Court.

  COLONIAL STUDENTS, LONDON (HOSTEL)
  Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the British Council propose
  1378
  to admit colonial students to the Hans Crescent Hostel for the academic year only and not for the calendar year; whether he is aware of the hardship which will be caused to students, most of whom have no home to go to; and whether he will consult with the British Council with a view to aiming at a more satisfactory arrangement.
  Mr. Cook: Students are admitted to the Hans Crescent Residence on the understanding that a proportion of them will be required to leave at the end of June each year, which is the end of the academic year, to make room for freshmen. As the Council will find alternative accommodation for them no question of hardship will arise. My right hon. Friend is in close consultation with the Council about this matter and he is assured by them that the arrangements at Hans Crescent are in the best interests of the students as a whole.
  Mr. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that students enter the hostel not on the understanding that they will have to leave in June, but on an undertaking that they will stay until June? What is the reason for the academic year being adopted when it does not correspond with their studies?
  Mr. Cook: My information is that all students sign an undertaking to the effect that they will leave at the end of the academic year. We could split hairs on this, but the fact is that they are led clearly to understand that they should leave at the end of the academic year.
  Mr. P. Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the hardship caused to Colonial students by the proposed closing of their hostel at Hans Crescent for cleaning and staff holidays; and whether he will approach the British Council with a view to ensuring that the hostel, which has only been open for nine months, shall remain open through the summer.
  Mr. Cook: The British Council, which is responsible for the welfare and accommodation of these students, have assured my right hon. Friend that none of them suffers hardship owing to the temporary closing of the Hans Crescent Hostel for two weeks.
  Mr. Smithers: Surely, the Minister could ensure that this hostel is so administered that it can be cleaned without having to close it altogether?
  Mr. Cook: There are a great many difficulties in applying that suggestion.
  Commander Noble: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by his original answer that alternative accommodation is found for these students?
  Mr. Cook: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. P. Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consult with the British Council and the Treasury with a view to providing further hostel accommodation for Colonial students of a similar character to that now existing at Hans Crescent Hostel.
  Mr. Cook: Consideration is being given to the possibility of finding another hostel in London especially to provide for freshmen and students needing accommodation during vacations.
  Mr. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the existing hostel has given great satisfaction to those who are able to occupy it, and will he do everything possible to expedite the new one?
  Mr. Cook: Yes, Sir.

  MOUNTVIEW TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  70. Mr. GAMMANS,—TO ask the Minister of Works if he will arrange to stop the piledriver on the extension to the Mountview Exchange from working on Sundays in view of the annoyance caused to surrounding residents.
  Mr. Gammans: On a point of order. May I have an answer to my Question?
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we might take the Private Notice Question and then, if the Minister is here, we can take this Question.

  PERSIA (ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL COMPANY)
  Mr. Eden(By Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make about the situation in Persia.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. No significant developments have taken place in the Persian oil situation since my statement in the House yesterday. The latest information suggests that the Persian authorities are continuing to interfere in various ways in the Company's operations, and that their attitude as regards tankers remains unaltered.
  The House will have seen Press reports that the Persian Prime Minister has made an appeal to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company personnel to transfer their services to the "National Iranian Oil Company." He has apparently added that their departure would be a loss not only to Persia but to the free nations of the world, a view which we share. But, on the other hand, we find it difficult to believe that this highly competent and loyal staff will wish to break their contracts and serve under a Government which has already given such manifest proofs of intransigence and of lack of grasp of realities.
  I have already undertaken to keep the House informed of any developments, and I will make a further statement as soon as developments make this desirable.
  Mr. Churchill: In view of the critical situation which prevails upon this issue, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would be willing to receive a deputation from His Majesty's Opposition, consisting of myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, in order that we could discuss some points which at this juncture are better dealt with in private than across the Floor of the House.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Certainly. I would welcome such a discussion. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am always ready to see him or his colleagues on any point. I certainly think that there are matters which cannot be discussed on the Floor of the House in the present critical situation, and I should be perfectly willing to give the right hon. Gentleman the very fullest information.
  Mr. Churchill: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Somerset de Chair: Could the Foreign Secretary clarify one point that was not elucidated in the exchanges

  1381
  yesterday? Could he say whether the Royal Navy has been sent into Abadan to protect the British civilians carrying on their lawful occasions in the oil installations pending a decision of The Hague Court, or whether they have merely been sent in order to provide a shield for them in being. evacuated?
  Mr. Morrison: I really would have thought that the hon. Member might have taken the hint from the Leader of the Opposition that there are some things that are better discussed privately.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm or otherwise the Press reports that the women and children have now been successfully evacuated?
  Mr. Morrison: I think so, Sir.

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
  Mr. Alex. Anderson: I hesitate to add to the number of questions of Privilege which are constantly being thrust upon you, Mr. Speaker, but I feel it my duty, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Estimates. to bring to your notice an article which appears in the "Daily Telegraph of today's date, on page 5, column 1, referring to the work of the Select Committee on Estimates. The Select Committee on Estimates is a Select Committee of this House, with all the privileges and responsibilities of a Select Committee, and, as such, its deliberations are confidential until a report has been made to the House.
  In the article of which I complain, reference is made clearly to a confidential memorandum presented to the Committee, in violation of a Resolution of this House dated 21st April, 1837, which, with your permission. I propose to read:
  " Resolved:
  That according to the undoubted Privilege of this House, and for the due protection of the public interest, the Evidence taken by any Select Committee of this House and Documents presented to such Committee, and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any Member of such Committee, or by any other person."
  In the article of which I complain, there is the following section, which I should like to bring to your notice:
  " Hospitals would be more efficiently and economically run if they were returned to the
  1382
  control of local authorities, states a memorandum on the National Health Service submitted by the Association of Municipal Corporations to the Select Committee on Estimates
  The Association considers that "—
  and this is a direct quotation from the memorandum which follows—
  "the direct accountability of the local authorities to the electorate for the expenditure they incur is more likely to conduce to economy in expenditure than the present system.' Administrative defects in the new system are strongly criticised."
  There would be no complaint of such an article if it came after the presentation of a report to the House, but such publication, while evidence is still being taken, before the Committee has come to its decision and before the House has had time to make up its mind on a report presented to it, seems to me to be a clear breach of Privilege. The article is a fair summary, and it is entirely without malice, but I cannot regard it as privileged.
  If confidential documents submitted to this House are to be used in this fashion, much of the usefulness of Select Committees will disappear, much of the evidence which we get will be given much less frankly, and one of the valuable privileges of which this House is justly proud will be steadily whittled away. I should like to ask for your opinion, Sir, whether there is a Prima facie question of breach of Privilege.
  The said newspaper was delivered in.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has stated his case, and has asked me whether I think the House might like me to say whether I think there is a Prima facie case or not. In my opinion, there is, but that does not mean that I am prejudging it. It must he a matter for inquiry. The hon. Member will now please move a Motion.
  Mr. Churchill: On a point of order. I really have not understood what it is you have ruled, Mr. Speaker. Are you ruling that it is a breach of Privilege, or that it should be referred to the Committee?
  Mr. Speaker: I have no authority to rule that a matter is a breach of Privilege. I can only say that there is a Prima facie case which I think should be referred to the Committee and be inquired into. I cannot rule that any matter is a breach of Privilege, because that would he prejudging it. All I say

  1383
  is that there is a Prima facie case, and it is for the House to decide what to do about it.
  Mr. Alex. Anderson: I beg to move,
  " That the Select Committee on Estimates do inquire into the facts, and report thereon to the House."
  I recognise that this is an unusual procedure, but it is not without precedent. There are precedents in the history of this House under which matters of Privilege have been referred to the Committee concerned. I can refer, for example, to one case in 1875, which had the backing of no less a statesman than Benjamin Disraeli.
  I wish to move that the matter be sent to the Select Committee on Estimates for three very simple reasons. The first reason is that the Select Committee on Estimates has all the powers necessary to deal with it; the second is that the Select Committee on Estimates has sufficient knowledge of the background and the circumstances to deal with it quickly and efficiently, and the third is that it seems to me that, because of the irritability of the period through which we are passing, the Select Committee of Privileges has plently to do at the present time.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I do not think I can add anything to what the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Alex. Anderson) has said. I am Chairman of the Sub-Committee which is actually conducting this particular inquiry, and I think we can investigate this matter. It might be embarrassing to us if it were canvassed in public while we were actually engaged in formulating our report, and it is obviously embarrassing to those asked to give evidence to canvass that evidence in public while the matter is under discussion in confidence upstairs. For those reasons, I think it would be best if this matter could be investigated by the Select Committee on Estimates itself. We could report to the House, and it might be unnecessary to take any further action in the light of that report.
  Captain Crookshank: May I say one thing? This is a very unusual procedure which we are being asked to adopt. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Alex. Anderson) referred to a precedent of 1875., which, after all, is quite a long
  1384
  time ago and which certainly did not refer to the Select Committee on Estimates, because that was not established until many years after that date.
  It would not be right to discuss the fundamentals at the moment, but it seems to me—I know no more than what was in the paper as the hon. Gentleman quoted it—that if any organisation or any individual submits a memorandum, document or letter, as the case may be, to any committee, it is very hard to understand how that could become, ipso facto,a matter of Privilege. After all, if I write you a letter, Mr. Speaker, I am, as far as I know, entitled to publish it. No one can prevent me. It may be a matter of bad taste, but it seems to me that it is a very big step for the House even to accept Prima facie from yourself that any outside body is inhibited from making any publication or statement about any evidence it has chosen to give.
  If, however, it is, as the hon. Gentleman says, within the powers of the Select Committee on Estimates to deal with the subject anyhow, I do not see why it should have been brought before the House, or why we should have a Motion about it. It seems to me that the Chairman of that Select Committee, if he thought an error had been made by this particular body, could have had them before him without reference to us and given us a subsequent report. It appears to me that we are endangering the principle of not making mountains out of very small molehills.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not want to make any comment on the first part of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, because it seems to me that it begged the very question that some committee ultimately will have to determine. I think the only point of interest is whether the point of Privilege raised should go to the Select Committee of Privileges, as is usual, or to the particular Committee concerned. I should have thought it was obvious that it should go to the particular Committee concerned, since the whole foundation of the claim of Privilege in this case rests upon the confidential nature of the matter being considered by that Committee.
  Mr. Pickthorn: If I may without impertinence, I should like to express agreement with what was said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the

  1385
  Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), and I should like to disagree with what was just said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I do not think that in these matters the precedents that have been indicated are really very helpful. As my right hon. and gallant Friend indicated, this Select Committee was not in existence in those days. The Select Committee of Privileges, as it at present exists, is a quite modern invention and a good deal later than that.
  Though the whole question of its powers and composition may some day be discussed, that would not be in order now;
  but I should have thought that when there is a permanent Select Committee of Privileges of the 20th century kind in existence, it is regrettable that a matter of Privilege should be referred to another body, and another body which is more likely to have prejudices and a sense of dignity in the matter which might not be wholly judicial. Therefore, I hope that the House will not refer this matter to the Select Committee on Estimates, but to the Select Committee of Privileges.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 159.

  Division No. 151.)

  AYES

  [3.47 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Holman, P.

  Adams, Richard

  Deer, G

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Albu, A. H.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Houghton, D.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Diamond, J.

  Hoy, J.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hubbard, T.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

  Donnelly, D.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Dye, S.

  Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N)

  Baird, J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J C

  Hynd, H. (Accringtort)

  Balfour, A

  Edelman, M.

  Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifle)

  Barnes, Rt. Han. A. J

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Bartley, P.

  Edwards, W, J. (Stepney)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E.

  Janner, B.

  Benson, G.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W)

  Jay, D. P. T

  Beswick, F.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Ewart, R.

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Blenkinsop, A

  Fernyhough, E.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Field, Capt. W. J

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Boardman, H

  Finch, H. J.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Booth, A.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Bottomley, A. G

  Follick, M.

  Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

  Bowden, H W.

  Foot, M. M.

  Keenan, W.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Forman, J. C.

  Kenyon, C.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N

  Kinley, J.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Gibson, C. W

  Lang, Gordon

  Burke, W A

  Gilzean, A.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Burton, Miss E.

  Glanville, James (Consett)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)

  Gooch, E. G

  Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon P C

  Lipton, Lt. Col. M.

  Carmichael, J.

  Granville, Edgar (Eye)

  Logan, D. G.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

  Champion, A. J

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R

  McAllister, G.

  Chetwynd, G- R

  Grey, C. F.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Clunie, J.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McGhee, H. G

  Cocks, F. S.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  McGovern, J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Mclnnes, J.

  Collick, P.

  Grintomd, J.

  Mack, J D

  Collindridge, F.

  Gunter, R. J.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Cook, T. F.

  Hairs, John E. (Wycombe)

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

  Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Hale, Leslie Oldham, W)

  McKibbin, A.

  Cooper, John (Deptford)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  McLeavy, F.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  MacMillan, Malcolm {Western Isles)

  Crawley, A.

  Hamilton, W. W

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Hannan, VV.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Hardman, D. R.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Daines, P.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Hallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,)

  Dalton, Rt Hon. H.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Darling, George (Hilliborough)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Mathers, Rt. Hon G

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Messer, F.

  Rees, Mrs D.

  Tomney, F

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Reeves, J.

  Vernon, W. F

  Mikardo, Ian

  Reid, Thomas (Swindcn)

  Viant, S P

  Mitchison, G. R

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Wallace, H. W

  Moeran, E. W.

  Rhodes, H.

  Ward, Miss Is. (Tynemouth)

  Motion, A. H. E.

  Richards, R.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Monslow, W

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford. C.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Weitzman, D.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Morley, K

  Robinson, Kenneth {St. Pancras, N.)

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Rogers. George (Kensington, N.)

  West, D. G.

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

  Ross, William

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Royle, C.

  White, Mrs. Eircne (E. Flint)

  Moyle, A

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Mutley, F. W

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Nally, W.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Wigg, G.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Wilcock, Group Capt C A B

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Wilkins, W. A

  Oldfield, W H

  Simmons, C. J

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)

  Oliver, G. H

  Slater, J.

  Willey, Detavius (Cleveland)

  Orbach, M.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Padley, W. E.

  Snow, J. W.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Paget, R. T.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

  Sparks, J. A

  Williams, Rl. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Sleele, T.

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

  Pannell, T. C.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Pargiter, G. A

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Parker, J.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Paton, J.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

  Woodburn, Rt Hon

  Pearson, A.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Woods, Rev. G S

  Pearl, T. F.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Wyatt, W. L

  Popplewell, E.

  Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

  Yates, V. F.

  Porter, G.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K

  Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W *

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pryde, D. J.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Mr. Alexander Anderson and

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth

  Rankin, J

  Timmons, J.

  NOES

  Alport, C. J. M

  Eden, Rt. Hon A

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts S W.)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Amory, Hsathcoat (Tiverton)

  Fisher, Nigel

  McAdden, S. J.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Fort. R.

  McKibbin, A.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir David Maxwell

  MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaslon)

  Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)

  MacLeod. John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Galbraith, T. G. O. (Hillhead)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromlev)

  Bennett, W. G. CWoodside)

  Gammans, L D.

  Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

  Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxtelh)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

  Maudling, R.

  Birch, Nigel

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Medlicott, Brigadier F

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

  Grtmston, Robert (Westbury)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Boothby, R.

  Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Boyd-Carpenter, J A

  Hastings, S.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Head, Brig. A, H.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Braine, B. R.

  Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir Cuthbert

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

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Heald, Lionel

  Mott-Radclyffe, C E

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W

  Nabarro, G.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wytheshawe)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nugent, G. R. H

  Burden, F. A.

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Oakshott, H. D

  Butcher, H. W

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Odey, G. W

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W S

  Howard, Grevilie (St. Ives)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. 0

  Clyde, J. L.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Orr, Capt. L P S

  Conanl, Maj. R. J E

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southporl)

  Osborne, C.

  Corbett, Lt.-Col Uvedale (Ludlow)

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Perkins, W. R. D

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

  Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

  Hutchinson, Geoffrey (llford, N.)

  Profumo, J D

  Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)

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

  Raikes, H V

  Darling, Sir William {Edinburgh, S.)

  Hutchison, Col James (Glasgow)

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Redmayne, M

  Davies, Nigel (Epping)

  Jeffreys, General Sir George

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  de Chair, Somerset

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Kaberry, D

  Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Russell, R. S

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcoin

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Ryder, Capt R. E D

  Drayson, G. B

  Lennox-Boyd, A T.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D

  Duncan, Capt. J A L

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)

  Savory, Prof. D. L

  Duthie, W. S.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Scott, Donald

  Eccles, D. M.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Snadden, W. McN

  Touche, G. C.

  Watkinson, H.

  Soames, Capt. C

  Turton, R. H.

  Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridga)

  Stanley, Capt. Hn. Richard (N Fyide)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Wills, G

  Stevens, G. P.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E)

  Vosper, D. F

  Wood, Hon. R

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Wade, D. W.

  York, C.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Summers, G. S

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  TELLERS FOR THF. NOES.

  Teevan, T L

  Ward, Han. George (Worcester)

  Mr. Pickthorn and

  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson.

  Mr. Niall Macpherson: On a point of order. I desire to raise a point of order arising out of the matter with which the House has just dealt. The House has now remitted to the Select Committee on Estimates, which is a Committee of some 40 members, a question of Privilege. I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether in considering that matter the Select Committee on Estimates will be entirely master of its cwn procedure or whether it will be entitled to remit that in turn to a Sub-Committee and the Sub-Committee to report to the House. I ask this question because it is a Committee of some 40 Members and this is an unprecedented matter. I do not know whether you are prepared to give a Ruling today, but I would suggest that it is a matter to which consideration should be given, and I would ask for your Ruling.
  Mr. Speaker: The Select Committee on Estimates is, of course, entirely responsible for its own procedure. We have remitted the matter to that Committee. I do not know how it will deal with it, but it has to report to the House and then we can consider what the Committee has done.
  Mr. Churchill: Are we to take it that the procedure which has just been adopted, which I believe is novel, will now become a regular part of our procedure, and that it will be open to Members of the various Committees—on Estimates and on public expenditure and so on—to move that matters which appear in the newspapers shall be remitted to them for consideration as an alternative to a Motion of Privilege? Are we not opening a wide vista of possibilities which are entirely novel? I may be wrong, but I have been here a long time.
  Mr. Speaker: I can give the right hon. Gentleman one instance of another procedure. We had the Reverend MacManaway case which never went to the Committee of Privileges at all. The
  1390
  House dealt with it on the spot. There are several ways. I can recollect other matters being dealt with by Committees but not necessarily by the Committee of Privileges. They report to the House and the House can, if it wishes, send the report of the Select Committee to the Committee of Privileges. It is not an exhaustive procedure by any means. It is a matter for the choice of the House.
  Mr. Churchill: Will the adoption of that procedure require you to rule that there is a Prima facie case for remission to the Committee on Estimates, such as has hitherto been done?
  Mr. Speaker: I ruled that there was a Prima facie case of breach of Privilege, and a Motion was then moved to submit the matter to the Committee on Estimates. It is outside my hands. It is for the House to choose. If the House chooses to send the matter to the Select Committee on Estimates, it is not my affair.
  Mr. Churchill: I extend my thanks to you, Sir, for so kindly enlightening us upon these matters and for the pleasure with which I have heard you this afternoon allow to pass from your lips the words "Prima facie" with so much relish.
  Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask you two questions, Mr. Speaker? While respectfully agreeing, as of course we are all bound to do, with the Ruling that a Committee's procedure is for itself to decide, may I ask whether it is, in your view, free to decide to delegate quasi-judicial powers which this Committee is for the first time now being asked to exercise?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member ought to ask me this question. Is it for me to challenge what the House has decided?
  Mr. Pickthorn: With respect, I was not asking whether anything which the

  1391
  House has decided should be challenged. What I was asking was whether this Select Committee will be entitled to delegate to a Sub-Committee these quasi-judicial powers. May I also ask you whether in Divisions like that which we have just had Members of the Committee concerned should or should not divide?
  Mr. Speaker: I have said that the Select Committee on Estimates is the master of its own procedure. I have no power to tell it what to do. This House has directed the Select Committee on Estimates to report back to it. If we are not satisfied with the way in which the Select Committee has dealt with the matter, then we can reject the report and if we are satisfied we can accept it. For the moment it is remitted from our power, and the Select Committee on Estimates, which is master of its own procedure, must deal with the matter.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: May I ask for enlightenment on the second point raised by my hon. Friend? I think that had the Question been, as it often is, that the matter be remitted to the Committee of Privileges, the custom would have been for members of that Committee not to take part in the Division. I do not know whether you can give any guidance on whether the same principle applies to the Committee that was the subject matter of the last Division. I am not for a moment suggesting that any hon. Member who took part in the Division knew that he did anything wrong. It is simply a question of the correct practice.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think there is some misapprehension on the part of my hon. and learned Friend as to what the House has just done. It has not been remitted to the Committee on Estimates to decide any question of Privilege whatsoever. It has merely passed a resolution that the Committee on Estimates do inquire into the facts and report on the facts. They have, therefore, to do nothing further than inquire into what the facts are and they will report to the House.
  Mr. H. Strauss: The point on which I asked for guidance is in no way answered by what my hon. Friend has just said. The question arises, Mr. Speaker, because
  1392
  you ruled that there is a Prima facie case of breach of Privilege.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot direct a Member to divide or not to divide. Hon. Members must use their own judgment, and that is the answer.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Arising out of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), why on earth was it necessary for the Select Committee on Estimates to ask the leave of this House to investigate a subject which they were fully competent to investigate themselves? They have received no extra powers, as I see it, from this vote than they had before, and I think the time of the House has been wasted.
  Mr. Speaker: That may be an argument against the Motion, but it is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Albu: Unless my hon. Friend who is the chairman of the Committee on Estimates had raised the matter today, the question of Privilege would have fallen. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has."] Was it not my hon. Friend's duty to raise the matter immediately?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not follow the hon. Member's point. The question certainly does not fall. When the Select Committee report on the facts, we can decide whether Privilege has been infringed or not.
  Mr. Churchill: May I ask you, Sir, whether on future occasions when you rule that there is a Prima facie case for remission to the Committee of Privileges it will be open to anybody in the House to move that instead a preliminary examination should take place by the Committee on Estimates or by any other body, and may it not become a very great cause of delay and impediment to the ordinary processes of Parliament?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Arising out of that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I submit to you that your announcement to the House is not that a Prima facie case exists for referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges, but that a Prima facie case of breach of Privilege has occurred, and that on that it is open to the Member who brings the matter before you to make such Motion as he thinks fit and it is for you to consider whether

  1393
  you will accept it? That is what happened on this occasion.
  Mr. Speaker: That is exactly the case. Once I declare that there is a Prima facie case and then a Members moves a Motion, it is a debatable Motion to which one can move an Amendment if one chooses. Normally the matter goes direct to the Committee of Privileges. This time it was moved that it should go to another Committee. But that is a debatable Motion; both are.
  Mr. Bowles: May I suggest that the debate is now over?
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Are we right in thinking that after the Select Committee on Estimates has made a report to this House in accordance with the Motion which the House has now carried, it will then be open to the House, if it so desires and if it thinks a breach of Privilege has occurred, to refer it again to the Committee of Privileges?
  Mr. Speaker: It is for the House to decide; the House can do as it likes.
  Mr. Ede: May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, as a point of order that when we receive the report there may be a request for time to discuss it, and if time is found to discuss it the House will then be able to take such action on the report of the Committee of Estimates as it thinks fit?
  Mr. Churchill: After any occasion on which you have ruled that there is a Prima facie case of breach of Privilege, it will always be open to the House, will it not, on the debatable Motion which follows for any Amendment to be moved to refer it to some other body?
  Mr. Speaker: It always has been. As a matter of interest, on the procedure which I proposed, the House might like to know that a very distinguished Parliamentarian, Mr. A. J. Balfour, was very much in favour of the view which I have expressed.

  QUESTION (MINISTER'S ABSENCE)
  Mr. Gammans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for a reply to my Question No. 70 or, if that is not possible, for an apology from the Prime Minister for what is a discourtesy not to myself but to the whole House?
  Mr. Speaker: I think the only thing is that we must give preference to that Question, if the hon. Gentleman will put it down, on another day. These things happen, after all, and it was the next to the last Question on the Order Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Ede.]
Ordered:
"That if the Ministry of Materials Bill he committed to a Committee of the whole House, further Proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; that any Resolution come to by the Committee on Ministry of Materials [Money] may he reported and considered forthwith notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees); and that as soon as the Proceedings on the Report of the Resolution have been concluded the House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Ede.]
SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder and the said Estimates referred to the Scottish Standing Committee:—

Class V., Vote 15, Housing, Scotland.

Class V., Vote 13, Department of Health for Scotland.

Class I., Vote 27, Scottish Home Department.

Class IV., Vote 14. Public Education, Scotland.

Class III., Vote 16, Approved Schools, Scotland.—[Mr. Ede.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MINISTRY OF MATERIALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.12 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Stokes): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I would remind the House that on 1st May my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply gave a brief outline of what was intended. Since that date a White Paper has been published which gives fuller details. The Bill and the White Paper and the two Orders clearly explain what is before the House. I do not propose to detain the House by explaining in detail, but in presenting the Bill it would perhaps be as well to explain that the Government's power to trade is derived from a Ministry of Supply Act of 1939.
  The Order printed in the White Paper transfers those functions, as indicated in the First Schedule, from the Ministry of Supply to the new Department and in the Second Schedule from the Board of Trade, which, in turn, had certain powers transferred to it from the Ministry of Supply in 1946. Further, responsibility for the Raw Cotton Commission, which was set up by the Cotton Centralised Buying Act of 1947, and the Board of Trade functions connected therewith are to be transferred by the Transfer of Functions Order shown in the White Paper at Annex I, subject to qualificatious which I shall explain a little later.
  Perhaps at this stage I might express to the House the regret of my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he is not able to be in his place today. He has asked me to say that he is sorry not to be here and that he supports the policy contained in the Bill. I hope I shall be expressing the views of the whole House in wishing him a speedy return to good health and to his place with US. [HON. MEMBERS:Hear, hear."]
  The Bill has been designed to provide the utmost flexibility so that duties can be added or subtracted, as may prove advisable as time goes on. May I say at the outset that I have been most anxious to consult as far as practicable
  1396
  the main people affected by these changes. Consultations have already taken place between myself and other Ministers on the one hand, and representatives of the Federation of British Industries, the T.U.C., the representatives of both the cotton and wool trades, the representatives of the manufacturers in the light metals and non-ferrous metals trade and with the British Chemical Manufacturers' Association.
  I think it can fairly be said on my behalf that we have already done what we can, before presenting the Bill to the House, to find out the views of those who are most affected, and I am only too glad to express my thanks for the helpful way in which they have discussed matters with us, as a result of which there have been significant modifications making, I hope, for more efficient working of the Department. With all these discussions it was inevitable that there should be delay in presenting the Bill, but I hope right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will think that that delay has proved to be worth while.
  Perhaps I may briefly state to the House what I term, in my own heading, "the object of the exercise." It is this. As far as practicable the intention is that all raw material questions should be dealt with in one place instead of in several, but more particularly that a responsible Minister, with time at his disposal, undistracted, should focus attention on raw materials supplies and be free to watch both the short and long-term requirements.
  I emphasise that as I see it this is not a short-term problem alone. When the defence problems have been mastered there will be a long-term problem about which I shall have something more to say towards the end of my speech and which must be tackled. The action which we are taking now will, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Government—or perhaps I should put it the other way round—be a big step towards a long-term solution of a very urgent problem.
  I should add this. As the House knows I recently paid a visit to Washington. If I may use the vernacular, if anything stood out a mile during my conversations with responsible persons—and I do not think I had any conversation at all with

  1397
  anybody who was not responsible—it was that in these overseas negotiations it is vital that the person conducting them should have the whole story in his hand and should be responsible for the whole range of raw materials. What is even more important is that he should be quite certain that he has the right figures.
  Having spent a considerable part of my life dealing with figures I know, as we all know, that one can prove anything with figures. It is vital in this matter of international negotiations, if one is to have the confidence of others—and there the a great many others concerned—that the Minister or whoever is conducting negotiations should be quite sure of his facts and should have authority to speak.
  I hope, therefore, that those people—and no doubt there are a great number of them—who, for one reason or another, do not like all that is now proposed will bear in mind what seems to me to be the over-riding consideration—that we shall not get out of this trouble of the shortage of certain materials in the short-term or find a cure for those shortages, and others which may occur in the long-term, unless we put up with a certain amount of inconvenience in order to get the job tackled at the right level and in the appropriate manner.
  That also goes for what seems to me to be the second most urgent problem, and that is the question of having some single control in dealing with the commodity price level. What we have in mind is to try as an objective to get things a little bit nearer to normal. There is, as anybody who studies the commodity market knows, very serious fear of inflation on a wide scale. Many commodity prices are now at an extremely high level compared with what they were a year or 18 months ago, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are very much concerned with this problem.
  We welcome the downward trend that there has been in certain materials, which would indicate a return to—shall I say—sanity and more orderly buying. In addition to our aim of preventing inflation, we shall also aim to assure a fair price to both producers and consumers. There is obviously a need for concentration on the future requirements of long-term planning and development the world over.
  1398
  of which I shall have something to say a little later.
  Perhaps I should add this, that the Bill does not necessarily mean entering into a greater range of public purchasing. By and large public purchasing to date has in these matters been conducted only where shortages have occurred. The intention of the Bill is not to frighten people into the belief that wider and wider public purchasing is to be indulged in: nothing of the kind is the case.
  Let me say something of the guiding considerations with regard to the duties and staffing of—if I may so call it—my new Ministry. Having been on the other side of the fence for a very long time I am very conscious of the problems which confront industry when changes are made, and how irritating those changes can be. Therefore, as I have said to the representatives who have been to see me from time to time, I am endeavouring as far as possible to make the changes with the least possible dislocation of and inconvenience to industry. In fact, as far as possible I hope that industry will continue to deal with the same people. In other words it is not the intention to set up another huge staff of people whom industry has never seen before.
  Instead, there will be a transfer of certain staffs from the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply to my Department. I think I could, perhaps, most aptly describe it as a hiving off from those two Departments and a re-hiving of the same people in my hive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Busy bee."] I have not been called a queen bee before, although I have been "Lord Festival" for some time. As I see it at the moment, the total additional staff required over and above the transfers will not be more than 100 persons in all —which I do not think can be regarded as wildly extravagant.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: How many transfers will there be?
  Mr. Stokes: I was coming to that. It depends on how many get axed. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] Well, the people who come to me will be axed if I do not want them, obviously. However, Timber Control will come to me in toto,and that numbers 900. I expect that the total of the remainder who will

  1399
  be transferred will be a little larger than that, but not above 1,000. They will all be bodies at present in Government employment in one or the other of the two Departments, and will not be replaced when they leave.
  As I said at the beginning, there is bound to be some inconvenience to industry, but I hope that the assurance I have given will make industry feel better about it. Nobody displayed any despair or despondency when coming to talk to me about it, and I think that it will help to allay any fears there may be about inconvenience to know that the essential, related sections of the Board of Trade and of my Department will be housed in the same building. I have said already that the Bill has been drawn in a flexible manner so as to permit adjustments, and I repeat it now, so that the House may be aware that it has been so drawn to meet new situations as and when they may arise.
  With regard to the range of my responsibilities over materials, I think that the White Paper sets out in a fairly comprehensive way what those materials are, but as, since this White Paper was first published, hon. Members and others have asked me questions, perhaps it would help if I dealt particularly with one or two of them. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer winds up the debate he will deal with any others about which questions may be asked during the debate. First of all, timber and the Timber Control. I want to make it quite clear—for a number of hon. Members have talked to me about this—that that comes to me 100 per cent. So far as traders and persons who use timber are concerned, they will continue to deal as before. There will be no change at all.
  Mr. Oakshott: Does that mean that the issue of licences will be handled by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or by the Board of Trade as before?
  Mr. Stokes: No. That will be handled by Timber Control as before.
  Mr. Oakshott: Through the right hon. Gentleman's new Department?
  Mr. Stokes: Yes. I take it over lock, stock and barrel.
  1400
  The second main item which comes direct to me is sulphur, sulphuric acid and fertilisers. They have not been separated because, obviously, they are so mixed up that precise separation would be impossible. Eighteen new plants or conversions for the production of sulphuric acid by means of pyrites and the anhydrite process are also planned or already under construction. The first plant is expected to be operating in July this year. All of that work, as the House will know, was put in hand by the late President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. Follick: Not late, but present.
  Mr. Stokes: It is not really necessary to be pedantic about it.
  The effect of this will be that by 1954 the total of sulphuric acid produced from pyrites in this country will have risen from 280,000 tons to 900,000 tons, and the effect on the raw sulphur position will be that our imports will be reduced by 50 per cent. By 1955–56, which is a very considerable step.
  Third, wood pulp and paper. I am assured by the trade that they are not in the least concerned about the changes. In fact, they feel reassured, knowing that it is coming over 100 per cent. to my Department, because they may stand to gain by the extra concentration that there will be in the field of procurement.
  Materials for ferrous alloys, such as ores and concentrates, come to me, but not iron and steel production, on which I shall have something to say in a moment. I told the House earlier that we had consulted the non-ferrous and light metal trades, and I want to explain here that the metals only will come to my Department, and what is known as the semi-fabricated material will remain with the Ministry of Supply. That was decided after consultation with both trades. It seems the best thing to do, and likely to cause the least inconvenience, while, at the same time, ensuring the biggest concentration on the procurement of the raw material. In that connection, I should say that the Non-Ferrous Metals Directorate at Rugby will come over in its entirety to my Ministry.
  I now turn to the textile industry, which presents an especially difficult problem. The division between raw materials and

  1401
  manufacture is awkward, but anybody who knows the slightest thing about what is going on in the international field on procurement would have to admit that, whatever the inconvenience, it would be quite impossible to tackle the range of raw materials the International Materials Conference is attempting to tackle unless the procurement of both wool and cotton were under the person responsible for the whole negotiations across the wide field of raw material supplies. I emphasise that the arrangements are so made as, I hope, to bring about the minimum of inconvenience.
  I am not quite sure whether it is made clear in the White Paper, but appointments to the Raw Cotton Commission will be by joint agreement between the President of the Board of Trade and myself, but the Raw Cotton Commission itself comes over to me, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply in the debate on 1st May. Wool and cotton, beyond the procurement stage, remain with the Board of Trade, and the Textile Fibres Committee, which has done such admirable work under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, will continue under my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade but will have on it a senior member from the Ministry of Materials so as to ensure the maximum collaboration.
  With regard to this problem, the Ministry of Materials will be responsible for the general policy of the procurement of both the raw materials, the cotton and the wool, and this includes formulating and carrying out policy in the international field. Cotton, as hon. Members know, is on public account. Appointments to the Commission will be made jointly by myself and the President of the Board of Trade. In practice the Board of Trade and the Raw Cotton Commission have not in the past required any statutory directions, and the emphasis here is to underline that the Board of Trade is continuing its responsibility in the textile field.
  With regard to wool, there is no public purchase, and the two Departments will work together to ensure the maximum efficiency.
  Mr. Osborne: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how the Minister
  1402
  will procure the wool, if he is to take responsibility for purchase?
  Mr. Stokes: At the moment there is no public purchase of wool at all. It will remain exactly as it is at present.
  Mr. Osborne: That is my point. How will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee procurement if there are no public purchases?
  Mr. Stokes: There is no question of public purchase. I shall be in touch with the authorities who at present procure wool. I know this is a thing which very much exercises the minds of the wool and cloth merchants in Bradford. It is not proposed that there should be any change at all, because the liaison which hitherto was directed to the Board of Trade will come to me. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. I was trying to explain the difference between the relationship between myself and the cotton industry and the relationship between myself and the wool industry. The fundamental difference between them is that cotton is on public account at the moment and wool is not.
  With regard to some of the metals which do not come to me, and which I can generally describe as being under the nationalised productive industries such as iron and steel and coal, while I shall be responsible for procuring the materials necessary for the manufacture of ferrous alloys, such as ores and concentrates—and, I am told, even soot for vanadium—the responsibility for the iron and steel, including matters of policy in the procurement of iron ore, scrap and other steelmaking raw materials, will remain with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, working through the Iron and Steel Corporation, though to the extent to which such matters enter into the field of international negotiation in Washington I shall be acting in close collaboration with him.
  As the White Paper points out, the Government have come to the conclusion that the only satisfactory arrangement in the case of iron and steel is that one Departmnet shall be responsible for the industry as a whole, and that any attempt to distinguish between the basic raw materials and iron and steel at different stages of fabrication would be artificial. In these circumstances, we have thought it best to make no fresh change in the responsibilities.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: Do I understand that aluminium, nickel, cobalt, and that sort of thing, will come under the right hon. Gentleman, and that the procuring of the steel will come under the Minister of Supply? In other words, they are divorcing two very natural elements in steel making, which may not be very satisfactory.
  Mr. Stokes: It is not quite as the hon. Gentleman puts it, but substantially the answer is: Yes, his definition is correct. I am not taking over the Iron and Steel Corporation. The Iron and Steel Corporation is responsible, under the Minister of Supply, for the duties I have described, and it is not at the moment thought that it would be advisable to make any change in the arrangement. As far as I can see, I shall have quite enough to do without tackling that at the same time. I do not believe that one can do that without taking over the whole industry, and to take over the whole industry would mean spending more time in this country than I deem advisable, having regard to the difficulty of procuring some of the rarer metals.
  Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The consumption of the other ingredients in steel making will, in themselves, be determined by the steel-making capacity, which will in itself be determined by the availability of iron ore, cobalt, and scrap. If materials of that sort are under one Minister and the provision of materials of another sort immediately affected by the first under another Minister, there is likely to be confusion.
  Mr. Stokes: I can see that point. I must say that I was fully alive to it when these matters were under discussion. It seems to me that the best arrangement is the one I have described. With regard to the scrap situation, in my view we shall have to spend less and less on scrap and more and more on other things as time Roes on. However, that is only a passing observation.
  Mr. Jack Jones: Will the position be that, as far as steel production is concerned, the Minister of Supply will retain overall control with the Iron and Steel Corporation of steel production generally, but the new Minister, my right hon. Friend himself, will be responsible for finding the molybdenum, cobalt, and
  1404
  so on. to make certain that the Iron and Steel Corporation has available to it all the alloys necessary for steel making? Will that be the position?
  Mr. Stokes: That is absolutely correct. I could not have described it better. There is no intention to interfere with what I might call, indigenous products such as cement, bricks and china clay because there can be no advantage in making the transfer. The same applies also to oil which comes under the Ministry of Fuel and Power. In passing, I might add that diamonds and tobacco remain with the President of the Board of Trade.
  May I try to give a short summary of the functions of the Department? It is, as was indicated in a question put to me a few minutes ago, my duty to ensure regular and sufficient supplies, whether on public or private account, both for the short-term and long-term requirements of industry as a whole. I have been frequently asked to explain precisely how I come into distribution. Fond as I am of bankers, I think that probably the best analogy I can use is the cheque analogy.
  It is my responsibility, with the knowledge of what the total requirements are, which is decided upon, of course, by Ministers in settling the general programme, to produce, so to speak, the cake. The cake is then divided by the Materials (Allocation) Committee which has been in action under one head or another since 1939—there was a word about that at Question time in the House the other day. They decide how much of the cake is to be cut up in chunks for the various Departments who are responsible for the various sections of industry, and it is the responsibility of the production Departments to designate how much of each chunk goes to each particular firm or each particular industry in their charge.
  It is my responsibility to see that the cheques drawn in favour of these Departments on me are honoured. I do not think that I can put it more simply than that. I know that it is not going to work out quite like that. for obvious reasons, but that is, broadly speaking, how it will all function. I think that it is going to be all right.
  Mr. Edelman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of clarity, if he will specify what the size of the cake is to be?
  Mr. Stokes: That is a matter for a very high policy committee which is nothing more or less, of course, than the Government. The Government decide on the total plan. It is not as if we were suddenly starting off to organise the industry of 50 million people, or about that, because the Census is not yet out. From the records existing in the Departments, it is known what industry consumes of different materials now; that is well known by the various Departmental Committees. There is no difficulty in arriving at the amount of material that is required.
  The difficulty is, when we cannot get enough, to know how we are to divide it. Surely this adage—if it is an adage—is a perfectly true one, that one cannot have enough unless one has too much. Everyone in industry knows that. We have never got enough unless we have got too much, and when dealing with materials in short supply, we have to put up with the fact that they are in short supply, that we are not going to have enough, and that there has to be a division of the cake.
  Having been told what is required, I shall do my best to acquire a cake that is rather larger than has been stated, but in the process I may fail to do so, and then it is for the Materials (Allocation) Committee to decide how much of the smaller cake is to be divided in favour of the various Departments and for the sub-division and honouring of the cheques thereafter to be done in the way I have described.
  On the short-term, day-to-day, problems when industries and particular sections of industries go short of small amounts, and so on, they will continue to look to the production Departments for their immediate help. I, of course, shall be responsible for price control to ensure that prices conform generally to the policy as a whole.
  The important part of the work of my Ministry will obviously be both the conservation of material and the development of other resources and of alternative methods. I shall naturally co-operate with the Natural Resources (Technical) Committee and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, where, I think, a tremendous amount can be done. I propose to make the maximum use of the practical knowledge there is in those two bodies. The examination of alterna
  1406
  tives is, of course, a long-term project, involving, in many cases, considerable capital outlay. That is specially so—and those who know about ores will bear me out—as regards ores particularly from overseas, which are becoming more and more difficult to get and lie deeper and deeper. That gives me as a mechanical engineer food for reflection which has nothing to do with the job that I have at present.
  Alternative methods and uses are very much bothering those of us who have to make use of such things as lead and zinc. It has always seemed to me absolutely absurd that we should waste the amount of zinc that we do on galvanising. When people realise that lead and zinc are likely to be in permanent short supply, the sooner alternative methods are found the better for everybody. According to statisticians, at the present rate of consumption there is only 14 years' proved supply of lead in the world and 21 years' proved supply of zinc, so the quicker the technicians and people who understand these chemical processes get on with the job of finding alternatives the better for everybody.
  I think that it will be my responsibility to see that there is economy in the use of all these materials while, at the same time, it will continue to be the individual responsibility of the production Departments to use their best endeavours to see that there is no waste or abuse by the consumers. It will be my responsibility to look after both home and overseas development so far as they affect materials under my Department, and to give help where necessary.
  Mr. Bevan: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but we should like to be assured that he will have enough power to carry out the duties he is undertaking. For example, will he have power of exploration in this country? Will he have power to enter upon land; will he have power of boring; will he have power of development, if that is not done by private enterprise, because, as my right hon. Friend will recollect, that has been a matter of consideration, and it is not certain that enough physical exploration by modern methods has been done in Great Britain?
  Mr. Stokes: I am obliged for the interruption. I am going to tackle that job.

  1407
  We deliberately left the question of exploration, etc., out of the Bill, because it would complicate it unnecessarily, but I am advised that if I have not the powers to do what is necessary, not very much difficulty will lie in the way of my acquiring them, and it is my intention that I should do so.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: As the right hon. Gentleman referred to overseas development, will he say what the relationship is to be with the Colonial Development Corporation?
  Mr. Stokes: I am coming to that matter in a minute.
  The House will expect me to give a summary of my recent visit to Washing. ton. My object in going there was to make personal contact with people in the American Government and with the various representatives of other nations, who are sitting on this International Materials Conference. My own view is that it is practically impossible to deal effectively with problems of this kind unless one knows what the other chap looks like, what are his reactions and vice versa. That has been a guiding principle in trade, as many hon. Members will agree from their experience.
  My main object in going there was to make these personal contacts and it was not, so to speak, with the idea of producing a rabbit out of the hat. I had a most friendly and co-operative reception all round. I found among responsible people an understanding of the urgency of keeping materials flowing to us through the pipe line and not allowing them to lag behind into the latter half of this year; and an outspoken determination to do everything possible that could be done to help us.
  I am most grateful to our friends across the Atlantic for the reception given to me. It will be within the knowledge of everyone that this International Materials Conference does exist. It was initiated as a result of the visit of the Prime Minister in December last year, and it consists of a central committee numbering 10 and seven other committees, which deal with the main materials which are in short supply. They are dealing with scarce materials, and it would be quite stupid to expect that a series of committees of that nature, after only three months
  1408
  working, would arrive at agreements and decisions in next to no time. It is the considered opinion of responsible American officials in Washington, as, indeed, it is of our representatives over there, that no very great decisions can be expected until those committees have all reported back to their own Governments, which they have got to do and have had answers back again, which means that the effective operation of the committees cannot be expected until the fourth quarter of this year.
  Our American friends are very much alive to our problem. I discussed it with Mr. Wilson and Mr. Gibson, and they are determined that arrangements shall be made to ensure that supplies go on, as indeed was made clear in Mr. Wilson's directive, where he set out the principles designed to assure supplies of scarce materials to the United Kingdom and to the Allies.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it a fact that the Minister said in a public speech that it would be optimistic to expect any direct results to accrue until the end of this year, and, if so, is that considered a satisfactory arrangement in view of the serious position?
  Mr. Stokes: I am trying to explain the workings of these committees. I said the other day—I do not know where I said it, but I have said it several times—that the work of the committees cannot come into full operation until the necessary data has been worked out and verified, and until they have had their recommendations approved by the various Governments.
  I was going on to explain that our American friends had assured me that they would do everything possible, quite regardless of how soon these committees function, to see that we get sufficient supplies very largely based on the examinations which these committees are making. Anybody who knows anything about international committees—this is my first shot at them—will know that they are not terribly speedy at operating. I am coming to the details of some of them in a minute. I should like to make it quite clear that arrangements have been made to ensure that the necessary supplies of essential materials, which come from the other side of the Atlantic, will be made secure for us.

  1409
  Here may I pay tribute to the help afforded to me by our Ambassador in Washington. As a commercial traveller, I have had some experience of ambassadors in my life-time, and I can say quite fairly that I have never come across anybody with a better idea of the overall economic problem and the needs of industry than has Sir Oliver Franks, and I am most grateful to him for all the help he gave me during my visit there.
  In his directive, Mr. Wilson describes this scheme as
  " A part of a wider give-and-take among the Free Nations."
  His Majesty's Government welcome that declaration. As for the actual results in Washington I should like to mention one or two details about the committees which may be useful to the House. Sulphur is to us at the moment probably the most important material, and that committee has made giant strides. It is almost on the point of final conclusions and is a great deal ahead of some of the other committees. A final decision has not yet been reached on the third quarter's allocation, but I see no reason whatsoever to alter my conclusion that we shall not receive enough to meet our essential requirements, which is what I said immediately on landing from Washington a month ago.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that we would not receive enough supplies?
  Mr. Stokes: No, I said we certainly shall receive enough for our essential requirements.
  Mr. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman said the opposite.
  Mr. Bevan: No, it is two negatives.
  Mr. Stokes: I am sorry if I misled the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not very fond of notes because I cannot read.
  We shall receive enough for our essential requirements. The provisional allocations of tungsten and molybdenum for the third quarter have been put before the Governments concerned for approval, and assuming they will be accepted, as I believe they will, there will be sufficient to keep us going, but we are not going to get as much as we would like. The important thing, I believe—I laid great emphasis on this as well as spending
  1410
  some time on it—is to see that we get a provisional allocation so as to ensure that there are supplies flowing to us immediately, even though they will not be of the total amount which we wanted.
  Pulp and paper come over to me under this Bill, and the committee dealing with these materials has been very successful in making emergency allocations to certain countries, some of which are desperately short of newsprint.
  Cotton is, of course, vital to us, arid I do not think I need say more about it now, because so much depends on the weather and all the rest of it. The anticipation is that the Americans will have a crop of over 16 million bales, and already they have made an allocation for export of over 2½ million bales, which is quite considerable.
  Iron ore shipments are vital to us now, more especially in view of the shortage of scrap. I was able to make representations to the right persons there with a view to doing what the Americans call "de-moth balling" some of their ships. The "de-moth balling" process is going along quite speedily, and we are getting very considerable help already from American shipping by lifting cargoes on the way home from the Mediterranean and bringing them to these shores. Arrangements are being made for the shipment here of ores from Newfoundland. The ore shipments into this country will be of a considerable amount in the next month or two.
  I shall say a word or two about what is going on in America, though it has not a direct bearing on the Bill except as affecting the amount of allocations which they make to us. It may clear up misconceptions about the generosity of our friends overseas. While we have not got all that we want, and I do not propose to let go until we have, it is clear that the Americans are making a gigantic effort. They found what other nations have found. They set out with a 150 billion dollar programme, to be fulfilled in two years. They found it impossible of fulfilment, so they are spreading it over three years, which will considerably help to relieve the pressure. They are greatly increasing their home raw materials supply, for example doubling their aluminium output and putting their steel output up by 18 million tons, which is two million tons more than we produce in this country.

  1411
  The cuts which have been made in their economy will, by the end of this year, reduce civilian consumption by somewhere about 35 per cent., in motor cars, television and radio sets, and a wide range of hard goods.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: How does that percentage compare with the 1949 cuts?
  Mr. Stokes: I do not think I can do the percentage backwards. I do not know. I will try to find out. The 35 per cent. cut will be effective before the end of this year. While I was in Washington, Ford's motor works stood off 10,000 men as a result of the curtailment of supplies for motor car equipment.
  Let me say, to clear up some of the misconceptions that seem to be trotted out in the country about the Americans aiming at increasing their overall production, that so far as I understand it they are not aiming at a greater increase than 5 per cent. per annum for the next three years. That is much the same as our objective. I do not see that there is very much to be anxious about on that score. Our own production for the first few months of this year is a little bit more than it was. It is of the order of 4 per cent.
  I come to another vitally important point, the increase in the production of raw materials within the Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government have recently proposed to other Commonwealth Governments that a meeting should be held later this year between representatives of Commonwealth Governments to consider problems connected with the production and supply of raw materials and manufactured goods. The Colonial Empire would also be represented. I hope that this announcement will be welcomed by everybody in the House. I am sure it will be very much welcomed across the Atlantic.
  I do not know whether I have covered the ground sufficiently to satisfy hon. and right hon. Members, but I want to say, in conclusion, that this is not simply a short-term problem. Although the short-term problem is vital to us, there is a much more important and much wider issue. There is no permanent cure for the Communist menace by force. There is no such way out, although we may
  1412
  deter it for the time being. The longterm cure is the steady improvement in the standard of living of the masses of the people everywhere. That surely means better use, better availability and better distribution of essential raw materials.
  I do not think I can end better than by quoting something which has always been close to my heart. It is from a letter dated 21st December, 1940, at the beginning of the war, when the whole problem of what was to happen when peace broke out was very much under the consideration of those who were not prepared to accept the war aims as an end in themselves but only as an end for the purpose of peace aims to ensure the peace of the world for the future.
  This is a quotation from a letter which was published in "The Times" on 21st December, 1940, and was signed by the leaders of all the Christian Churches in this country. The point that struck me was this:
  " The resources of the earth should be used as God's gifts to the whole human race, and used with due consideration for the needs of the present and future generations."
  Ultimately, that plan will have to be carried through to its finality if we are to procure peace for all time, by the development of our manufacturing capacity to bring up the standard of living of the people everywhere, so that peace may prevail. What we have now I sincerely trust and hope is a contribution to that end.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: We have listened to a very pleasant speech, and we have had the great advantage, which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do not possess. of being able to watch the faces behind the right hon. Gentleman as be talked about queen bees taking the cheques. The real thing that emerges, and which I hope to illustrate in detail in the course of my remarks, is that practically nothing suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that he was going to do or that was desirable to be done could not be done quite well without the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about going overseas. I hope to show that although he said he learned in Washington about the desirability of being able to control the raw materials situation, that idea is not carried out by the terms of the Bill. I should have thought that when

  1413
  the right hon. Gentleman was moving the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind he would have been at some pains to give us a clear statement of the existing machinery for the procurement and allocation of raw materials, and to tell us the basic assumptions underlying the existing machinery, and why, in his opinion, or in the opinion of the Government, the existing machinery had failed. Clearly, it is a confession of failure of the existing machinery that the Government should have to bring this entirely new Ministry into existence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should have thought they would have explored at some length the alternatives to this scheme.
  The provision of raw materials in adequate supply, both public and private, is of supreme importance to our survival —I put it as high as that—over the next few years. From that point of view it transcends party, and ought to be considered by the House as a Council of State. I hope I shall be able to present the matter from that point of view, although I may not altogether be able to refrain from the temptation of dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" of the various suggestions and plans which it has been my lot to put forward from this Box in recent months.
  On this side of the House we welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the conference which is to be called to see what can be done about increasing the supplies and the production of raw materials in the Commonwealth. We welcome particularly what he said he had found at Washington, namely, a realist approach to our problems. That means there is a realisation of a necessity to keep supplies running and an outspoken determination to do everything possible to help us. I am sure that we welcome that, and I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it clear, because it disposes to a great extent of the allegations which were made by the recent Minister of Health in the speeches following his recent resignation.
  Mr. Bevan: The words are there, but what of the facts?
  Mr. Hudson: We will leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to "scrap" later. Anyway, it is clear that the Lord Privy Seal holds very different views about the help that we are getting and
  1414
  are likely to get from United States from those of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and his friends, judging by what they said a very short time ago.
  I began by saying—I hope I shall not be accused of undue party prejudice in this—that the fact that the new Ministry is being brought into being is a confession of failure in the past. Everybody knows that three years ago the raw materials side of the Ministry of Supply was inadequately organised and that an undue burden was placed on that organisation by the necessity for setting up and putting through the scheme for the nationalisation of steel. That was one of the fundamental reasons for the now admitted failure to provide this country with adequate supplies of raw materials immediately before and after the outbreak of war in Korea last year.
  If we assume that failure, as I think the Government do. the question arises: What is the best alternative method to adopt and the best alternative machine to set up? Frankly, we doubt whether this is the only or, indeed, the best alternative. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that, although he stated that it was not a temporary Measure but a permanent Measure, looking some time ahead, he had in mind a permanent Measure for peace-time and that he would be the first to admit that in the deplorable event of the cold war turning into a hot war this machine would not fill the bill and a different machine would have to be set up. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would dissent from that, and I will not think that anybody else would either.
  If we confine ourselves to what is desirable in peace-time, one of the obvious alternatives would have been to take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's appointment as Lord Privy Seal, a Minister without Portfolio and without Departmentary responsibility, and to place him in the position of what the Americans would call "a trouble shooter," a man responsible not for the execution of decisions but for seeing that the right decision is taken among the various competing claims of different Departments.
  In other words, it would have been possible to leave the legal powers of procurement. distribution and allocation as they

  1415
  stood but to put the right hon. Gentleman in an over-riding position to see that the decisions were arrived at on the right lines. If any difficulty arose, he would have been available to go to the United States, as he did recently, or elsewhere. accompanied—all of us who have had experience of this will appreciate the need—by all the necessary experts from the various Departments, and could have carried out all the functions which he illustrated to the House as being his present intentions. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not suggest to the House that if he goes abroad today he would be able to carry with him all the details relating to all the raw materials about which he will negotiate; he will take his experts with him. He could just as easily have done that without being an actual Minister of Raw Materials.
  Another possible alternative in which he could undoubtedly have used his great powers would have been as a deputy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer as Chairman of the Inter-departmental Committee on Raw Materials, whose scope could quite easily have been enlarged. I believe it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in answer to a question of mine—
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): It was the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Hudson: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It was the Prime Minister who gave us a list of the raw materials with which the Chancellor's Committee is dealing at the present time under the chairmanship of the Economic Secretary. It seems to us to be a comparatively short list. It consisted, so the Prime Minister said, of sheet steel, tinplate, softwood, sulphur and sulphuric acid. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there are masses of other raw materials in short supply which have to be allocated between various Government Departments, and we believe that that was a possible alternative.
  The third alternative would have been to appoint the right hon. Gentleman as the chairman of a committee responsible for all industrial production, except matters of labour, where he would again have been in a position to see and deal with bottlenecks as they occurred. All of us who had any experience during the war, and who know what is happening
  1416
  today, are aware that bottlenecks continually occur which could, with advantage, be settled by someone without any Departmental responsibility.
  Any one of these alternatives would have provided the sort of job for which the Lord Privy Seal, a Minister of State, or a Minister without Portfolio exist. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman could have performed all the duties which he mentioned in his speech if he had been merely Lord Privy Seal in any one of those jobs, but the decision which has been taken makes him a purely Departmental Minister. I should say, without disrespect, that it reduces him to the level of a Departmental Minister compared with his position in the Cabinet and the Government, historically at all events, as Lord Privy Seal.
  As far as raw materials are concerned, it makes him nearly a "Strauss junior," and his Department will cut off the supply of raw materials from the Department which uses them and is responsible for ordering the goods which are made out of the raw materials. We believe that this will inevitably—certainly the right hon. Gentleman gave no reason in his speech for our not thinking so—increase friction and delay and the number of Ministers with whom the unfortunate manufacturer has to deal.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the advantages of the present layout was that all raw material questions would be dealt with in one place instead of several places and that the manufacturer who wants to use one of these raw materials will, presumably, have to go to only one Minister instead of several Ministers; but that is not the case under the Bill and according to the White Paper. I will give an instance of this. My right hon. and hon. Friends will give others during the debate, for there are plenty of instances.
  Let us take the case of phenol, an essential component of synthetic resin, which is used in many essential re-arrnament manufactures, including brake linings and grinding wheels, and in the aircraft industry. Phenol comes from two sources. Natural phenol is a coal tar by-product which is controlled at the source by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Synthetic phenol is a product of benzol and sulphuric acid. We are in any case seriously short of this

  1417
  product. We are trying to get from abroad as much as we can and I gather that import licences are being granted freely, but, even so, we shall be hard put to it to get sufficient supplies from abroad for our own home domestic need, including our exports.
  Four Ministries are now to be involved in this one essential commodity: the Ministry of Fuel and Power, in respect of natural phenol; the Board of Trade, in respect of resin allocation; the Ministry of Supply, as the sponsoring Department for most users of resin—for example, in the engineering industries; and now, the Ministry of Materials, through sulphuric acid, which is an essential element in its manufacture. It simply is not the case —I am sorry to have to express it so bluntly to the right hon. Gentleman—that as the result of the setting up of this new Department, manufacturers will find raw materials dealt with in one place instead of several.
  The Minister's personal position also is far from clear. The Chancellor's Committee, as I understand it, is presided over by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, a junior Minister. A new representative, representing the Minister of Materials, is to be added to this Committee. To that extent, the Lord Privy Seal is to he subordinate to decisions taken—
  Mr. Gaitskell: No.
  Mr. Hudson: I am glad to have that denial. Let us see where we get to now.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I do not want the House be confused about this. The Raw Materials Committee, over which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary at present presides. was originally set up in 1939. I am not quite certain, but I fancy that its first chairman was the then Colonel Llewellin. who was at that time Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. It has frequently had a junior Minister as chairman, but nevertheless its decisions have, I think, been generally accepted by other Ministries throughout. There is no change so far as that is concerned.
  Mr. Hudson: It was never under the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the shape of deciding the economic policy of the Government, as it is today. In any case, what is to be the position supposing the
  1418
  Lord Privy Seal does not agree with the decisions of the Economic Secretary? In my experience—I do not believe human nature has altered much in the last six years—it was very often the case that Ministers disagreed with what was decided by committees on which their Ministries were represented.
  The Lord Privy Seal is now to be in a rather favoured position, because the Minister of Supply is an ordinary Departmental Minister outside the Cabinet. The Lord Privy Seal is not only a Departmental Minister, as Minister of Materials, but is also in the Cabinet as Lord Privy Seal. It seems to me that this again. human nature being what it is, will cause a great deal of friction. The position really ought to have been the other way round, and the Lord Privy Seal ought to be protecting the decisions that the Economic Secretary makes.
  Speaking of when he went abroad, the right hon. Gentleman said that the overseas representative of this country in these international negotiations—I presume he was referring to himself—should have under him the whole range of raw materials and should have authority to speak in respect of all those raw materials.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Procurement.
  Mr. Hudson: I agree. If the alternative I have suggested had been adopted—namely, that he was chairman of one of these committees; a sort of "trouble shooter," or the general representative of all Government Departments—that is precisely what he would have done. But under the layout of the Bill and the White Paper—we are dependent on the White Paper for our information on the intentions of the Government—that is not what he will be. He will be abroad in respect of some raw materials, both as the procurer and allocator. In respect of other raw materials—I need not go through the list—he will be the procurer but not the allocator. And in respect of a third range of raw materials, he will have no responsibility at all. Therefore, far from speaking with authority covering everything—[Interruption.] We can only go by the White Paper, which shows that he will not speak with that same authority in respect of all the raw materials.
  Mr. Stokes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hudson: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. If he reads his speech tomorrow in HANSARD, he will find that he committed himself to that statement and that my statement as an analysis of the White Paper is correct.
  Now, I proceed to the White Paper itself. I am bound to say that it is filled with anomalies. It starts by saying that it is desirable—and we all agree—that in general the raw materials should be controlled right up the line by the Minister who is responsible for their allocation. The White Paper then talks about the special case of iron and steel and says:
  " As far as iron and steel are concerned. the Government have come to the conclusion that the only satisfactory arrangement is that one Department shall be responsible for the industry as a whole, and that any attempt to distinguish between the basic raw materials and iron and steel at different stages of fabrication would be artificial and cause serious inconvenience."
  But two of the basic raw materials in the manufacture of steel, certainly of a great deal of the high speed steel and the special steels that are required for rearmament—are molybdenum and tungsten, and for those two items the person responsible is to be the Minister of Materials and not the Minister of Supply.
  Why is the right hon. Gentleman to take over molybdenum? I have been puzzled to find a reason. It cannot be that, as he suggested, there are a multiplicity of countries of origin and countries of supply, because the sole provider of molybdenum for this country is the United States.
  Mr. Bevan: That is the reason why my right hon. Friend is in charge.
  Mr. Hudson: If the Government say that the right hon. Gentleman must have molybdenum because he is the right chap to send to New York, what happens to the Minister of Supply? Why should not the Minister of Supply go to New York? The only conclusion we can draw is that the Government think—I apologise to the Minister of Supply—that the Lord Privy Seal is a very much better negotiator than the Minister of Supply. Even if that be true, I still think that the division is wholly illogical.
  The same thing. of course, applies to ferro-alloys. If the Minister of Supply is to be responsible for all the ferroalloys and the light fabricated industry.
  1420
  why should he not be also responsible for the raw materials for those alloys and that industry? There is no logical reason for cutting off raw materials and treating them as being in a separate compartment, leaving the Minister of Supply without any responsibility for getting the raw materials and yet responsible to the Government and to the country for seeing that the essential armament orders are placed and that the essential supplies on which our life depends are delivered.
  The Government are cutting off the procurement, cutting the whole system into two; making one man responsible for the procurement of raw materials and the other man responsible, without any power, for seeing that the manufactured Goods are delivered. Qute clearly, in our view, other things than human nature and the two personalities being equal, the existing system, with an overall "trouble shooter." would have been greatly preferable.
  The same thing applies to raw cotton and wool. The Raw Cotton Commission are the people who have been specifically set up to provide raw cotton, and with the solitary exception of the United States—I admit that it is a very important exception—the Raw Cotton Commission are going round the world buying up supplies of cotton. And I think it was the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) who, in a debate before he left the Board of Trade, went out of his way to say how successful the Raw Cotton Commission had been in finding alternative sources of supply when the allocation from the United States was cut so drastically.
  So, therefore, over the whole range of the world the intervention of the Lord Privy Seal is entirely unnecessary and the only thing left is negotiations with the United States Government. Quite clearly any negotiations with the United States Government—I say this from a personal point of view—could just as well be conducted by the President of the Board of Trade, who gets on extremely well with the people in the United States, as by the Lord Privy Seal. There is no inherent reason for adding a fifth wheel to the coach. It would be just as simple and much better to leave the procurement of raw cotton and its distribution and use entirely, as at present, in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade. And

  1421
  the same thing mutatis mutandis applies to wool.
  I invite the attention of the House to one point about paragraph 11. It is stated:
  " The Board of Trade as the appropriate production department will retain their responsibilities for all matters affecting… the production of rayon.…"
  There is no qualification at all. The Board of Trade will remain responsible for all matters concerning the production of rayon
  " and other synthetic fibres since this is a manufacturing process."
  Actually that is not true, because one of the essential details, one of the steps in the manufacture of rayon, is the use of sulphuric acid; and the Lord Privy Seal has already told us that he is to take over responsibility for sulphuric acid.
  Mr. John Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman is blinding the House with science, and confusing chemical production with production. He got away with it a few moments ago, but he cannot go on putting the same thing over and over again.
  Mr. Hudson: It depends on whether one has any regard for the meaning of the English language. It states they will remain responsible for all matters—
  Mr. Lewis: Concerning production.
  Mr. Hudson: Concerning the production of rayon; and as one of the essential elements in the production is, as everybody knows, sulphuric acid—
  Mr. Lewis: It is a raw material.
  Mr. Hudson: I am not denying what the hon. Member says. I am only saying what is in the White Paper.
  Mr. Lewis: It is a question of interpretation.
  Mr. Hudson: It is not. It is a question of the use of words.
  Now I turn to paragraph 17 and I invite the hon. Member to read that. If he can make any sense out of it he is more clever than I am, and a good many of my hon. Friends on this side—[Interruption] If hon. Members are not careful I will read the paragraph out to the House, and then they will realise. The fact of the matter is that the setting up of this Department has caused complete
  1422
  confusion over a wide range of allocations of these raw materials. If hon. Members doubt it, let me read this sentence:
  " The general principle will, however, be that the broad allocations of materials among the various classes of users will be decided through the inter-Departmental arrangements which have existed for the purpose since 1939 and for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible "—
  that, I suppose, is the Economic Secretary's Committee—
  " as part of his function of co-ordinating economic policy, since the broad allocation of scarce materials is a decisive factor in determining the shape of the economy. Where it is necessary to make detailed allocations to individual firms within these broad allocations they will be determined by, or on the advice of, the Departments concerned with the particular uses "—
  and so on. That presumably is the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply. What it really says is:
  " Where it is necessary to make detailed allocations to individual firms within these broad allocations they will be determined by"
  the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade. It goes on:
  "In respect of the materials for which the Ministry of Materials is responsible, it will he for the Ministry to initiate schemes for effective allocation.…"
  In one sentence it says that the allocation of raw materials to individual firms is to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade, and in the following sentence it says that the new Ministry of Materials is to be responsible for these allocations. It may be just damned bad drafting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—but it certainly does not correspond with what the right hon. Gentleman told the House just now.
  This White Paper talks about substitutes and says that the Minister is to be responsible for providing and discovering substitutes. Well, why? Surely all the experience both in this country during the war, and in the United States during the war and since, is that it is the manufacturers mainly concerned who do the research and everything else. They are the people who have the greatest possible incentive to invent substitutes and, when they have been invented, to use them and develop their use. Indeed, if there is any doubt about that, I would quote from the statement in the Bulletin

  1423
  of the Economic Section of the Treasury as late as February, 1951:
  " It is very difficult for the outsider to say how far, if at all, substitutes can be found in any particular process for the material which is short, and the firm which can find substitutes will be less hard hit."
  Therefore, there seems no logical reason why this Ministry of Materials should make itself responsible for substitutes, instead of leaving the job mainly to the industries.
  Mr. Stokes: May I make myself clear? The right hon. Gentleman apparently did not understand what I meant to say. I did not mean to say that everybody would down tools and stop looking for substitutes. I meant that it would be my particular responsibility to stimulate people to greater efforts in their search for substitutes—to encourage them.
  Mr. Hudson: I am very glad indeed of the correction, but does it need a new Minister of Materials to do that? The proper people would be the existing President of the Board of Trade and the existing Minister of Supply—if the right hon. Gentleman had any confidence in his colleagues. There might occasionally be some bottle-neck about which he might stir things up, but it is not necessary to have a Minister of Materials in order to achieve what the right hon. Gentleman has said he proposes to achieve.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the total additional staff will not be more than 100. I dare say that is true so far as his Department is concerned, because he is going to take over all the people at present engaged in doing that work. But it is not possible to leave Departments like the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Supply without all the people who have been engaged in procurement and allocation, and leave a complete blank. A great number of those people have also been engaged in the placing of orders and in the wet nursing of a particular industry; and whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, the net effect of this is bound to be some increase in the staffs of the two Departments to fill the gaps which the taking away of these other persons will inevitably leave, even if they are taken away only to do the work of procurement they have hitherto been doing.
  1424
  The right hon. Gentleman prayed in aid his conversations with the manufacturing associations and the F.B.I. I have not had the advantage of knowing about those conversations, but I should be prepared to guess that when they took place with the F.B.I. and trade associations, the question was not put to them "What would be the ideal arrangement?" I should guess that none of the alternatives I have mentioned was put to them. The question put to them was "Assuming the set-up—the new Ministry of Materials—how can we operate it with the least friction?" I have no doubt that, with a view to reducing friction as much as possible, the industries made suggestions and agreed to certain alterations. That is a very different matter. I believe that if the associations were asked—I have no correspondence with them and I am speaking entirely from my general knowledge—whether this was the ideal arrangement, there would not be anything like the unanimity which the right hon. Gentleman led us to believe was the case.
  If I might sum up, I would say that in our view this new Department does not simplify our peace structure and it certainly is not setting up a machine which will be adequate in case of war. We believe that, in spite of the gifts of the right hon. Gentleman, it will create further problems of tension between the Departments, more inter-Departmental committees or at least larger inter-Departmental committees—I do not think that the Economic Secretary would dissent from that. It will make the whole machinery of economic government more cumbersome than it is today.
  We believe that the ideal solution would be to give much more power and work of allocation to industry. We believe it ought to be possible to delegate much more power. We believe that the present advisory committees in industry are little more than a sop to industrialists' pride. There is no reason why an industry should not set up machinery for the allocation within that industry of supplies of such raw materials as are available. It has been done successfully in the case of steel. We believe that the advisory committees should be strengthened and, if necessary, given executive responsibility. We believe that if those steps were taken, together with

  1425
  the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman as an overall "trouble-shooter," we should get a great increase in flexibility and in the provision and distribution of the raw materials on which our economic future depends.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The people of our country have a great task, they are making great efforts now and it behoves us to do all we possibly can to support and encourage those efforts. It is those who are engaged in industry who are, in the main, saving our country and it behoves those of us who are not directly engaged in industry to do all we possibly can to provide machinery that will facilitate the best results. Therefore, while I share the uneasiness which exists in industry about this Bill, I hope it will be made a success.
  I wish first to make a brief analysis of the White Paper and then to ask some questions to which I hope I shall receive answers from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I understand is to reply to the debate. I ask the Minister to turn to paragraph 2. So as to save time, I shall not quote it. All I wish to say is that in my view it is a step forward, and there is certainly a great field for action. Turning to paragraph 11, I wish to ask whether this arrangement is considered to be satisfactory? Will it avoid overlapping and duplication.
  In paragraph 16, we find that
  " The Board of Trade will remain responsible for china clay, diamonds, and tobacco."
  I believe in there being one voice and one responsibility in Departments, but at the same time I admit that I am uneasy because one of our best exports in this country, speaking relatively, is china clay and the products made from it. Had my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) been present, he would have agreed with me, because I know that the chairman of the board of the china clay concern and the people in that district expressed to him great concern about the lack of shipping at their disposal for some time in connection with the export of their china clay to the United States and elsewhere. Therefore, knowing the personality of my right hon. Friend, I can see that this position could result in a great battle for
  1426
  shipping. I hope that the exports that are bringing about the best results will receive priority in shipping.
  Turning to paragraph 17, I wish to ask whether experience has proved that these proposals will be satisfactory. In view of the provisos contained in the paragraph, was a new Ministry really necessary? Then there is later in paragraph 17 a passage which I must quote because of its importance. It is:
  " Where it is necessary to make detailed allocations to individual firms within these broad allocations they will be determined by. or on the advice…"
  I can break off there and go on to the words that I am very concerned about that
  "these detailed allocations should be determined."
  I wish to ask a question to which I expect a reply tonight, because those who have great responsibility in industry should not be put in the uncertain position in which this puts them. How will that be operated? Will it always be operated in the national interest and will it be operated by allocating where it will bring about the best results.
  Those of us with some knowledge of industry and who have been engaged in industry know that many concerns have to plan two, three and four years ahead. Turbines, generators and big plant of that kind cannot be manufactured without planning well ahead and without the knowledge that the required materials will be available as each operation is carried through. That is one of the most important factors in maintaining labour morale, especially in big-scale industry—to keep the men going. Nothing is worse than working as hard as one possibly can and then suddenly finding oneself without the required material at one's disposal. In addition to that aspect, it seriously affects the cost of production. We must have a guarantee tonight about the position of any concern which has to plan two, three or more years ahead. They deserve confidence because of the responsibilities they accept.
  In addition, there is the important question of delivery dates, which is now one of the most important factors in the carrying out of a contract. When the world battle for trade begins again, as it will, the question of delivery dates will become more important still. I was very

  1427
  pleased to hear my right hon. Friend repeat time after time that this is a long-term problem. I thoroughly agree with him. Therefore, I know he will agree with me that this question of delivery dates must be taken into consideration in building up the machinery for which he is now responsible.
  Will this new machinery result in increased efficiency? That should be the test in these times. Everyone engaged in industry is now measured, from management to the most humble person serving in industry. Unlike many other people, their output and service is measured. Therefore, the test of legislation passed in this House should be, will it lead to increased efficiency? Will it lead to resolute decision and resolute action in the national interest in allocation?
  Is there already a list of priorities? If so, will the allocation be made in accordance with the national interest? Will a Departmental allocation be satisfactory? We all know that friction exists and we are not blaming anyone because, wherever men are assembled, if they are worthy of the name of men, friction is bound to arise from time to time. What we have to do is to reconcile the differences. Will this new Ministry tend to eliminate the friction and reduce it to the minimum? Will it lead to simplification of administration in industry? A great deal will depend on the answers to those questions.
  I know that the Minister will smile at this, but I hope that, unlike a right hon. Member many of us remember, he will not allow himself to be put into the position of the chief co-ordinator of the co-ordinators. Is it right that our stocks of zinc, copper, lead and tin are now dangerously low? Seeing that we have planners advising leading Members of the Government, what about their responsibility in regard to that? Are our aluminium supplies safeguarded for some time? The Minister repeated today that it would be optimistic to expect any big decisions from the International Metals Conference this year.
  Mr. Stokes: I must correct that. What I said was that with this wide range of committees, covering a considerable number of substances—and nations as well, all of whose agreement is required before there is any finality—it would be wrong
  1428
  to expect decisions right through the range within a year; but I went on to say that two or three committees have made very rapid progress and are on the verge of ultimate decisions now.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I am pleased to hear that and I thank my right hon. Friend for that further elaboration and elucidation. There is not very much between us; it is only a matter of degree. It is constantly pointed out by leading world representatives that economically and in the military field there is great urgency about the position. If there is great urgency one would expect more urgency on these committees and in their decisions. How long have we been pressing for decisions. Have we been pressing for three years, is it two years, or is it one year? We are entitled to know today what is our record in pressing for decisions on the international allocation of essential raw materials.
  Is it correct that an International Rubber Conference was held about five months ago, that it adjourned and met again three months later, again failed to agree, and once more adjourned? Is it correct that six commodity committees which met in Washington failed to make much progress and that there was complete deadlock on allocation on need and merit? If so, can we be told who was responsible for this disagreement?
  I ask the Minister whether he has read the Report of the United Nations Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilisation of Resources, which, in my view, is one of the best documents of its kind ever published? It would be interesting to know how many Members of the Government have read that Report and what action has been taken about it. I was provoked to ask that question because of what I see going on. The Report states:
  " History has been marked by an appalling misuse of resources "
  and the time has arrived when the world can no longer afford that. We have a right to expect the Government of our country, no matter of what colour, to be taking action in the international field in this matter. The Report points out the urgent need for substitutes. I have never forgotten the great lesson I learned in the Army of Occupation in Germany during 1919 and 1920. Critical as we may be of Germans, owing to their serious economic

  1429
  position they did get down to the job immediately, and substitutes of all kinds were brought out within a short time.
  I do not think the same drive has been put into the provision of substitutes in this country. A few weeks ago I was in the company of a very great friend of Britain from Australia, who expressed great disappointment to me because he had come over here with orders for thousands of pounds in his bag and was not able to fix one order but had to go to Western Germany to give the order for commodities wanted in Australia.
  Having had the pre-war experience of asking question after question about certain concerns in this country, and, as a result of much reading and research since then, knowing who was responsible for holding back our country in the manufacture of essential commodities in those days, we are entitled to ask whether certain concerns in this country are still preventing industry and research from being applied to the provision of substitutes. With many minerals I know there is no prospect of immediately critical shortages, but there is a prospect of very serious long-range shortages of many minerals. I am not asking the House to accept my word for that; all that hon. Members need to do is go to the Library and ask the Librarian for the very fine document produced by the United Nations agency which has already made a world survey on this problem.
  I ask the Minister whether he has considered that his duty will be to have a scientific survey of our country. Everyone knows that as a result of scientific methods of surveying we can now detect metals and minerals where they could not be detected in the past. By modern methods of aircraft detection and surveying this can be done, and I want to know whether it is being done over counties such as Derbyshire, Cornwall and North Wales and in other places where it is advisable.
  I again refer to paragraph 2 of the White Paper. I consider that this country is going to be in a very serious economic situation for a very long time, and, relatively speaking, outside the Commonwealth few people care. It reminds me of the time when millions of our fellow countrymen were unemployed, and the same lack of feeling applies among outsiders when parents lose a son. I believe
  1430
  in the international allocation of raw materials. I believe that this should be organised through the United Nations agency, but I am sorry to say that that seems a long way off. Therefore, to use the language used by ordinary people in the areas we represent, we must "fend for ourselves."
  Our people will welcome the announcement made today by the Minister that it is proposed to hold a Commonwealth conference to consider this question of materials. I know that the Minister is courageous— and I admire him for that— and that he has vision and drive. These qualities have been proved by his record. I want to ask the Minister if he will apply paragraph 2 in agreement with the Commonwealth. Will a survey be made throughout the Commonwealth? Other people have not acted fairly towards this country. There does not appear to be much sign of a change. Therefore, we should organise and work as closely as we can with our real friends and with those who are prepared to co-operate with us.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman be a little more specific when he says people have not acted fairly? That is a general accusation. What does he mean?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I did not want to be more specific, but I am prepared to be. I have no hesitation in naming the United States.
  Mr. Osborne: Is the hon. Member saying that the United States have not acted fairly? Is not the hon. Member aware that the Minister said in his speech this afternoon that the United States had guaranteed us adequate supplies to keep British industry going, irrespective of the decisions of the committees which are being set up, and that, in order to do so, the Americans themselves had suffered a 35 per cent. cut in their own demands? Does the hon. Member say that is not treating us fairly?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I know what the Minister said; I have been here throughout the debate, and I listened to him with very close attention. I repeat that, in the main, considering we have been involved in two world wars and, considering the sacrifices made by the people of this country and the Commonwealth, other people have not acted fairly to us.
  Mr. Osborne: Do you think Russia has acted fairly?
  Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I am sure the hon. Member wishes to be fair. Is he aware that in the American chemical industry today there are a very large number of chemical factories that are completely shut down, because they cannot get the raw materials to keep their plants in operation?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I did not want to embark upon this—
  Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Gentleman started it.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: — but I have keen provoked into it.
  Mr. Nabarro: It was an irresponsible statement.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: If necessary, I will go further. Our real friends are the people of Australia, New Zealand, India and the Commonwealth. The people of this country are anxious to work in as close co-operation as possible with our friends in the Commonwealth in order to achieve the best results for all of us. If we take food and raw materials from Australia and New Zealand, our people will work as they have never worked before in order to ensure that the people of the Commonwealth receive what they require in return. If we take rich minerals from Rhodesia and other parts of Africa, our people will respond in a similar way to provide them with what they require from us. The same applies to minerals from rich India the great India—of the future, which now has an opportunity to develop itself without being held back as it has been for far too long.
  Mr. Beresford Craddock: Nonsense.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I welcome the announcement made by the Minister that it is proposed to call a Commonwealth conference. I hope it will be a great success. I am confident that the people of this country will respond to any proposals which arise out of that conference. I hope that the Minister will make a huge success of it. I want to ask the Minister what has prevented action being taken hitherto. The situation being so serious who has prevented that action? What Ministry or Ministries have pressed for
  1432
  action to be taken? Have there been any difficulties in producing this Bill? Has the powerful steering committee of the Permanent Secretaries considered this matter? If so, when and how often, and what have they reported?
  In the years 1937 and 1938 I served for several months on the special T.U.C. and Labour Party Committee which was considering the worsening international situation. In May, 1939, the case for a Ministry of Supply was published. I have here one extract from the Report of the Committee. This is what I thought we meant to apply when we had the power to do it:
  " Until there is such a Ministry of Supply there will be no planning; without planning, waste, muddle and delay are inevitable. The necessity for planning is a dominant principle in Socialist development, and it is becoming increasingly clear that democracy can only make itself secure by the adoption of these Socialist measures of planning which experience in peace and war has shown to be absolutely necessary… in the supply of Defence requirements."
  I thought we really meant that. When Britain's economic position became worse, I thought we would have set up a Ministry of Planning, Production and Resources.
  Mr. Osborne: Another one?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The biggest indictment against this Bill is that it is so narrow in its approach to the problem. The Ministry ought to have been called the Ministry of Planning, Production and Resources. The world situation calls for Britain to be organised on those lines. I am supported in that plea by right hon. Members opposite.
  For the second time in my lifetime we have been deceived. We were told in the First World War that, if only we responded, this, that and the other would be done. In the Second World War, when the support of our people was wanted, the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), the present Foreign Secretary, the present Lord Chancellor and the present Leader of the Opposition made speech after speech— and they can be quoted if anyone doubts it— advocating that planning should form the basis of Britain's post-war recovery. The ordinary people of this country thought that would be applied.
  I believe that if Mr. Ernest Bevin had still been a Member of the Cabinet this Bill would never have seen the light of

  1433
  day in its present form. Those of us who remember Sir Stafford Cripps's work before the war will recall the analyses he could make of Bills. He would have torn this Bill to shreds. Mr. Oliver Stanley— being big enough, as he proved to be time after time—would have blushed all over his face, and would have met Sir Stafford behind the Speaker's Chair. After consultation the Bill would have been modified in accordance with the debate. That is democracy at work. The Government are the final authority. But, if we pool our ideas, especially on a Bill of this kind, then the Government should be prepared to modify the Bill in accordance with the needs of the country by implementing the points raised in the debate.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: I listened to the Minister today with the greatest possible care. It was a rather unusual voice that he used. He has spoken in this House with three voices. Today he used the voice of a rather cautious and hesitant Minister, not very sure of his ground and having what I think are quite legitimate doubts. What a contrast that was, to what we have been used to— Dick the rebel, sitting below the Gangway, with his cry of "You can't do that there here" to the occupants of the Treasury Bench. The third voice was that of a highly successful head of a very large and important engineering firm, talking with knowledge and point and getting into trouble, but often "Ransoming" himself with the "Rapier" of his own wit.
  But now, as the combination of that experience has put him into his office, we on this side of the House can assure him that we wish to give him every possible opportunity to harness for the general good the great gifts which he has and the willingness which he has always displayed very fearlessly to bring them forward.
  If he is looking for a motto at his Ministry, I would refer him to a well-known work of reference which I, as a member of the Kitchen Committee, am entitled to mention— Mrs. Beaton, who said, "First catch your hare." When we are going into the question of raw materials proceurement and allocation, the first thing to remember is that one must increase as far as one possibly can the total amount of material, that one must first catch one's hare before one
  1434
  starts to dismember it in the most complicated way which the right hon. Gentleman has tried to explain.
  The thing that struck me most about the whole speech, and about most of the speeches that followed it, is that throughout, this new Ministry and the Bill creating it have been discussed in an atmosphere of shortage, and of practically permanent shortage. That is a very great danger, because the system that is created and was foreshadowed by the White Paper is entirely a one-way system, and in that lies the greatest possible snare.
  Mr. Stokes: Surely I did make it perfectly clear that nobody could ever have enough unless there was too much, and, while I was not so foolish as to suppose that I could produce too much of what is in short supply, that would obviously be my main endeavour?
  Mr. Fletcher: That may be so, but as the instrument which is going to control policy regarding raw materials covers a great many raw materials and substitutes which can replace raw materials which are often in very short supply at one moment and surplus the next, these things have to be considered in relation to their allocations and the price levels at which they are bought by the Ministry. It is extremely important.
  I have spent the whole of my life dealing in various ways with commodities, which invariably show the same pattern repeating itself. We begin with a shortage, which becomes very acute, and then there is this a little period of hesitation. I see that the Minister of Supply is in his place; he also in the past has had considerable experience of this. There is a moment of hesitation, and then we pass over the watershed and come down the other slope to a condition of surplus, so that the manufacturer, the Government or whatever agent is the buyer on Monday is not there on Tuesday, and on Wednesday might well be the seller.
  It is extremely important that the whole problem of raw materials should be considered, not only in the light of shortages, but also bearing in mind that only one-third of the raw materials for which the right hon. Gentleman will be responsible will be in connection with the re-armament programme, and the other two-thirds will be in connection with the export trade

  1435
  and home needs. If the right hon. Gentleman, in carrying out his policy, which I think is unnecessarily complicated by the terms of this Bill, takes a false step, the effect will not be swallowed up so much in the cost of re-armament, where it can be fairly easily concealed, but will be much more directly felt in that two-thirds which has to do with the export trade and home needs. It may well affect the export market at a time when the period of shortage is finishing and surpluses are becoming apparent, and it will keep the cost of living unnecessarily high if the buying, on the whole, is not as good as it might have been.
  Let me try to assist the right hon. Gentleman in the lesson which I learnt very early in regard to systems of buying raw materials by private enterprise. Government buying is so often a case of simply passing on their purchases to manufacturers at cost plus. The ideal method of buying was to have three separate departments, none of which knew what the others were doing. The object was to buy the amount of raw materials needed in the factories at slightly below the average prices in the world, and, of course, nobody could expect to do very much better than that.
  The three departments were contrived in this way. One department bought daily at the average daily price and pretty well struck the true average. Another department bought on a fairly short-term basis, calculating what the commodity market was likely to do over the next two or three months. If it was intelligently carried out, the price might prove to be a little better than the average. Another department bought perhaps twice a year on a long-term basis. That system, inaugurated by a really famous firm, has invariably been successful.
  The right hon. Gentleman may intend to follow exactly that counsel of perfection, but I think he has been very heavily handicapped in various ways. There was not one reference in what he said, or in what was said subsequently, to the reopening of the commodity exchanges, such as the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. In the moment of shortage, appeals for the re-opening of these exchanges fall upon deaf ears; at any rate, in the case of the present Government. The moment when we get into the zone of the beginning
  1436
  of a surplus—and the Government have found themselves faced with this before now— there are very large stocks of materials which they would like to get rid of. At such a time, the need for an open exchange, which reflects world prices, makes itself felt, and these are the conditions which give rise to the plea which we have always put forward for the re-opening of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange and similar exchanges.
  I would point out again, as I did two years ago in the debate on shortages, when people were not listening, the great need for the opening of these exchanges and the establishment of a world price which is the true world price, and not one which is rather artificial. The Minister will be responsible when he holds stocks, which he will be able to pass on to manufacturers at higher prices than those at which they could buy in the remaining open markets of the world, if there were no scheme of control.
  Personally, I believe that the greatest defect of this Ministry— as the right hon. Gentleman will find out— will be twofold. He and his colleagues— and this is very charitable and generous on my part—may get on sufficiently well, because they all sink or swim together as a Government, to be able to settle their differences in something like reasonably good order, but when it comes down a little lower in the Government hierarchy, when we come down from the Minister to the official, the creation of this new Ministry will be like the mass migration of 1,000 pigeons or bees flying across Whitehall to a new home; this will certainly create exactly those conditions of friction and exactly those circumstances which will handicap him when he, having flown away, as either dove or bee, has to cross the Atlantic and begin the negotiations, because, quite surely, that is what is likely to happen.
  On the international level, he is putting in a demand for the needs of this country that will be challenged. There has never been a better instance than the rice allocations after the war in the Far East, when the Siamese and Burmese stocks were being allocated. Every single country concerned put in for anything from 50 to 100 per cent. more than it needed, in the belief that the authorities were going to cut them down any way and that by that method they were sure to get something.

  1437
  The work of O.E.E.C. has been disregarded, and so has the excellent work done by its committees, which has been cast into the discard, and new committees appointed to do the work carried out by them.
  If the Minister is simply an officer to whom an indent is made out, but has no power to allocate, he will be heavily handicapped on the other side of the Atlantic, or wherever he goes, because he will have to say, "I have no power to query, except rather remotely." If there were a Minister fully responsible for allocation as well as for buying, he would be able to do what I consider is most important. When the various parts of industry put forward their demands, either directly as firms or in groups, he would be able to say, "You must prove to me the need for your demands." I saw that happen during the war, and I believe it is hardly fair to the Minister, who is taking on a very difficult job indeed and one whose success is not only going to govern our re-armament programme but also our export and home markets, not to give him these powers.
  This Bill simply reeks of compromise, of trying to save the face of one Minister and of trying to balance and offset Treasury control, which is still the dominant factor. As a result, we get no clear line of demarcation the whole way through from the Minister to the consumer. Therefore, when he is engaged in his main job of procurement, he will find himself very heavily handicapped.
  Mr. J. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that when my right hon. Friends goes to, say, the United States to attend a conference, the subject of which is the allocation of raw materials, if, in fact, he were to tell that conference that a committee set up by His Majesty's Government had advised him that the allocation of raw materials asked for was vitally necessary in order to sustain our economy, whether those materials were required for re-armament or other purposes, that, in those circumstances, his figures would be challenged by any responsible Government?
  Mr. Fletcher: I am absolutely certain they would be challenged. If he goes there and says, "This is the block demand I have got," and the American representative or anybody else on the committee
  1438
  says, "But it is 22 per cent. higher than on the previous occasion," he is not in the position to say "I have gone through this myself, and the reason for it is the demand for munitions or for exports." If he cannot give that answer as the Minister responsible, he is in a weaker position than he should be.
  Mr. Stokes: Surely, I made it perfectly clear when opening the debate today that one of the reasons I consider it vital that there should be a Minister with responsible civil servants behind him was that he must be able to have these independent figures and be quite sure that he is not being played off by one Department against another.
  Mr. Fletcher: That is no answer if he is not the responsible Minister. If he goes as the head of his firm and discusses his requirements with the people on the spot, he is speaking with the real voice of authority. That is something which under this Bill he certainly has not got. The criticism made by my right hon. Friend was based on the fact that there was no clear line of demarcation of authority right the way through, and that remains perfectly true.
  A certain amount has been said about the long-term problem of procurement of raw materials. I think that I as much as anybody on this side truly welcome the steps that are to be taken to initiate new synthetic methods in order to find substitutes and to animate and accelerate the production throughout the world of vital raw materials. But it is not a question that stands on its own feet or by itself. Here, again, a note of warning is really very necessary. What may be a satisfactory course from the point of view of the user of raw materials here is a course which must always tend to try to get the materials at as low a cost as possible and there is a great danger that the areas in which it is proposed to animate and accelerate the production of those materials will be economically barred. A very nice balance indeed, and one which nobody has as yet been able to achieve, between consumer and producer has got to be in the forefront of the Minister's mind.
  The delight we may feel, and which is justifiably expressed when very high prices come down with a rush, must not blind us to the fact that production costs

  1439
  throughout the world are now very much higher, and that levels that would have seemed fantastic a few years ago— just as would the cost of living in this country — must now be regarded as more or less normal. Unless both the producer and the consumer are getting something like an equal long-term advantage, evenly divided between them as far as possible, the house which the Minister is trying to build will be built on shifting sand. There is no doubt that the Colonial Development Corporation, which is going through a bitter experience at the moment, will be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman some stories which will persuade him of the need for his long-term policy being a real long-term policy.
  There is no doubt at all that the introduction of synthetic materials— necessity being the mother of invention—contains very dangerous industrial problems, not only for the producer of natural raw materials, but also for the manufacturer in this country. Part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech reminded me of the end of the Jackdaw of Rheims in reverse. At the end of that curse nobody seemed one penny the worse, but at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech nobody really seemed one penny the better.
  The part of his speech that impressed me most of all was the inadvertent remark— it was certainly not in his notes, and I agree with him how irksome such notes can be— to the effect that he did not really think it would work out like that. That was the part of his speech I admired much the most, because it is perfectly clear to anybody— and this is probably in the mind of the chief planner for the Government, a gentleman who has nothing whatever to do with planning— that this Bill and the curious geometrical pattern running through it for the division of responsibility and function will not, in practice, work out like that at all.
  This is an opportunity for trial and error, which is the only true method to have full play. The greatest thing of all is that the right hon. Gentleman himself is a man of sense, and therefore is perfectly willing not to cling too closely to a theory of the politician, but is willing, which is the merit of the business man, to turn from any wrong course he may follow. Having seen the functioning of the Board of Trade and of the Ministry
  1440
  of Supply, I believe that any new move is likely to be a considerable improvement. Not that I blame the Ministers concerned very much, because the functions allotted to them automatically frustrate them.
  I support my right hon. Friend in what he said, and I hope that the Minister will really bear in mind— it will be the most difficult part of his task— that when in his judgment a shortage in a raw material has disappeared, he should not continue too long the methods by which it is not returned in the main to the individual to procure for himself. After all, the present situation and the need for the Minister arose largely because the Government, having told the individual manufacturer and the consumer that it would be wrong to secure materials for themselves because A might get a little more than B if he were quicker and cleverer, both the individual manufacturer and the consumer failed to get the material for themselves and the Government failed to get it for them.
  That is the background of the Bill. Let the Minister not make the error of clinging on too long, which is even worse than the error of starting too late. The sin of starting too late has been proved by the fact that this Ministry has come into being. Let him remember that it will lie with him, with the confidence that is placed in him on both sides of the House to a far greater degree than in most of his colleagues, to see that when we come to that period that error is not committed again.
  I hope that when this debate is over he will breathe a sigh of relief and get down to the main part of his job. The first part of his job for the first two years will be occupied in getting answers to his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). When that long protracted period is over and answers of sufficient frankness to pass muster have been given, then will his staff settle down and settle up. Those who are good will go to him because they are good, but others who are bad will go to him because they are bad. That happens in all Ministries. When the Ministry of Supply was formed we saw that very clearly. Then he will fly off to his main job. When he does I am certain from what he said today that he

  1441
  will know he must concentrate on increasing the total volume of procurement in every possible way, short and long-term. But he must not overplay his hand.
  I am sorry that the function of a Minister without Portfolio, which was touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), has not found favour because it would have given him that liberty of action and ability to change his view which is so valuable in negotiation. After all, if one becomes the buyer, probably the most important buyer either directly or indirectly, and also the representative of the producing area, which is about the biggest one too, one wants as free a hand as possible. One wants to forget a great deal of one's theory and rely on one's pool of experience— in the Minister's case it is a considerable pool.
  The reason many of us dislike this Bill is that, while purporting to increase the power of the Minister charged with procurement of raw materials, in actual fact, owing to its faults of set-up and not of its intention, it is far more likely to frustrate him. I would say— and this is not a party matter in the narrow sense— that he will certainly have the help and advice of every trade association and every part of industry in this country. The list he read of those whom he consulted was a rather narrow one. Let us hope that it is not final. His consultations should not cease now that he has seen the F.B.I. and a few associations.
  I hope we shall have an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he replies to the debate that consultation with industry will be permanent, frank and on a wider basis than that put forward up to now. He cannot succeed without the assistance of the consuming industry and the distributive industry. If he will look at them without the discolouring glasses of party and Socialist prejudice, which are of pale yellow and will give him jaundice, I am sure he will have a fair chance of success.
  To sum up in words similar to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), which he used the other day when the Minister appeared before us as the apologetic barker of the fun fair, his speech belonged to the postimpressionist period, without the detail being clearly demarcated, but certainly it was a picture more encouraging than we
  1442
  might have expected. Let him break down the shackles put upon him, take every sort of risk against the other Ministers whose face-saving may work against his efficiency, and if he comes back at any time to this House with success, there will be no jealousy on this side but rather nothing but congratulation to a good man, misguided perhaps in his theory, but struggling with great adversities and, we hope, overcoming them.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I think the best that can be said of this Bill is that it is a regrettable necessity. The worst that can be said of it I do not propose to attempt to say. [interruption.] But not for the reasons hon. Gentlemen opposite like to think, because if there is one proposal this afternoon worse than any other it was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson)— that the allocation of raw materials should be left to trade associations and cartels.
  From the speech of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, and from the knowledge that I and many of us have of the problem there is no doubt that the operation of the Bill and of this White Paper will cause very considerable dislocation in Government relations with industry. It is obviously in the interest of efficient relations between Government and industry that industries and firms with which one is dealing should have as far as possible only one Department to deal with.
  This Bill means that many firms and industries will have one Department— the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Supply, or whichever it may be— to deal with as the parent Department for general questions, industrial policy, controls, exports, and so on, and they will also have to deal with my right hon. Friend's new Department for raw materials. I think experience has shown that this will lead to chaos and very bad results in industry.
  I remember when I first went to the Board of Trade, as Secretary for Overseas Trade, attending those morning meetings which the then President, Sir Stafford Cripps, used to hold at an unconscionably early hour. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), remembers them, too. At that time the Board

  1443
  of Trade raw materials section was a separate sub-department of the Board, part of the old Raw Materials Department taken over from the Ministry of Supply. I remember that at those "morning prayers," as they were called, a considerable part of the time of the then President and the higher officers of the Board was taken up in arbitrating between individual departments of the Board of Trade, between the production department and the raw materials department. The leather department was fighting against the footwear department, the raw cotton division against the cotton division, raw wool against the wool industry division, and so on.
  In due course the various departments were fused and one Under-Secretary was made responsible not only for the textile industry but for the raw materials side. It meant that the cotton or wool industry, for example, had to deal with a single officer responsible for all the problems of that industry. I think that that fusion, carried through two or three years ago, has been of great benefit to industry and that industry has felt that it was the right step to take.
  But the result of the Bill before us today will mean that once again there will be all these questions to be settled by arbitration by ministerial intervention. But now it will mean intervention not by a single Minister arbitrating between various officials of his Department but arbitrating between Ministers, and thus taking far more ministerial time and, I am afraid, involving industry itself in a great deal of trouble, too.
  This will be confusing to industry generally and certainly confusing to the textile industries in particular. Once the decision to set up this new Ministry was taken and announced— and I think it was taken and announced far too quickly, without sufficient consideration of the effect on industry— then the demarcation proposed in this White Paper was probably as good as anything that could be produced. For instance, if raw cotton and wool were going to a new Department it would have been wrong to have taken any part of the cotton and woollen industry away from the raw material part. One could not have had a division at the spinning or grey-cloth stage or anything of that kind.
  1444
  I think the decision that has been taken in the White Paper is the right one, given the original decision to set up this new Ministry of Raw Materials. But the price of that decision is that we now have to have two Departments dealing with raw cotton, raw wool and these other raw materials of the textile trade. I agree with my right hon. Friend that one very helpful factor lies in the existence of the Textile Fibres Advisory Committee, which was set up last year at the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade who presides over it.
  This Committee has carried out some very important functions, I think, to the entire satisfaction of the textile industries, discussing with those industries the allocation of particular scarce fibres between one industry and another, whether rayon yarn should be substituted for wool or cotton, whether there should be more controls over the export of rayon yarn, and, in connection with a problem that arose over cotton waste, solved the problem to the great satisfaction of the industry and everyone concerned. The fact that this Committee will continue and the fact that my hon. Friend will be able to direct its work will give more confidence to the House and to the textile industry who feel that they have in my hon. Friend a man who knows their problems intimately.
  If the textile problems are going to be difficult, the chemical problems are going to be even more difficult. I will not take up the time of the House by reading paragraph 6, about chemicals, but the proposal that the new Minister should take over responsibilities for the basic raw materials of the chemical industry, whatever that phrase means, and that the Board of Trade will continue to deal with the chemical industry generally, is, I think, a proposal that will lead to great difficulty both in the Government and in the industry itself.
  As I have said, this is a regrettable step. In saying that I am casting no reflection on my right hon. Friend. If this Ministry had to be created there is no one better fitted to head it than my right hon. Friend. It is quite clear that one of the motives in putting him in charge of it was to have someone with his well-known technique and methods for dealing with the "dollar-a-year men"

  1445
  who direct the economic side of the United States administration. It was regrettable that we had to resort to this kind of personal contact, that we had to be dependent upon this international freemasonry of business men, and not be able to rely, as we ought to be able, on our rights as partners in the defence effort.
  I am sure that no one in relations with the American Government could have done more than His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington. He has done a magnificent job out there, both in his normal diplomatic functions and in the economic field. I felt that the disgraceful attack on him in the "Daily Express" last week was most uncalled for and earned the condemnation of all hon. Members of the House. The Ambassador handled the matter extremely well in bringing our problems to the attention of the American Government. But now my right hon. Friend is appointed, and I agree that that will be helpful. I regret, however, that it had to be so. That is the explanation of this Bill. It is not a question of the failure of the Departments that had been dealing with the problem, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Southport.
  The Bill, which as I have already said will have serious effects on industry, has become necessary because American consumption and stockpiling so dominate the world materials situation that we must have one Minister to head up the representations to the Americans. It is quite clear already, as a number of hon. Members have explained, what problems my right hon. Friend will be dealing with. Shortages have been debated on a number of occasions. The progress of the international discussions has been regrettably slow, through no fault of the Government, which took the initiative in those discussions.
  There have been one or two improvements. There is a better cotton crop, as we all hoped there would be. There has been this break in wool prices because the Americans have dropped their fantastic proposal to stockpile so much raw wool. There are better sulphur allocations. There is a sign of some willingness to have international distribution of molybdenum. The lunatic phase of stockpiling is now over, but I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that it will not be enough merely to desist from adding to
  1446
  stockpiling. It will be necessary to have some releases from stockpiles if Western Europe is to continue its production.
  Our problem now is not so much American stockpiling as the inadequately restricted volume of American domestic consumption. It is going on at a rate which means sucking in supplies from Europe and from the free world, and denying supplies to the rest of the nations, including ourselves. The American consumption has expanded so fast that they now consume 50 per cent. of the world's copper and lead as against 30 per cent. before the war, 60 per cent. aluminium as against 30 per cent., 50 per cent. rubber as against 45 per cent., 75 per cent. wood pulp as against 48 per cent., 26 per cent. wool as against 18 per cent., 35 per cent. cotton and sisal as against 23 per cent.
  As to newsprint, with only one-fifteenth of the world's population, the Americans consume well over two-thirds of the world's supplies at the present time. The American newsprint interests are bleating against the higher prices fixed by Canada— prices due to their excessive consumption— and they are calling for sanctions against Canada and whining that if something is not done more newsprint will go to Europe.
  Mr. Watkinson: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House about American increased consumption. Would he not agree that our own consumption of these materials has increased very largely as well?
  Mr. Wilson: I shall have a word to say about the relative positions of ourselves and the United States, which, I hope, will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  The problem with which my right hon. Friend will be dealing, and the necessity for this Bill, is, of course, the entire failure to control the American domestic consumption which, combined with a prodigious re-armament programme, looks like wrecking the raw materials supplies of the rest of the free world. Their physical controls are inadequate. Even if their controls were as good and as effective as our controls, which they are not, they would be quite inadequate to deal with the head of water pouring over the United States economy.

  1447
  My right hon. Friend referred to the controls and to the cuts. They are not cuts; they are scratches in the American level of domestic consumption.
  Mr. Nabarro: There has been a cut of 35 per cent. in their consumption.
  Mr. Wilson: It is 35 per cent. of the figure of automobile production at the end of 1950 which was increasing rapidly. If the hon. Gentleman will look up the figures compared with actual consumption in 1949 he will find that the cuts amount to little.
  Mr. Nabarro Mr. Nabarro rose—
  Mr. Wilson: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman perhaps I might make another point which will help him in his interruption. The real point is not these individual cuts on one or two things, but the failure to tackle the general inflationary situation. For instance, they have introduced controls over luxury building: you need a licence now if you want to build a luxury house costing more than £12,500. A licence is needed to build a factory, but it is clear that all licensing will be generously interpreted. Indeed, defence factories are now springing up, virtually paid for by the American Government under their new depreciation arrangements.
  The Department of Commerce has estimated that American business will be spending 29 per cent. more on new factory building and plant installation this year, and if we compare that fact with the grave statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Thursday about the steps which are having to be taken in this country, we get confirmation of some of the things which were said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent. South (Mr. Ellis Smith) this afternoon.
  Mr. Nabarro: Surely the statement which was made from the Treasury Bench, and which can be confirmed from all the statistics available of the American levels of consumption, was that the estimated figure of aggregate consumption in the United States of America at the end of 1951 will be 35 per cent. below the figure of aggregate consumption at the end of 1949. Those statistics are readily available to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Wilson: My right hon. Friend was referring to automobile production. I will now give the hon. Gentleman the facts. In the first place, American consumption in the early months of this year has been running at a rate 15 per cent. greater than in the same months of last year. That is the first thing. The second point— and this is borne out by what my right hon. Friend said— was revealed by Mr. Charles Wilson, who said in his famous "re-armament without tears" speech that the American Government plan to increase their present national income of 300,000 million dollars by 15 per cent. in three years. That was the figure quoted by my right hon. Friend.
  That is an increase of 45 billion dollars in three years— an increase equal to the total production of this country, meaning, by their rather more wasteful use of raw materials, an increased demand on raw materials greater than the total of our consumption at the present time. The idea is that at the end of that period they will be able to carry this tremendous re-armament programme and, on top of it, to bring their civil consumption back to the pre-Korean level.
  The views I have been expressing are not just my own views. They were expressed by "The Times" correspondent in "The Times Review of Industry," when he said there was a prospective inflationary gap of 20,000 million dollars. He concluded in these words:
  " Unless steps can be taken to gear the United States' armament effort to the realities of the world's economic situation "—
  and this is "The Times" speaking, not myself—
  " a widespread inflation may he set in motion. Its results would disrupt production and add to both social and economic difficulties in many countries."
  Mr. John Grimston (St. Albans): What is the date of that?
  Mr. Wilson: June edition. I do not think there is a later edition.
  The problem is difficult enough then, in 1951. It will be far more difficult in 1952 and 1953. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply has made it clear, when talking about molydenum and other metals, that there is not enough for military requirements alone in this country, quite apart from the needs of civil industry.

  1449
  It is against this background that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will be operating and he has— and I think he himself realises this— no hope of success until there is a radical change of heart across the Atlantic and a willingness to bring their economy into line with that of their partners. Otherwise, this combined defence effort— and we all support the need of it— will fail in its primary purpose.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that the high cost of living— which is basically due to the high cost of raw materials— is due to the high cost of Socialism. As I said at the week-end, in dealing with their statements, they are completely wrong: it is due to the high cost of uncontrolled capitalism, and to the scramble for raw materials in a too-rapidly re-arming world. We have, in fact, now reached a crisis in world capitalism. A new Malthusian law is in operation; fully-developed industrial economies, going at full blast, have gone beyond the capacity of the world to supply them with the necessary raw materials.
  My right hon. Friend will be facing very serious problems. I regret that it was felt necessary to set up this form of machinery to deal with them. If there had to be new machinery I should have strongly supported the idea of a thoroughgoing Ministry of Production, taking economic co-ordination away from the Treasury and putting it under my right hon. Friend, because while the Treasury are excellent at co-ordinating financial matters they are the last people in the world who should be co-ordinating real resources.
  Mr. Boothby Mr. Boothby (Aberdeenshire. East) rose—
  Mr. Wilson: Let me conclude.
  Whereas two years ago the problem was a financial problem— that of dollars — the problem today is one of production, re-armament, real resources, materials, physical capacity. I should have supported the idea of a Ministry of Production to deal with these problems.
  Mr. Boothby: That is a very important point. Would the right hon. Gentleman include in the establishment of a Ministry of Production taking away industry altogether from the Board of
  1450
  Trade, leaving the Board of Trade to run trade itself and transferring the industrial side to the Ministry of Production?
  Mr. Wilson: I think that would be going very wide of this Bill or of the background to the Bill. It was not done, in fact, when the Ministry of Production was set up in war-time, but it is a very interesting subject which I should like to debate with the hon. Member on a future occasion.
  In dealing with these problems my right hon. Friend will have one advantage, besides that of his own personality, which is itself a very strong advantage. He will be taking over what, in my view, is a very fine staff from the Board of Trade and from other Departments— a staff whose loyalty and keenness, efficiency and knowledge of their jobs carry the confidence of industry. I want to pay tribute to the staff, as I am sure does the House. I regret that this step has had to be taken. I regret even more the international background which has convinced the Government that this step is necessary. But I am sure the whole House will join, as I wish to join, in wishing my right hon. Friend every success in the task to which he has set his hand.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Nugent: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) far, but I want to make one comment on what he said. He said that we must look for a radical change of heart across the Atlantic. I could not help feeling that that was hardly gracious, coming from an ex-Minister who had had the benefits of Marshall Aid. His further comment on uncontrolled capitalism, about an economy which has, in fact, financed Marshall Aid, again was hardly worthy of him. It seemed to me that the general trend of his speech, interesting though it was from an analytical point of view, could hardly add to a feeling of good will between our two countries. In this respect it was consistent with what he has said in the past.
  No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to answer his colleague, the right hon. Member for Huyton, when he winds up the debate. The right hon. Gentleman the future Minister of this somewhat ill-fated

  1451
  Ministry will no doubt be looking forward to the winding-up speech, because at least he may then hear one speech supporting his side of the case. So far, from both sides of the House, he has had more kicks than ha'pence or, in the terms which he prefers, more slaps than tickles.
  My comments will be directed to a narrow field and they should be less difficult for him or his colleague to answer than many which have gone before. Among the many difficult problems with which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal is the acquisition of raw materials for the chemical industry. I want to comment in particular on the acquisition of raw materials for inorganic fertilisers for agriculture. He is asking the House to give him powers in this Ministry which would make him responsible for the procurement of these supplies. In his opening speech the right hon. Gentleman told us about the very valuable development of home production of these chemicals, of sulphur in particular, and, although he did not say so, no doubt this increase will come from factories which are being built by private enterprise.
  I thought he might have paid a little tribute to them. They will reduce our dependence on imports by 50 per cent. by 1955, and that will be very valuable. I am glad to think that our supply of fertilisers to that extent will be improved. I should like to know, and I am sure that the House would like to know, what is the immediate supply position. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel able to say that we shall have sufficient fertilisers for our current needs? We should all be very glad to know something about that.
  However, there is another aspect to this problem which is just as important as that of the quantity of the supply, and that is the price. The right hon. Gentleman is entering into this field at an unfortunate time, when, lying before the House. is an order which raises the prices of all fertilisers very considerably. The point that I want to put to him is that the use of fertilisers depends entirely on the economic value to the farmers concerned. Where there is a fixed price for the end-product, quite obviously, if the price of the fertiliser rises considerably, there is a very real danger of under-use. The sort of price rise that we are contemplating here is something of the order of two and
  1452
  a half times that which was prevailing last year.
  The price of superphosphate, which is the main ingredient of fertilisers and compound fertilisers, has had the most striking rise. The price in May last year was £5 19s. a ton. By the order now before the House it goes up to £ 14 13s. 6d. That is an increase of two and a half times and it really is a huge increase. It is true that there is an element of removal of subsidy in that, as well as of increased cost of procurement. I cannot, in this debate, make more than just the passing comment that it might have been wise for the Government to have held their hands about the removal of this subsidy at a time when the cost of procurement was rising so rapidly. However, there is the fact— that these fertilisers have risen by this very considerable amount.
  The use of fertilisers has grown considerably over the past 10 years, and if we are to have full production in this country its continued expansion is very desirable. I have not the figures of the pre-war use of potash and superphosphate, but nitrogen consumption is certainly something like three times today what it was pre-war. There is no doubt that we are getting the fruit of education and advice in that farmers are using more and more in this country. Because fertilisers have been at a low price up to now we have had the advantage of a fairly large use, and the result has been a considerable increase in the general production from our fields. It is most desirable, if we are to keep full production, that we should have this full application; and if we are to maintain fertility as well it is absolutely essential that we should have a continuing expansion in the use of fertilisers.
  In this particular field the 1949 O.E.E.C. Report on European agriculture had a particular comment to make, when it was dealing with the whole subject of reducing the dependence of Europe on dollar food. It called attention to the desirability of increasing the use of fertilisers in European countries. This country was one of the few then that had a good record to show. The Report made this comment, which, I think, is very germane to what I am saying:
  " The determining factor (in the quantity of fertiliser applied) is probably the financial return which farmers may expect from an increased expenditure on fertilisers."

  1453
  The proposition is just as simple as this. The normal application of, say, three hundredweight of compound fertiliser can increase the yield by about 15 per cent. on a cereal crop. This would amount to an increase of about three hundredweight per acre which gives a return on a wheat crop of about £4 or £4 10s. The fertiliser costs £3 at present prices, and with the cost of spreading added to that, the result is that a farmer, as far as he is concerned, can see no profit in it.
  Where the price of the crop is fixed— and the price this year is substantially the same as what it was last year — it is not sufficient to say that there is recoupment for these rising costs in the annual February Price Review, because with the cereal crop price remaining at the same level that will not avoid the fact that when the farmer is considering what application of fertiliser to make he will see, on the face of it, that this particular proposition has no profit for him, and he simply will not use it, with the result that his crop will be reduced accordingly.
  The point of my remark is that, in the right hon. Gentleman's having asked the House to give him these powers to deal with this particular field of our raw materials, he has a responsibility not only to see that we have a sufficient volume of the chemicals but also that the price will make them available so that they can be economically used; because here he is dealing with a particular field where the price of the end-product is fixed and recoupment must be through an enhanced return from the specific application. I hope that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies to the debate he will not give us one of his dusty answers, but that he will recognise that this is a very real problem and give a constructive reply.
  The right hon. Gentleman, among many raw materials he is offering to take charge of, is not offering to take charge of food, but food is an essential raw material in this country, and the question of the availability of fertilisers at the right price if, of course, a vital element in the production of that food here. For these reasons I hope we shall have a satisfactory reply from the Government on how they intend to deal with the very difficult situation that has now arisen through the very high levels that the prices of fertilisers have reached.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I want to take part in this debate to give the viewpoint of the industry from which I have come and of which I claim to have some little knowledge, and so I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) into the field of fertilisers, although I realise that fertilisers are of vital importance to our British agriculture, which is, of course, the greatest industry in this country.
  I have listened to every word of the debate so far, and I think it can be truthfully said that the debate has been run on fairly non-party lines, because everybody in this House realises the paramount importance of the matter which we are debating today. When the history of these times is written, I have not the slightest doubt that the success or otherwise of this Ministerial arrangement and appointment will be recorded as having been the success or otherwise of the continuance of our present standard of existence. Therefore, this debate is of vital importance.
  I would wish from the back benches to express to my right hon. Friend the new Minister of Materials our appreciation of his appointment, and to wish him well. That does not mean that I am one of those foolish people who believe that, because he has got what is called personality and the industrialist's outlook, America or anybody else is going to be more magnanimous to this country than it would have been if anybody else had been appointed. I believe that this matter should be looked upon as being the need of a nation, and looked at against the international background.
  We have listened to some very fine speeches today, and particularly the brilliant speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), the former President of the Board of Trade. The new Minister's duties, as I understand them from the White Paper, are, in my own words, to seek and to obtain vital raw materials necessary for the continuance of full employment and for keeping our industries fully occupied. That would have been a big enough job and a vital job had we not had thrust upon us the necessity for re-armament; but with the necessity for re-armament superimposed upon the necessity of keep

  1455
  ing our present standard of life, it becomes indeed a vitally important job.
  I know something of the rumblings now going on inside one of our vital industries. I know something of the worries and troubles of the steel industry, and it is to that aspect that I want to turn my mind. I can quite understand that it was necessary to take away from the Board of Trade such matters as raw cotton supplies and raw wool supplies, and so on. That can be done, probably, with some advantage, because I believe that certain Ministries can become so big as to be overwhelmed by the magnitude of their work, and the question of the supply of raw materials and of the allocation of them and the distribution of them, and then of the finished article, is a very big job.
  I cannot for the life of me understand why the White Paper lays down in paragraph 5 that in regard to metals we should dismember the steel industry. It reads quite plainly:
  " The Government, therefore, consider that in present circumstances the best course is for the Minister of Supply to remain responsible for the iron and steel industry as a whole."
  " As a whole" are the operative words. As I read the White Paper, it goes on to say that such things as the supply of molybdenum. nickel, sulphur and the refining ores from abroad, from Sweden, Spain, all the things without which we cannot make steel— and I ought to know, because I made it for 36 years of my working life— and, indeed, all the refractories— the firebrick in ordinary words— are being taken away from the jurisdiction of the Minister of Supply and passed on to the new Minister.
  Mr. Summers: I interject solely to give the Chancellor an opportunity of correcting a statement by the hon. Gentleman, which sounded to me to be inaccurate. He said that the procurement of iron ore was to be transferred. As I read the White Paper, it is not to be transferred. Perhaps the Chancellor will make clear what the facts are.
  Mr. Jones: I differentiated between indigenous ores, which remain under the control of the Minister of Supply, and refining ores—ores such as we shall need to buy from Spain, Chile, North Africa and Sweden. The point I make is that
  1456
  this industry is dismembered, and we shall have a very difficult position in the major portion of production— what I call the cheap line of steel production; the hon. Member for Aylesbury knows what I am referring to; what we call the cheap stuff in the industry, as against that which is of the highest importance, the alloy steel and the steel which carries real conversion value, which means dollars, which in turn means our life-blood. I ask the Government to have another look at it.
  Already the difficulties of the steel industry are big enough. The question of supplies of indigenous ores in sufficient quantity, indigenous coal in sufficient quantity, and scrap, above everything else, in sufficient quantity is already a headache enough. To ask the new Corporation, superimposed on the industry, partially up to now, not completely— not enough for me, at all events, nor for almost everybody else in the steel industry who gets his bread and butter there— to carry on with their present production and then to go to the Minister of Supply for certain things and then have to go to this new Ministry for some other vital things, appears to be a clear-cut dismemberment of a vital industry. I think that is a mistake.
  Manganese remains a vital component for the industry and this is left under the control of the Ministry of Supply. We need manganese from India, or Russia, or some of the minor producing countries and I ask the Government to have another look at the problem. In taking the industry as a whole, there will be overlapping. There will be unnecessary work, unnecessary to'ing and fro'ing inside the industry, which should be allowed to remain as an entity unto itself. I can, of course, understand that other materials, such as leather, cotton and wool should be taken away, if thought fit.
  Certain statements have been made today about the position of the American nation in regard to raw materials. I have never hoodwinked myself about what America is doing for this country, or what the people of this country think America is doing, and the reasons why. In 1942, in the middle of the war, I spent some time in representing the British war workers to the war workers of America, and I am perfectly satisfied that the American position today has behind it the background of the fear of Communism.

  1457
  They are in the same boat as we are, and therefore to take the long-term view is a different matter from taking the short-term view. On raw materials we must try to take a peace-time view, not a view based on hysteria, or semi- or partial hysteria, or the fear of what may happen to the Western nations. It is because the need for re-armament that they feel they have an obligation towards this country, in the same way as this country feels that it has an obligation towards our American brothers and sisters.
  Let us make no mistake about it. Ex-President Taft himself made it very plain to the world that American dollars are much cheaper and easier to find and to shed than American blood. We must therefore be very careful in our assessment of the true situation between America and ourselves— although, speaking personally, I feel that we have in them a Western ally greater than any other friend we can expect to find in the world today. The Minister, when speaking today, said, "When I was in America 10,000 workers at Ford's works were laid off because of a shortage of steel plate because of the need to send some steel sheet to Britain." Will American workers be satisfied to continue to be laid off, knowing that it is as a result of allowing raw materials to be diverted to this country? I do not think so. The American worker is like the Indian worker, the British worker, or any other worker: he wants the best possible he can get for himself, his wife and his children.
  Having found these raw materials and obtained them, having got allocations and sanctions in those countries to bring them to this country, nobody today has said anything about how we are going to pay for them. That is the important point to which I now wish to come, and upon which I shall finish. The question of having found these raw materials is one thing. The question of getting agreement that we should have a fair share of them is another, and a very fine thing in present circumstances, or in a peace-time situation.
  I remember making speeches in America in 1942 as an ordinary workman. They were recorded, and I have the records at home which I occasionally put on and listen to what I then said. I then said, in 1942, that the great post-war problem would be what was to happen to
  1458
  that huge productive machine that America was building up which would, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton explained today, take a bigger share— if we are all in this great crusade together— than it is entitled to of the world's raw materials. I said that against the background of the ideology of Communism as we could see it developing in Russia.
  I want now to return to a very old love of mine, which I am never afraid to reiterate, although I know it is not popular, and is even more unpopular with some of my hon. Friends, although it happens to be a fact. No nation is going to be prepared to help this country unless and until it is satisfied that this country has done everything possible to help itself. I come back to the exploitation and the use of our own indigenous raw materials. Are we getting all the raw materials from our own resources that we should? That is a fair question. Are we, for instance, producing all the coal that we might? I have already said, and said often, that getting coal is the lousiest, rottenest job in Christendom. But it has got to be done, and it has got to be done to produce a greater quantity of coal than is at the moment coming out of our coal mines.
  The question of sulphuric acid has been mentioned. Any businessman with 2 million tons, or even 500,000 tons of coal, can get pyrites from Sweden tomorrow and sulphuric acid in a fortnight — if he can get the coal to pay for it. I know something of what we have done as compared with what we used not to do, and I know the great effort we have all made, but today we find ourselves with this re-armament programme superimposed upon us, with world prices rising to operate against us, with three cars having to be sold to pay for raw materials which two cars paid for before, with ever-increasing prices of raw materials and less and less coming to this country, and, whether we like it or not, we must exploit to a fuller extent our own raw materials which Almighty God gave us.
  I wish the new Minister well. He has embarked upon a great task. I am not concerned with what the businessmen will get out of this. They will get the best out of it; they have always had the happy knack, whatever Government was in power, of maintaining themselves at

  1459
  a decent standard of life. I do not begrudge it to them. I am one who believes in payment by results and I have always been paid that way. I do not believe in anyone not getting a fair return for what he does. This Bill is of vital importance because it means the continuance of work for our people and the maintenance of our present standard of living which, God knows, is not yet high enough. It means bread and butter for our children, the education of our children and all the things that are necessary and vital to us. I wish the Minister god-speed in a great adventure.
  Mr. Jennings: I have listened to the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman about raw materials and the chaos that is taking place with regard to Sheffield high alloy steel. I think that on account of that criticism and the other criticisms that he has made, we ought to go into the Lobby against this Bill tonight.
  Mr. Jones: My remarks were not in the sense of being critical but because I want this Bill to be the best Bill we can have, and I do not want the industry to be dismembered.
  7.21 p.m.
  Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I have not been long in this House, but I always listen to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) with considerable interest. I am sure that every hon. Member respects the great sincerity and practical background which he always brings to debates of this character. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not follow him in his dissertation with regard to steel. It is a subject about which I know a little, but my life has been spent in other industries, and it is in those spheres I want to dwell for the next few minutes.
  In the course of this afternoon's debate, we have had some interesting speeches from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it will be interesting to watch into which Lobby they will go. One speaker after another has criticised the Bill. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) regarded it as a "regrettable necessity," and others have damned it with faint praise, but I am quite sure that we shall find all these hon.
  1460
  Gentlemen marching boldly into the Government Lobby when the Division bells ring tonight.
  There are one or two things I should like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer arising out of the speech of the Lord Privy Seal. I hope he will correct the impression that all raw materials are to be concentrated under one Ministry. That is demonstrably not so. Indeed, so far as the chemical industry is concerned — and it is with this particular industry I want to deal— we have now reached a stage, arising under this Bill, where that is organised confusion. Previously, our raw materials were controlled by four different Ministries. I realise, of course, that under a Socialist Government that is probably regarded as an austerity, and so we now have to have a fifth Ministry to which we can take our troubles.
  Overriding all these five Ministries hovers the giant the Treasury, like some great bird whose wings overshadow everything under it, which even today is holding back the granting of licences for raw materials which are available to be bought by manufacturers in this country, on the ground that dollars are not available. It really is too bad of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton and other hon. Members opposite to say that America is lapping up all the raw materials there are in the world and excluding us from getting our fair share. There is a considerable quantity of raw material available in America if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will broaden his policy and make available adequate dollars to industry in this country.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give particulars. He is talking very generally at the moment.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: I shall be very happy to give the Chancellor particulars. Indeed, on the occasion of the last debate on raw materials, I made an intervention of a similar character when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was standing at that Box. I offered, if he wanted me to do so, to give him examples then. I should also like to tell the Chancellor of another rather peculiar thing which his Department does at present.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: Certain plasticisers are made in America, and are in very short supply here. Some offers are made to us and some licences granted. But in this and other spheres the Dutch have been able to secure materials from America for which they have paid in dollars. They then offer them to this country for payment in sterling. The Board of Trade issue a leaflet to industry generally, in which they say that when applying for licences the applicant must state whether the goods which they are now buying for sterling were originally paid for in sterling or in dollars.
  Then industry provides the Board of Trade with details of these goods, but Treasury approval is refused. Within a few days, a most extraordinary letter from the Board of Trade arrived, saying, "We are very sorry we cannot allow you to buy these goods in sterling which were previously bought in dollars, but if you will now make an application for these goods and pay for them in dollars you can probably have them." In the meantime, the goods have gone, but not to anyone in this country; they have been purchased by consumers on the Continent.
  I assure the Chancellor that this is only one instance and there are many other examples where Treasury sanction is not being given for licences for goods which are available, and it is high time that the Chancellor and the Treasury woke up to the realities of the situation and desisted from putting the blame on America and elsewhere. Who is to be responsible under the new set-up for the issuing of import licences? Is that still to be the responsibility of the Board of Trade or is the new Minister of Materials to take that over? I think that is something which we ought to know.
  I also want to deal with the question of the various Ministries which now control the chemical industry. This is a very diverse industry. At present we get our raw materials something like this. I am now talking about those materials which are controlled by Ministries; there is, of course, a large number of products over which there is no control. Our edible oils are under the control of the Ministry of Food. Metals, under the present system, are the responsibility of the Ministry of Supply, but they are now to be transferred, or at any rate some
  1462
  of them, to the new Ministry of Materials. Fine chemicals, as distinct from basic chemicals, are the control of the Board of Trade, but hydrocarbon solvents are the responsibility of the Ministry of Fuel and Power.
  There are many firms in this country who earn their bread and butter by selling raw materials to the paint, varnish, printing ink and lacquer industries, and all have to go to five different Ministries today before they can get the raw materials they need. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really think that that is a sensible way for industry to operate? Does he think that that offers the greatest hope for increased production? It is the most complete nonsense, and had there been a greater breadth of view displayed by the various Ministries in recent years this Bill would not be necessary today.
  It is interesting to note that the Board of Trade, which at present is responsible for many things, exists under no Act of Parliament at all but under an Order in Council dated 1786. When it was originally established it had no responsibility whatsoever for the procurement and allocation of raw materials. The Ministry of Supply was set up for something quite different. The Lord Privy Seal said that this new policy was long-term, but he did not specify what he meant by long-term. Does he mean five years, 10 years, 20 years or near-permanent?
  In considering the set-up which is now proposed much depends on the term of years which it is in operation. If it is a short term of five years, then I do not think that the present scheme can work. As I see it, it can only bring about greater confusion. If this long-term is 15or20years, or even longer, then the Government are guilty of a complete lack of thought in planning this whole thing.
  The time has come for some fundamental thinking on the part of the Government if they are to play a constructive and a useful part in the procurement and allocation of raw materials. There is a case, not for the creation of a new Ministry, but for the creation of a Minister with adequate powers to co-ordinate the various Ministries which now operate in this field. This Bill is undoubtedly a face-saving device. It is set up by the Government to whitewash the right hon.

  1463
  Gentleman the Minister of Supply, who has failed over a long period of years to get industry the metals it wants. It is a face-saving device for whitewashing the right hon. Member for Huyton, who is responsible for many of our shortages, and it is also a device to whitewash the Minister of Food, who has been responsible for many other shortages of raw materials.
  It is against that background that this Bill must be reviewed. I should like to think that this Bill and the machinery which it proposes to set up will provide the raw materials we need. I believe, however, on the closest analysis of the Bill, that it is impossible to believe that it will result in one ounce more of the raw materials which are so essential to the maintenance of our industrial life.
  7.34 p.m.
  Lieut. -Commander R. H. Thompson: This Bill, by the system which it seeks to establish, is a good example of the wrong way to go about securing a result towards which most hon. Members in this House are entirely sympathetic. I do not think that any responsible Member of this House today would deny that raw materials are scarce, that they are dear and that there is a clamorous demand for them. It may well be that there is a requirement for the Government to take some action to secure their procurement, but the steps that are being taken are not calculated to give us a Minister with the necessary overriding powers to deal properly with this matter. Surely it is a case of getting another Ministry but not a Minister.
  Hon. Members on this side had hoped that the effect of this legislation would be to give us another Ministry which would be able to provide us with a Minister with real powers of co-ordination, a man who could go about his job in the knowledge that he could, in fact, knock a few Departmental heads together, if necessary get rid of a lot of red tape and knock off some bottlenecks. We all hoped that if somebody had to be appointed to this kind of job, he would have that kind of powers, and I think that few hon. Members would quarrel with the particular choice that the Government have made, We widely recognise the business acumen and personal qualities of the Lord Privy Seal, but in this kind
  1464
  of bureaucratic set-up it is those very qualities which are going to be at a discount.
  With the need so clearly understood, it is regrettable that the Government should have gone about satisfying it in such a poor kind of way. The new Ministry, as some hon. Members have pointed out, would appear to be a sort of competitor of the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade. That in itself is very undesirable, but I think there is a lot in what has been said to the effect that this new Ministry, in the particular functions which are being taken over and the particular raw materials, for the procurement of which it is to be responsible in the future, is trying to cover up the very glaring deficiencies both of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply in the last few years. Surely if those two Ministries had done their jobs properly, the requirement for a new Ministry would never have arisen. It is because they have fallen down on their job that today we find another Ministry being set up.
  I shall not go through the list of the materials in the White Paper, responsibility for which is being transferred to the new Minister, but they include certain very essential materials, to secure which the previous set-up has proved entirely inadequate. I am not a person who believes that a Ministry is the best way of securing raw materials anyway, but if we must have another Ministry do not let us waste the very great powers of the right hon. Gentleman selected for the job in a Ministry where I feel he will be frustrated and hampered and unable to get on with the job which so urgently needs doing.
  I should like to know how permanent this organisation is intended to be. After all, shortages do not go on for ever. In some cases they right themselves very quickly. Is it intended in that case to withdraw such raw materials from the control of the Ministry, or do we look forward to a future where practically everything is going to be controlled either by this Ministry or by its numerous competitors which exist at present?
  I am not happy about the distributive arrangements which are envisaged. Here, again, there seems to be an intolerable degree of overlapping. I see in the White Paper that the allocations will be through inter-Departmental arrangements for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is

  1465
  responsible. Thus we have another super-planner brought into the works, the general effect of which will be to introduce a new set of officials and put another barrier between the manufacturer, the user and the consumer and the original source of supply. It is inescapable that this Ministry is a makeshift contraption of shreds and patches, a sort of sop to the public which has become fed up with the idea that all this control could not, in the end, produce the raw materials which this country needs.
  I would say one word about the various strictures which have been laid upon the Americans in the course of the debate, and particularly those which have come from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), the former President of the Board of Trade. He quoted figures to show the enormous increase in the American requirements of raw materials compared with before the war, the inference clearly being that the Americans were the greedy capitalists who were getting more than their share of the good things of this world.
  That is a fascinatingly simple sort of conception which may appeal to some people, but let us remember the fundamental fact that since the end of the war a tremendous change has come over the position of America. From being an isolationist nation she has now taken upon her broad shoulders the care of practically the whole free world. She is inheriting to some extent the mantle which this country so well and proudly bore for two centuries. She cannot do that except on the basis that her industries, and particularly her armaments industry with all its ramifications, absorb an enormously increased quantity of raw materials. For that reason we should be very chary of pointing the finger of scorn at the Americans. Let us be glad that the Americans have taken on the big, dangerous and difficult job, which, thank heaven, they are doing today.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Edelman: After the elegies and dirges which have greeted the creation of this Ministry, it will not seem improper, I hope, if I give it a warm welcome. When I listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, West (Lieut. -Commander R. H. Thompson), I could not help feeling that precisely those qualities of streamlining
  1466
  which he seemed to consider the Ministry lacked are precisely those qualities which it possesses. This Bill is a measure of administrative rationalisation. My only criticism would be that the rationalisation is somewhat overdue. The Ministry should have been set up when the price rise began after the outbreak of the Korean War.
  I am astonished that during today's debate not one hon. Member has mentioned that the shortages from which the world is suffering, and the rapid rises in prices which have done so much to push up the cost of living, are directly due to the outbreak of the Korean war and the consequences which have flowed from it. One has only to look at what has happened during the last two months to see how the graph of the rises in prices has corresponded with the increasing shortages of materials.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: If the hon. Member takes the trouble to look at his own "Bulletin of Industry" he will find that the rises in price and the shortages of materials are described as having begun before the outbreak of war in Korea.
  Mr. Edelman: That is true of some of them, but I was speaking primarily of the period of acute shortages and acute price rises. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to refer back I would recall to him that it was when the Ministry of Supply released some of the commodities from the control to which hon. Gentlemen opposite had objected that the rise in prices began. He has only to look at the range of non-ferrous metals, rubber and tin, to realise that the rises in price and the shortages went pari passu with the release of those materials from control by the Ministry of Supply.
  It is fair to say that the new Minister will, in effect, be the nation's buyer, if I may use an industrial simile. He will have responsibility for the nation's purchases in the same way as the buyer of an industrial establishment has responsibility for procuring essential materials to keep the factory going. What has taken place is a new division of labour within the Government. Instead— if I may borrow the language of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)— of there being a vertical organisation, as was the case in the Ministry of Supply, there is now to be a horizontal allocation of

  1467
  responsibility. The Ministry of Materials will henceforth be charged with obtaining primarily those materials from overseas which are today in short supply, and upon which the nation depends for its livelihood and the maintenance of full employment.
  Mr. P. Roberts: Surely if the industrial buyer fails to do his job he is directly responsible to the company. In this case, particularly with regard to steel, the Minister is not responsible to the Minister of Supply for the production of steel yet he will not be the buyer of all the raw materials which are vital to the production of steel. Is not that one of the difficulties?
  Mr. Edelman: The new Minister of Materials will be responsible to the Cabinet in the same way as a buyer is responsible to the board of directors of a company.
  As far as steel is concerned, there is a weakness in the new organisation in that the Minister of Materials has not complete responsibility for the materials which go to the making of steel and which have to be imported from abroad. I am thinking particularly of iron ore. The organisation would be much more logical and efficient if the Minister had responsibility for the procurement of the raw material which have to go into manufactures in this country.
  Just as it should be his job to look after the importation of molybdenum, so it would make for greater efficiency if he had the full responsibility for the procurement of iron ore imported from abroad. I noticed in the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend that when he was in America he was able to make various arrangements to divert American ships for carrying iron ore to this country, to relieve us from shortages of materials which the Americans had been scouring Europe to buy. I hope that the Government will look again at this problem and see whether it is yet too late to attribute to my right hon. Friend full responsibility for the importation of all the basic ores which are needed for the manufacture of steel and iron products in this country.
  I would congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done already. At one time I likened him to one who has made a smash and grab raid on the
  1468
  American stockpile. That description was inaccurate, and I apologise. Now I think he is rather like a privateer who has gone out and been able to appropriate cargoes on the high seas. For that, we must be grateful to him.
  Mr. Stokes: I do not object to the description at all, but I must clear up one possible misapprehension which might cause trouble. I did not touch the American stockpile. It remained inviolate.
  Mr. Edelman: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. I think he would agree that the reason why he did not touch the American stockpile was that he could not get at it. He would have had to run up against so many fences erected by Congress that it would not have been possible to divert any of those valuable materials from the American stockpile.
  It is not enough for a Minister, however able, to make sudden and sporadic forays to the other side of the Atlantic to procure emergency quantities of raw materials. Anyone who has had any connection with industry knows that to keep the proper rythm of a factory going and to maintain full production and full employment, it is absolutely essential to be assured of a regular flow of materials from abroad.
  At this point I should like to deal with "the American myth" which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) sought to perpetuate this afternoon. I looked carefully through the schedules of materials in the White Paper. I looked particularly at the First Schedule listing the materials to be transferred to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal from the Ministry of Supply, and I found there that only three out of the 37 items are materials which we import from America and of which the Americans are the indigenous suppliers.
  It is therefore clear that, contrary to the mistaken view which has been put about up and down the country, the Americans as suppliers are in no way responsible for holding short the materials which we need here. In the case of the American materials for which the Ministry of Supply was responsible— molybdenum, tantalum and manufacturing abrasives— America has been generous and we have not so far gone short of them for our

  1469
  own industry. As to American generosity in supplying materials which she herself produces, it is important to emphasise that we have no fundamental cause for complaint.
  On the other hand, if we turn from the supply of native American materials to the supply by the United States of materials which she herself has had to procure, we naturally see a certain wariness on her part in releasing them. Listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton, who is not at the moment in the Chamber, I had the impression that I was listening in reverse to a speech by an American Senator who was a member of the Senate Sub-Committee on Preparedness. If we look at the report of that Sub-committee we see that the Americans were complaining in almost exactly the same terms about British and Commonwealth suppliers, accusing them of "gouging" the Americans, holding supplies short and forcing up the prices.
  In a sense, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton and the American Senators who complain about the policy of Commonwealth suppliers in rubber, tin, wool, and so on, were both right and wrong. They were right on the facts that here among Allies in a time of world crisis the producers of the world were holding supplies short while prospective consumers were bidding up the prices against each other. On the other hand, it is clear that both of them were wrong, because Transatlantic recrimination can only help the Communists and will certainly be of no use whatsoever to the free world. But that does not absolve us from a responsibility for trying to take action which will prevent the tremendous uprush of prices and the concomitant condition of the disappearance from the world markets of those vitally necessary materials which we need to maintain our current industry.
  I want to mention what has been done in America to try to arrest the advance in prices. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton was extremely critical of "unplanned capitalist America" in her failure to take such measures of control as would effectively keep down the prices. I hope that after he has read what I have to say he will, if necessary, contradict me, but I should say that in America today the range of material controls is far in excess of what we have in this country.
  1470
  More than that, that the action taken by the Americans to keep prices down on the international markets has been more dramatic, more drastic and more effective than anything that we have sought to do and certainly more effective than anything which my right hon. Friend attempted to do when he was President of the Board of Trade. I regret that he is not present to hear me making this statement, because I feel that he himself can certainly not be absolved from responsibility for having failed to arrest some of the rises in prices which have taken place over the last few months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not cheer, even in murmurs, because when it was suggested in the House that something should be done to keep down the prices of commodities like rubber and tin to restrain the profiteering which went on in the free markets of the world it was hon. Gentlemen opposite who consistently protested against controls and objected to any measures which this Government put forward to keep down prices. It is only proper and fair to the Americans to say, for example, that it was their action in limiting their purchases of tin and rubber and taking them under Government control and allocation which, in the first instance, brought those prices down and that we in Britain have been the accessory beneficiaries of the action which the American Government took.
  That is not to say that in America itself there have not been very loud complaints or "squeals"— the word used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton — about the action which the Government has taken. I will illustrate my point with an example relating to tin. Only a month or so ago Mr. Kemper, a leading United States tin man, writing in "The American Metal Market" said about the new price fixed by the American Government, which, he complained, was far too low:
  "The new price means that our Government, which finds all right a rise of nearly 237 per cent. in lead from 1939 to today, and has no objection to a hike of 242 per cent. for zinc, demands that tin, the lifeblood of Bolivia, be held to a boost of 167 per cent. from 1939 to today."
  This American tin man was complaining that Bolivian tin prices had gone up by only 167 per cent. I am sure that none of us will waste any tears on the Bolivian

  1471
  tin exporters who have only been able to raise their prices by 167 per cent., but in justice we must agree that the American Government as such has endeavoured to take action which has effectively had the result that the prices of certain vital commodities in their industries have been kept down.
  In our present situation there must be some kind of give and take between America and ourselves and the other countries of the free world. Unless that takes place, and takes place on both sides, there will be a tremendous amount of anti-British propaganda in America and anti-American propaganda in Britain. We all know from our own observations that nothing will more easily raise a cheer than putting the blame for everything upon America. We know that there is always a willing audience to lend a receptive ear to such a discharge of responsibility upon someone else, particularly if it is someone overseas.
  For those reasons I think it very important that the House should try to analyse the situation as it is today and see what we can do to bring about an equitable settlement of the free world's raw materials difficulties. Some months ago the Prime Minister went to Washington— as did the Lord Privy Seal a short time ago— and as a result of his activities the International Materials Conference was set up last December with high hopes. Unfortunately, those hopes have not been fulfilled and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Materials has had to come to the House and say that to-day, six months after the first commodity groups were set up, nothing has been done in practice.
  Mr. Stokes: I did not say that. I was very careful to differentiate between some of the committees. What I said was that overall, and having regard to the complexity of the situation, the materials in short supply and the many countries involved, it would be foolish to anticipate that we could get any comprehensive decision before the fourth quarter of this year. In fact we have made vast progress in certain directions and great credit is due to the Americans that we have done so.
  Mr. Edelman: We certainly welcome any progress made but I am concerned with practical progress. If my right hon.
  1472
  Friend says that no allocations will be made until the fourth quarter of the year it seems to me to be a very long time for the conference to get going. Although the commodity groups will no doubt ultimately be able to confirm some allocations the fact is that they are still far from being effective instruments. In the meantime, the market has not stood still. Prices have risen and the actual commodities that they have been established to allocate have dwindled and ebbed away.
  Therefore, I cannot be satisfied with what my right hon. Friend has said. I cannot consider that the International Materials Conference has so far justified the hopes which those of us who originally welcomed it had of it. In the first place, it seems to me that the reason why that Conference has not so far succeeded and will not succeed, even in the fourth quarter, as my right hon. Friend expects, is that the actual administration on the International Materials Conference is at too low a level and the representatives on that Conference have not the political power to enable them to make those rapid decisions necessary in order to bring about fair allocations.
  For example, our own representative is Viscount Knollys, Managing Director of the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation. The French representative is M. Raoul de Vitry, Managing Director of the Péchiney Aluminium Works. From America there is Mr. Edwin T. Gibson, Vice-President and Director of the General Foods Corporation of America. I am sure that these three gentlemen, each of whom represents a leading company in his particular industry, is an eminently successful businessman and eminently competent to carry out the duties which within the scope of his administrative experience he is capable of discharging. But what is required on the International Materials Conference is surely more than business administrators.
  It seems to me that even at the level at which they are engaged there should be representatives of the men who have to use the materials. Certainly, in my view, there should be representatives of the organised workers, who are most vitally concerned with the mass unemployment which would flow from shortages of raw

  1473
  materials. I would say, in parenthesis. that my experience in my constituency is that those who have been most alive to the difficulties arising from the shortage of raw materials have been the trade unions and the workers in the factories. Indeed, the representations that have been made to me have come not from industrialists but consistently from the workers, who are worried about their jobs and are concerned when they see that their machines are not working because there are not the raw materials to feed into them.
  I wish to put to my right hon. Friend, and through him to the Government, the suggestion that what is required is a reform of the structure of the International Materials Conference. In O.E.E.C. there is a permanent administration and secretariat but there is also a Council of the O.E.E.C., a political Council, which makes political decisions and which decides on the general policy which should be carried out by O.E.E.C. That Council is a Council of Ministers.
  I believe we shall never reach an understanding either with America or the other countries associated with America or ourselves until the International Materials Conference has set up for itself a council of Ministers, an economic council which will meet say four times a year but which, when it meets, will be able to work out a formula for the equitable distribution and allocation of raw materials, taking into account the effort that each country is making for re-armament for defence purposes as well as the sacrifices which particular countries have already made to cope with the difficulties which have confronted them in the past. That seems to me to be essential. I believe that if we introduce this very simple reform within the International Materials Conference by setting up such a political council we shall have gone a long way towards solving our difficulties with America and with the associated countries.
  It is quite certain that if, as I confidently expect, my right hon. Friend, when he goes to Washington as Minister of Materials, and in a man to man talk, perhaps by bilateral negotiations, pending the development of the International Materials Conference, succeeds in getting — standing on Washington's doorstep— the materials which Britain so badly
  1474
  needs, I am confident that his example will be rapidly followed up by Ministers of Materials from other countries. We shall have the spectacle of M. Stoc, then Herr Stock, after him Signor Stocco, and perhaps, in time, Tovarish Stokowski, going to Washington and there applying far raw materials in competition with my right hon. Friend.
  I suggest that that is another form of the international scramble for raw materials. The only way in which we can have effective harmony and effective integration— to use that much abused word— of the demands and requirements of the various countries of the free world is for the International Materials Conference to reform its structure and set up a political council. In that way we should have a fair organisation, fair not only for the purposes of defence but fair also in maintaining our standard of living.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. John Grimston (St. Albans): In the earlier part of his speech, the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) effectively deflated the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) about the effect of stockpiling on the present raw materials shortage. That bogey has been raised so often that it cannot be too frequently contradicted.
  The fact is, in relation to the industry with which I am particularly concerned— non-ferrous metals, which are particularly short— that the great majority of the American stockpile was bought a long time before Korea was even thought of by anyone. More than 90 per cent. of the American stockpile of zinc was bought between 1945 and the middle of 1950— long before Korea. To attribute American stockpiling to grabbing for raw materials after Korea is to misread the situation. Unless we can examine and appreciate what has led to our present difficulties we shall not be able to take the necessary steps now to adopt proper policies in the future.
  The right hon. Member for Huyton went on to say that the danger of the present situation is inflation in America. We would all agree, I think, that the danger of the present situation is inflation both in America and here—
  Mr. Stokes: Everywhere.
  Mr. Grimston: Everywhere, I quite agree. The measure of inflation is clearly the amount of money chasing the supply of goods. But in America motor cars are virtually unsaleable, coal and radios are virtually unsaleable, timber is very difficult to sell and cut-price wars are going on in the stores. Is that a measure of inflation or is it not a sign that the supply of goods has caught up with the demand and the usual correctives are being applied?
  If we are to understand the present situation, we must realise that the steps the Americans have taken to fight inflation have been vastly more effective than the steps that have been taken here. Cars are not readily obtainable here, nor is coal, and even timber is not too easy to obtain. Therefore, to blame inflation in America and the steps she has taken as bringing about the present shortage is to misunderstand the cause of the present situation.
  Also in his speech the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), raised an argument I have heard him use before, that it was at the time of the Korean war that people in this country began to appreciate the shortage, particularly of metals. That was not so. The Minister of Supply whom I have been chasing on this matter for a very long time, knows full well that nearly two years ago, on 2nd January, 1950, our trade told his Ministry in his Ministry and I have the agreed minute here— that we could not view with equanimity the running down of stocks in zinc and wanted to see a stockpile of zinc and copper. That was six months before Korea and immediately after devaluation had taken place and had shown that the upturn in demand which we expected would take place in America was beginning to gather momentum.
  If you are buying commodities on a large scale you have to take notice of the advice given, and our principal complaint against the Minister of Supply has been that he has ignored our advice when we have given it to him. We hope very much that if we tender similar advice to the Lord Privy Seal, he will act on it more quickly. I was sorry that in his opening speech the Lord Privy Seal claimed as an advantage of his present arrangement the fact that he had consulted trade associations on the division of responsibilities and so on and— quite unintentionally, no
  1476
  doubt— the impression was gained on this side of the House that trade associations generally approved of the arrangements which had been made.
  I think he will agree that the questions he directed towards the trade associations were not whether we felt an extra Ministry was necessary or whether we wanted to see a Minister of Production on top of the whole thing, but purely whether this or that particular function of the Ministry of Supply in the new set-up should be administered by the new Ministry, or by the old Ministry.
  I quite agree that on that kind of point he consulted trade associations, but our criticism from this side of the House of the proposed set-up is that it is not at all clear where the various functions are to be permanently placed, and it is certainly not clear to us that it is necessary to have another Ministry. We might very well agree in certain circumstances that another Minister was necessary but why, to administer powers already in the hands of a Ministry, we must set up a new Ministry, is beyond us at present.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has clearly shown that in steel it is impossible to draw a line between the varying sections of the trade and, indeed, the points at which the line has been drawn still show anomalies, such as nickel, chromium and so on, which are in the hands of the Ministry of Materials and are no longer to be kept with the same Ministry that controls steel itself. In regard to all other metals in the nonferrous metal trade, precisely the same anomalies will exist.
  The new Ministry will be responsible for buying our raw material and seeing that enough of it goes into the rolling mills, but such products as slags and residues will again become the province of the Minister. We shall have some of the non-ferrous metals going to the Ministry of Supply and some reverting to the Ministry of Materials, and surely that will make for a great deal of confusion of exactly the kind of which we have heard in the steel industry, and I do not think it will improve relations between the Government and the industry over existing arrangements with the Ministry of Supply.
  Mr. Stokes: May I put this to the hon. Member, as indeed to some others who

  1477
  have spoken in the debate? Can he not take a broader view? Some of these materials come practically wholly from the other side of the Atlantic and it would be absolutely impossible to deal in textiles and other materials unless we were dealing with those materials at the same time. It may be an inconvenience to industry I admit, but what we have tried to do is to arrive at an arrangement which will inconvenience industry as little as possible while giving the Ministries powers for negotiation in the international field.
  Mr. Grimston: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because I was hoping to come to that point later. I do not think he can possibly do the job unless he controls pretty well everything brought into this country. If he wants a little more copper and has a little oil to trade for it, that is part of the deal. If that were the proposal, I would support him; but the proposal is that the buying should be in the hands of three or four Ministers, and I have no doubt he would like a great many more commodities than he has got. The fact remains that the object is now to hive off a few sections of two Ministries and combine them into yet another. That does not concentrate functions at all, but simply diversifies them further.
  The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Coventry, North, is centred on these commodity committees which are meeting in Washington and the right hon. Gentleman said that he does not expect any results until the last quarter of this year. He is afraid he will not get very much progress. I am less optimistic than he is and my impression is that they are rather bogged down at the moment and many of the people have gone home to report to their own Governments. But an interesting sidelight has come from these commodity committees that there is an increasing demand for opening up commodity markets, which is the very thing we on this side of the House have for years been pressing as the most sensitive barometer we could possibly have of supply and demand, production of alternative materials and so on.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in giving some advice to industrialists a month or so ago about the shortage of steel, gave some excellent and typical advice. He
  1478
  said, "There is lots of steel— go and scrounge it." I should like to give him the same advice about marginal supplies of raw materials. I believe there are a lot of marginal supplies in the world and the present policy of the Ministry of Supply to prohibit private importation of the materials for which the Ministry is responsible for buying in bulk should be reversed.
  I look to him to do it because I think the marginal supplies are in the world and only the user can determine whether or not his product will stand the high, price of whatever the small supply of a commodity available will cost him. That decision should be put on the consumer and if the Minister does not want to buy a substantial lot of metal or any other commodity, he should see first that currency, or whatever is necessary, is made available to the private importer and see that no other obstacle is placed in the way of such private importations. The right hon. Gentleman prides himself on not being a doctrinaire type of man and I hope he will succeed in getting through that alteration in our policy for which we on this side of the House have been asking many months.
  In his opening remarks, the right hon. Gentleman described this operation as re-hiving two sections of the Ministry. I think that I am one of the few practising beekeepers in this House. I know of only two others. When one unites the bees from two hives, one must make them smell the same, because they fight unless that is so. Unless the same drive and policy which the Minister can enthuse into this Department is to be put into both sides of the new arrangement, it will lack any of the advantages which it might otherwise have.
  There is another small point I should like to mention. That is the matter of importing materials for re-sale abroad in those cases where the export has been cut down. The right hon. Gentleman' will know that many exports have been greatly reduced in volume. I hope that a further argument in favour of the import at high prices of marginal materials will be that the Minister will thus allow traditional exports to continue in greater volume than they might otherwise do.
  I believe the buying of material such as will be undertaken on a vast and

  1479
  colossal scale by the right hon. Gentleman can only be done if it has a kind of philosophy underlying it, that they must be bought on the longest possible terms. I do not believe the present high prices attract, for instance, the new mining venture to start half so much as the fear of a collapsed market by the time they are in production deters it. Therefore, the main step the Minister ought to take is to operate true commodity markets at the same time with guaranteed tonnages, outputs, sales or purchases of whatever it may be from abroad.
  I agree that there are many of our raw materials which are running out throughout the world. I am quite certain they can be developed to meet our rising requirements, but only if sufficient guarantees of sale of the output are forthcoming from the Ministry. If the Minister does that, I am certain that some good will come out of this new Ministry; but I still feel that what we need is not a new Ministry, but a new Minister in the Ministry of Supply, which would be a much better step, or else some man over the Minister of Supply— and it could well be the right hon. Gentleman— with no Departmental responsibilities whatsoever, who would be able to go and knock together the heads of people in any part of the world where obstruction, vacillation and bumbledom are hindering output, because that is happening today in so many places.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. Albu: I hope, in the course of the few remarks I wish to make, to follow up some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Grimston), who seemed to me to be advocating long-term bulk purchase agreements for ensuring adequate supplies of raw materials for this country in the future. It is to that particular aspect of the problem that I want to direct my remarks. I was pleased that the Minister, in introducing the Bill, both in his opening and closing remarks, referred to his responsibilities for the long-term development of our raw material supplies in this country and our conservation and substitution policy.
  Some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members on the other side of the House have assumed— of course, they understood the personality of my right
  1480
  hon. Friend— that his function was to be something like that of the noble Lord who was the Minister of Aircraft Production in our darkest hours during the war. That was to conduct some sort of smash-and-grab raid on the raw material stocks of the world on behalf of this country. We welcome the energy with which the Minister has pursued his task, but I think he understands that the present position in which this country finds itself is only an extreme example of what is in fact a very long-term problem. Although hon. Members who have spoken today have, on the whole, recognised that, I doubt if it is recognised in the country as a whole. It is very important that it should be recognised.
  The recent Economic Commission for Europe Survey of Europe in 1950 pointed out the general position of Western Europe in regard to supplies of food and raw materials. The symptoms, they point out, vary from time to time. They sometimes appear as a worsening of the terms of trade, which seems to be permanent in the case of most materials; sometimes in the shortage of dollars because so many materials come from the dollar area; sometimes they appear as an absolute shortage of supply, that is to say, materials cannot be obtained at any price or in any currency. The Survey says:
  " The prospects of an adequate increase in production in the longer run look hopeful for oil, tin, cotton and rubber, but the outlook for other materials may depend on a more direct interest being taken by European countries in their development."
  They added that there are no signs that the supply position of these commodities will improve immediately after 1951.
  I believe we all understand the basic causes of this situation. They are, first of all, the world population, which is increasing at the rate of 20 million a year; they include also the increasing industrialisation of many countries, some previously considered backward and some more generally considered to be commodity or raw materials producers, with the result that they are themselves consuming more and exporting less. Finally, there is the enormous increase of the United States manufacturing output. It is not only due to the recent activities of the United States, both in stockpiling and increasing production for defence purposes. It is not in any way blameworthy in the way which the right hon. Member

  1481
  for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) implied. It is the natural expansion of population and industrial productivity in the United States.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), referred to the United Nations Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilisation of Resources held in 1949. In one of the papers read at that conference, Mr. H. L. Keenleyside, of Canada, pointed out that in 1948 the United States consumption of pig iron was 790 lb. per person, and that of the rest of the world 47 lb.; and that, if the consumption of the rest of the world had gone up to half that of the United States, there would have been a total demand of 450 million metric tons per year, whereas production in 1948 was only 109 million tons.
  In the same way, if the consumption of copper by the rest of the world had gone up to half of the United States consumption. the demand would have been for 10½9 million tons, against a total production of 2½35 million tons. For aluminium, the figures are 8½ 7 million tons and 1½ 54 million tons; lead, 8½ 3 million tons against 1½ 72 million tons; and zinc, 6½ 8 million tons against a world production of 1½ 7 million tons.
  I am sure that hon. Members will think that such a level of consumption by the rest of the world, equal to half that of the United States, can only be visualised in the far distant future, but of course, throughout the world, as has been pointed out during the debate, manufacturing activity and production have been rising at a far faster rate than that of commodity production.
  A very interesting article appeared in "The Banker" for May, 1949, by Mr. Ernest Stern, who pointed out that world manufacturing and mining output had increased by 60 per cent. over 1937–38, whereas the production of virgin raw materials had only increased by 34 per cent.; of metals by 24 per cent. (mainly aluminium) and of fibres by 36 per cent., including a very big expansion in artificial fibres. The countries of Western Europe are never likely again to return to the. days when the industrial producers were able to exploit the primary producers. We are not going back again to the days of cheap food or cheap coal or cheap minerals, and we have to adjust our economy to this
  1482
  new situation, and the people of this country have got to understand it.
  This article also points out that, in the opinion of Mr. Stern, prices will remain at or above the level of the present high cost producer, and the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) made a plea, which sounded rather extraordinary as he made it, that we should pay much higher prices in future, but I think I understood what he meant. He was saying that, if we are to get supplies in future of our raw materials, we shall never be able to get them again at what I call the exploitation prices which were frequently paid by ourselves and other industrial countries in the past. I think that what he was also trying to point out was the danger that if there were, as we all hope will shortly come to pass, an easing of the international tension, so that there would be at any rate a considerable unloading of private stockpiles of raw materials, there might be a very rapid slump in prices.
  Such a slump, though it might appear as a temporary benefit, would be no benefit in the end, because, once those materials thrown on to the market were consumed, as happened in wool after the war, the prices would then rocket again. In the meantime, high cost producers would have gone out of production and expansion of the production of materials, mining exploitation, and so on, which should have taken place would not have taken place. If the present agreed policy of full employment and the development of backward areas, and so on, were put into operation, there would then inevitably occur very shortly again a shortage of many of these raw materials. As I say, prices would then rocket again, and this country, because of its economic position and its reliance on imports and the use of those imports for exports in order to feed its people, would find itself in an extremely difficult position.
  We do not want ever again a return to the violent fluctuations in the price of commodities which took place before the war. I was not in the commodity market then, but was merely a purchaser of some raw materials for manufacturing purposes. From my experience, the fluctuations were absolutely fantastic. I cannot see how there can be any orderly expansion of raw material production under such conditions.

  1483
  I am afraid I cannot go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), because, although I agree with the necessity for international allocation and international agreement, particularly between producers and consumers, in order to procure an orderly expansion, I am afraid it will be many years before that is achieved. Meanwhile, I am certain that we in this country must do everything possible to make ourselves safe from and independent of— and I say this in no hostile spirit fluctuations in the American economy. I do not know whether the American economy is going to fluctuate or not in the future, but I do know that if it fluctuates only 5 per cent. the variations in prices and the availability of materials are going to have an extremely harmful effect on the economic life of this country. Therefore, it is essential that we should have plans for developing our raw material supplies.
  I very much welcome paragraph 2 of the White Paper, which makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the Minister to see that there is an expansion of sources of supplies, a conservation of materials, a development of substitutes, and so on. I suggest that he should use his powers to establish within his Department a permanent expert group of economists and technologists for the purpose of making a continuous study, not only of price changes, market conditions and economic changes, but also of the technological changes which are taking place both in the use and development of materials and in the use of substitutes, and so on.
  I believe there is some sort of advisory committee of scientists which has, in a dilatory sort of way, been considering this problem during the last two or three years. I think it is one of absolutely first-class priority, but one which, if this country is to survive at all, is also of long-term importance. I hope to see such a group, making a continuous study, established in my right hon. Friend's Department so that we can work out the very best methods not only for the sort of long-term agreement the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) was suggesting, by bulk purchase—
  Mr. J. Grimston: Why bulk?
  Mr. Albu: Very well, a long-term agreement made by the Minister. I will not put it in any other way. After all, I think one hon. Member asked why it is that private industry and private firms cannot be left to themselves to think out and develop their own ideas but the average private firm does no long-term thinking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I very much doubt whether the average private firm in this country does any long-term thinking on these economic problems. It is absolutely essential that there should be, under the control of the Cabinet, a Department and a group of people continuously thinking about these problems and working out methods not only of saving materials but of providing substitute materials —
  Mr. Osborne: Does the hon. Member really think that firms like Lever Brothers, I.C.I., and Dunlop's have no long-term planners or long-term planning departments?
  Mr. Albu: I never know whether or not to quote hon. Members from their own mouths but hardly an industrialist on the other side ever gets up without pointing out that British industry is not represented by Lever Brothers, I.C.I. or Dunlop's. There are, in fact, about 200,000 firms. I have been employed mainly by firms of 500 people and they did no economic thinking at all. I see no reason why the Minister should not take advice from large firms who have the staffs, but I think it is necessary that within the Government there should be a group of people continuously studying these problems on which the whole life of this country is going to depend.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. Odey: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) in his very interesting economic survey, because I want to address myself specifically to the proposal in this Bill that we should have another Minister. I approach this problem first and foremost as a taxpayer. At a time when we are faced with enormous Government expenditure and when both sides of the House are concerned with the unwieldy growth of the bureaucratic machine, it would take a great deal to persuade me that another Ministry is necessary.

  1485
  When I see a picture of the Lord Privy Seal hiving off with 2,000 drones— I am only following up a simile, of course— to establish this new Ministry, and when I hear suggestions made by the hon. Member for Edmonton that the Minister should add to his staff a vast concourse of economic experts to advise him on what raw materials are available and how they should be developed, I begin to wonder whether the remarks in the Financial Memorandum that,
  "… the increase in the total provision which Parliament has been asked to make in the field of raw materials for the current year is not expected to he large."
  will be realised in actual experience.
  It is not only as a taxpayer that I address myself to this problem and I should like to say something with regard to the White Paper and these proposals as they affect leather. I see that in paragraph 8 it is suggested that,
  " The Minister will be responsible for hides and skins, leather and tanning materials."
  I must confess that I have a considerable interest in the subject of leather. I recall that during the war leather came under the Ministry of Supply, and boots and shoes, with which leather is normally intimately associated, or should be, was handled by the Board of Trade. As a result there were very serious administrative inconveniences. Following that, the question of leather was ultimately removed from the Minister of Supply and, as the right hon. Gentleman the former President of the Board of Trade has said, was dealt with for a time by a raw materials department of the Board of Trade.
  We were told by the right hon. Gentleman, who should know, that "prayer meetings" were held every morning— and he knows a great deal about prayers, or he did— to settle inter-Departmental disputes with regard to the allocation of raw materials. As a result the raw materials department in the Board of Trade was in turn dispensed with, and we reached a stage, which I suggest is a very rational and proper stage, where boots and shoes and leather were all dealt with by the same department in the Board of Trade. Now we have this proposal, the result of which would be to reverse the entire arrangement, and leather is to be divorced from boots and shoes. If I may say so, it seems not only a soulless but a very
  1486
  incompetent suggestion, and I cannot believe that it will add to the general efficiency of the industry.
  I see in paragraph 13 of the White Paper:
  "The structure of the jute industry makes it inadvisable to divide the responsibility for raw jute and lute goods as a whole…"
  Therefore, the Minister will be responsible for jute goods generally in addition to raw jute and jute yarn. I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal, if it is inadvisable to divide raw jute from jute goods, why should it be advisable to divide leather from boots and shoes? I hope he will consider this matter again.
  I have considered what other possible reasons could have led to the inclusion of leather in this new Ministry. The Lord Privy Seal will recall that at the beginning of 1950 the leather industry was de-controlled and the procurement of raw materials was handed back to private hands. That arrangement, bearing in mind the rise in prices of all raw commodities, has worked extremely well, and particularly well in the case of leather, because in the last three or four months the price has fallen substantially. Not only that, but the supply position has entirely eased. Leather is one of the materials which has been handed back to private enterprise, where the record is extraordinarily good. If there is a surplus of leather at present, what conceivable reason can there be for including leather or tanning materials in this new Ministry?
  I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the productivity figures for the leather industry which are provided to the Board of Trade by the trade federations. If we take 100 per cent. as the basis for 1946, then by 1950 the figure had risen to 114½2 and for the months of January to April, 1951, it had risen to 116½4. As I have already said, there is no shortage of leather. In fact, there is a surplus for all conceivable requirements, including Service requirements.
  Mr. Stokes: The hon. Gentleman should not be under the delusion that I am taking over only materials which are in short supply. That is not the idea at all. I am taking over the whole range.
  Mr. Odey: Perhaps when he winds up the debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer will indicate what are the reasons for taking over leather. The industry are

  1487
  only too anxious to work whatever arrangements have been made, of course, but the right hon. Gentleman must surely realise that when these reorganisations take place, they lead to great dislocation in the industry. That is one factor which should be borne in mind before these large numbers of civil servants are transferred from one Ministry to another, and before men who, in recent years, have become acquainted with certain industries are suddenly removed from their environment in order that other industries may be placed in their care.
  Those of us who have been engaged in industry during the war and since, and who have been responsible for dealing with the appropriate Government Departments, have all gone through the phase during which we have had to educate civil servants in the details of the industries with which they were endeavouring to deal. Surely this critical moment, when our whole re-armament programme is getting under way, is not a moment to carry out such a major dislocation.
  If the Minister must go forward with this proposal for a new Ministry, I hope he will reconsider his decision about leather and will see whether the affairs of the industry can remain at the Board of Trade, in conjunction with the great boot and shoe industry which it so largely serves.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: I shall take up the time of the House for only a few minutes to mention one or two points which are in the minds of some of my hon. Friends and myself. They concern the division of functions. I shall not pursue the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Odey) into the subject of leather.
  I thought that when the Prime Minister sent my right hon. Friend to America the arrangement was widely welcomed. It was not looked upon in a party way as a step to support a Labour policy. It was accepted that we were in serious difficulties about certain raw materials, and all of us, on whatever side of the House we sat, were most anxious that if anything could be done to avoid dislocation, it should be done.
  We had been pressing the Americans, by correspondence and through other
  1488
  channels, to give us some assistance, and following the visit of the Prime Minister to America it was thought that the appointment of my right hon. Friend to go to America specially to discuss our problems on the spot would be most helpful. I thought that the House and the country welcomed that decision. I must say, in passing, that we are all highly delighted with the success which attended his efforts. We know him to be a vigorous and robust personality and man of business, not a mere theoretician, and not even only a man out of the top drawer, but a man with both vertical and horizontal vision and ability.
  I think that no matter what was done about the setting up of a Department concerned with materials there would have had to have been something arbitrary about it in the nature of the case. Wherever we draw the line, there will be difficulties. As I see the position, my right hon. Friend's new Department will be a procurement Department. My right hon. Friend is to assist industry to obtain materials which are in short supply. He is to act as our liaison in the world's councils where these matters are discussed. In short, he is to do his best in a time of emergency— although, as we have been rightly warned today, this is not a matter to concern us only for a few months but one which is likely to concern us for a number of years.
  I would point out, however, that in the matter of iron and steel there is widespread apprehension in the country. There are certain basic materials which will not come within the purview of my right hon. Friend. Coal is one, and iron and steel are others, and there are one or two other things. He is not proposing to have anything to do with coal or iron and steel. He is not to be responsible for the procurement of certain materials such as manganese ore, ferro-manganese, scrap iron, and so on. I do not know what arrangements are to be made about the allocation of iron and steel, but I do not think it is beyond the scope of the debate to consider the question of iron and steel.
  It is estimated that there will be 10 per cent. less iron and steel available at the end of the year, and that there will be about 20 per cent. less available for civilian use. So I am advised. I understand

  1489
  that there may be a high level of production, but that there are certain difficulties in respect of coke, pig iron, scrap iron, and iron ore, and that these are linked up with shipping difficulties. Manufacturers—notably motor car manufacturers, on whom we depend to a great extent for our exports—are apprehensive as to what is to happen. Industry is not quite satisfied as to what the development is going to be, and upon what the emphasis will be—whether upon sheet metal or other specialised forms of iron and steel required for manufacturing purposes.
  I should have been better satisfied if we could have had this matter placed in the hands of one Ministry. I notice, by the way, that the Minister of Supply is not quite satisfied with the present arrangements so far as his Ministry is concerned. There are difficulties in the procurement of iron ore, and I believe that the Iron and Steel Federation are unwilling to give up their powers. I wonder how this will affect the work of my right hon. Friend's new Department and its responsibilities.
  What is the position to be? Is he to be only our procurement officer? Is he to be responsible for purchasing all of these supplies? I think he said that he was not. There, again, a whole series of difficulties occurs to our minds. Is he to compete in some way for supplies of commodities which are limited in quantity in the world markets? With whom is he to compete? How is this control to be exercised by him?
  I suggest that this problem of iron and steel is not remote from the problem which we are discussing today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has said, it is vital. There is widespread apprehension in the country that this division of functions will not produce the results which we expect.
  When we went into re-armament, we undertook to saddle ourselves with great commitments, financial and economic, so far as productivity was concerned, on the assumption that the supplies would be forthcoming; that there would be a sharing out of the basic supplies among the Allied nations; and I voted for re-armament reluctantly upon that assumption.
  1490
  Unless co-operation is forthcoming between America and the other nations involved in this great re-armament programme, and they are willing to play the game in such a way as not to prejudice our civilian economy to the detriment may be of our social services, of employment in this country and of all the good work for which our people have made sacrifices over the last five or six years. it is not good enough.
  In these circumstances there should be a review of the re-armament programme, with a view to slowing down our undertakings, because it would seem to me to be foolish to overburden ourselves in this way by seeking to re-arm the country and, at the same time, completely to upset the civilian economy and cut the standard of living of the people of this country.
  We are already feeling inflationary effects in this country. All of us when we go to our constituencies see that from day to day. We know that much of it was to be expected, but if someone is obstructing, deliberately and selfishly, and making it more difficult for us to do the work to which we have pledged our hands, I for one, without being a Bevanite or any other kind of "ite," although prepared to defend my country and make sacrifices, am not prepared to sacrifice the people to the great disadvantage of their standard of living, employment and social services if it means that someone else is not playing the game, if, because of their selfishness, things are not working out as we originally hoped they would. I hope that this will be borne in mind as we progress in this matter, and that we shall adjust our programme in the light of these considerations.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Watkinson: I hoped that someone would say a word of welcome for this new Ministry. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would have left the Chamber in disgust if he had taken any note of what has been said to him by hon. Members who have spoken from the benches opposite. No one opposite has welcomed this new Ministry in its present form. At least, we on this side of the House have been entirely consistent, and in all our approaches to the problem we have hammered at one solution which I believe to be the right one.

  1491
  I listened with great pleasure to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), and I think that we all agree with what he said so well about the dangers to our future and to our children's future if we do not solve this problem of securing adequate raw materials to keep our industries going. This is not a party matter; it is a question of trying to find the best possible way to get this country and its industries through the difficult period of shortages in raw materials which we all know lies ahead. It is quite obvious that hon. Members opposite do not think that the solution put before them by their own Government is the right one.
  It is quite obvious that most of us on this side of the House, who have approached this problem by many different and practical channels from the point of view of our own individual industries, think that the right solution would be to appoint the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal as an overall co-ordinator and "troubleshooter," who would be free to go about the world sorting out these difficulties of raw materials, and who would not be burdened with Departmental responsibilities.
  I am a little surprised, personally, that the Lord Privy Seal, who has just come in, and whose long background of business experience I know well—[Interruption.] I quite agree, and if the hon. Member would like it on the record, I will admit that the right hon. Gentleman who has just returned has been absent from the Chamber only about three minutes. I am sure that he deserved that, after sitting long hours through this debate.
  If I may return to my point, I must say very sincerely that I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, whose long experience in the engineering industry I well know, has agreed to lend his talents and knowledge of the way in which business is run to this particular sort of set-up, because the only result will be a kind of political shadowboxing. That is the only job which his Ministry can perform in its present setup.
  Let me suggest, from the purely practical standpoint and the angle of practical application, how I think this new Ministry will work out. If I am wrong, perhaps
  1492
  the Chancellor will correct me. The vital question is whether this new Ministry will assist British industry to get over its difficulties more successfully. Let me take the case of the grinding wheel industry and the abrasive which provides the wheels which, as the Minister of Supply knows, are essential to the production of steel, aircraft engines, motor cars and almost any other manufactured articles made in this country. Let us see how that industry fares in regard to this new Ministry. Will it help or hinder it? Already, the industry is suffering grave difficulties through shortages of various raw materials, particularly phenol, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech.
  The first thing we find in discussing this new set-up is that the purchase of abrasives is to be transferred from the Ministry of Supply, where it has rested quite successfully and happily for a number of years, to the new Ministry. The first thing I should like to ask the Chancellor is whether the civil servants who have spent many years in getting knowledge and expertise in the abrasive industry are to go to the new Ministry? If not, there cannot but be a great fall in the efficiency of the Ministry, unless those civil servants who have an expert knowledge of this very expert industry and of these very difficult raw materials are to be transferred to it. If that is not so, the new Ministry will certainly be hindering instead of helping.
  Mr. Albu: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Is he suggesting that phenol is used in its natural state in the grinding wheels industry?
  Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain himself until I come to that point, when I will answer his question. I am dealing with the raw materials of that particular industry, which are abrasives. The point I am making is that there will be much less efficiency if these expert civil servants are not transferred to the new Ministry, and, even if they are, the whole transaction is completely pointless, because, in the M.2 section of the Ministry of Supply. the purchase and procurement of abrasives has run on perfectly satisfactory lines, although the material itself has always been difficult and scarce and is a dollar raw material. There is no advantage to

  1493
  us as manufacturers of abrasives as a result of this change. The next question is whether it is an advantage to us in cutting down the number of Ministries with which we have to deal, when, in fact. it adds one to the number.
  Let me now answer the question which the hon. Gentleman asked about phenol. The point is that it is an essential component of the resin, synthetic or natural, which is used in certain types of grinding wheels. The position is now quite fantastically complicated, as the new Ministry, which now has control of abrasives, also controls sulphuric acid, which is an essential component in the manufacture of synthetic phenol, which is a by-product of benzol, so that, instead of dealing with four Ministry's we now have to deal with five. As far as I can see, my industry, which I do not think anyone will deny is vital to increased productivity; has had a further load put upon its back. We are perfectly satisfied with the present arrangements; we have grave doubts whether we are likely to be satisfied with these new arrangements.
  I support the plan put forward by my right hon. Friend for having the Lord Privy Seal in the capacity of a co-ordinating Minister. In the manufacture of this type of wheel we shall have to deal now, if this Bill is passed—which I hope it will not be—with the Ministry of Materials, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply. The Ministry of Supply have, for example, over 40 main Departments and something like 250 trade committees associated with it.
  With all this multiplicity of channels, surely the one thing any Government that meant business would have done would have been to appoint a powerful businesslike person to co-ordinate the whole thing, streamline it and see that industry got what it wanted. That would have been the action of any Government that really meant business in this re-armament drive and in the increased productivity which we all want to see. I would only say that, instead of doing that, the Government have created a hydra-headed monster and put great burdens on industry instead of creating an administrative Measure to help industry to do the job which everyone realises must be done. I hope we shall go into the Lobby against this Bill. I think it is a bad Bill and that it sets up a bad and unnecessary Ministry.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. Harold MacmillanThe Lord Privy Seal began his speech this afternoon with a reference to the absence of the President of the Board of Trade. We all regret his absence, and more particularly regret the cause for it. I should like to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the wish that he may make a complete and speedy recovery.
  The Lord Privy Seal went on to use a rather curious phrase. He said that he was able to tell the House that the President of the Board of Trade supported the policy contained in the Bill. I thought this this was not a very felicitous form of words but, on the other hand, having regard to recent events, perhaps it was an assurance which it was just as well to give to the House. This debate is, for many of us, of a nostalgic character, for although the Bill is a machinery Bill and the White Paper refers mainly to the procurement of raw materials, it is, in the widest sense, associated with other related problems.
  We recollect the fierce contests that used to range round the vexed question of priorities during the war and the classic figures in those heroic battles. We remember the gradual disappearance of the cruder methods of priority and the development of a more flexible system of allocation. Mine was only a very humble part in those early but formative stages. For nearly two years, from the spring of 1940 onwards, I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, and I served three chiefs in turn, the present Foreign Secretary, Sir Andrew Duncan and Lord Beaverbrook. That in itself is a unique record.
  I learned a great deal about a very large range of subjects. Many mistakes were made during the early stages. We had to improvise and adapt, and no one is more familiar with those difficult days than is the Lord Privy Seal himself. At that time he was a tireless and formidable critic, yet I think he would admit that the broad structure which has emerged has stood the test not only of war but of post-war pressures.
  Paragraph 17 of the White Paper attempts, but, I am bound to say, in rather obscure language which may be misleading, to give a summary of the general system of allocation. I shall

  1495
  have something to say on that matter later. Any system, however perfect in theory, depends for its success on the personalities who administer it. Members of committees must have confidence in the chairman who presides, in his loyalty and impartiality, his fairness and his common sense—above all, in his common sense. There was a great Scottish Divine who said, "The grace of Almighty God can do muckle, but it cannot give a man common sense." If the Lord Privy Seal had then been entrusted with this work, we should have had a man of common sense.
  We must be careful not to press too far our war recollections. Most of us hoped that by this time we should have advanced to a position where the purchase and procurement of raw materials would have reverted to private hands, except perhaps for transactions involving currency difficulties. It is a mark of the deterioration of our affairs that in spite of the genuine efforts of the Government to keep control of many commodities and to restore free markets, many materials still have to be obtained by direct Government purchase. This policy can only be justified by genuine and over-riding technical difficulties, and it can only be continued or extended for purely doctrinaire reasons.
  I admit that the transfer of responsibility from one Minister to another does not of itself affect this question. I was very glad to hear the Lord Privy Seal give us an assurance that he had no intention of enlarging the scope of public purchase. We ought to remember that we are not yet, thank goodness, in a complete war economy. We have three tasks of equal magnitude to perform: to produce for export, to produce for home civilian use, and to produce for the rearmament programme.
  If the Bill had been framed to make necessary preparations against the danger of war and for the administrative system required in war, I could have understood it. It does such things as the Lord Privy Seal admitted, but I am equally anxious that it shall not help to create machinery which may be used to rivet a restrictive or dangerous system on our normal peace-time economy. That is one of the reasons why I do not like the Bill.
  1496
  What is the real purpose of the Bill? What is its origin and what is the motive behind it? Those are questions which have sprung to everybody's mind during the debate. The Lord Privy Seal has not really answered them or even explained them. If it had been put forward as a further step towards a sound organisation, useful in peace, necessary during re-armament, and easily adapted to the requirements of war, I could have understood it.
  I do not think that Ministers themselves make this claim. At any rate, such was not the view of the former President of the Board of Trade. In that part of his speech which he devoted to the actual Bill—apart from what he called "the background" he made the most terrible indictment of it. He prophesied that it would cause dislocation in the Government's relations with industry. He went on to say that it would lead to chaos, and that has to some extent been supported by other hon. Members. That is a fairly strong term for a man who was lately in charge of just these affairs. From both sides of the House similar criticism has been made by almost every hon. Member who has spoken.
  I could have understood it if a Ministry were set up charged with the control of and the responsibility for all the essential instrument production other than labour; that is to say, all raw materials machine tools and perhaps even industrial capacity. In that case there would have to be all along the line a division of responsibility between procurement and use, with all its difficulties, but there would not have been a division of responsibility between procurement and allocation. There are difficulties about any such division, but that would be an essential part of a true Ministry of Production or Ministry of Raw Materials in its proper sense.
  I could have understood it if it had been decided that a Minister but not a Ministry should take over special duties during this period, a period when, happily, we are not at war and when production for civilian purposes for both home and export are far greater than war production. Such a Minister could have been given two tasks, the first one related to allocation and the other to procurement. I use "procurement" in its largest sense, whether direct purchase or

  1497
  the general supervision of raw materials purchased on private account.
  On allocation, the broad economic decisions would no doubt remain with the Chancellor and the Treasury. It is not quite correct to say, as the White Paper does, that the position which now exists has existed since 1939, because the Treasury did not then have the broad control which the Chancellor of the Ex.- chequer only obtained when, after the collapse of the previous Chancellor, Sir Stafford Cripps took both the economic side and the finance into his own hands. At any rate, it was not so in 1939 or during the war. I am not complaining about this; the Treasury ought to have, in the words used here, the "broadest general control."
  Without disrespect, because I once belonged to that curious tribe of people who are not fish, fowl or anything else and are called "Parliamentary Secretaries," for whom I have a great regard, I believe that the new Minister, and not the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, should preside over any inter-Departmental Committee to implement the broad decisions which might be made for the broadest economic reasons. Of course, the detailed allocation of firms should be made where necessary either by the Departments themselves or by any appropriate machinery that may be set up, which may vary from industry to industry, as was our experience during the war.
  As to procurement, the Minister would only be given the duty of advice, stimulus and general supervision, leaving the actual formal and legal responsibility for any raw materials purchases by the Government to the Departments now concerned, that is, the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade. In that way it would not have been necessary to have a Ministry, a Permanent Secretary, an accounting officer and all the paraphernalia involved. We should thus have had, at any rate at this stage, a Minister but not a Ministry.
  I thought that the Lord Privy Seal almost seemed to prove this point in his own speech when he told us about the work he had done and hoped to do at Washington, when he told us—and very good news it was—about the work he hoped to do to stimulate production throughout the Empire and Common-
  1498
  wealth, when he told us about the work he hoped to do regarding scientific development, economies in use and substitutes—the promotion of work and interest in all those spheres. All this he could quite as well have done as a Minister without the support of a new Ministry, without taking over these immense functions.
  When the right hon. Gentleman came to that part of his speech he spoke far more freely and with far more conviction. It was at the beginning of his speech, when he tried to define the machinery of this Bill that I thought that he was not, considering his great experience, so happy. By either of the methods that I have described a structure could have been set up which would be useful now and which could easily be adapted, if the worst should occur, to the needs of war.
  But this Bill does neither of those things. It really does very little to develop the mechanism of government for the strain which may fall upon it. Nor do I see that it helps much to solve the problem during this twilight period. To be quite frank, I think that it owes its origin much more to the former Minister of Health and the former President of the Board of Trade than to anything or anybody else. If they had not resigned the Lord Privy Seal would still be Minister of Works. If those former Ministers had not declared that the future and prospective shortage of raw materials made nonsense of the whole policy of the Government, the Government would have left the responsibility where it was.
  But the rebel Ministers exposed the weakness and the muddle that the Government had made. After all, they had good reason to know, for one of them was largely responsible. So the Government took refuge in a very old and hackneyed device—when in doubt, when under pressure, when in a jam, especially from the back benches, have a new Ministry. In 1945, if I remember aright, the party opposite wooed the electorate by the promise of a Ministry of Housing. It is true that they did not redeem the promise nor have they built the houses, but I do not think it has been the lack of the special Ministry which has been the trouble.
  In a word, I do not think that this Bill represents a well-considered and carefully

  1499
  prepared plan, marking a new point in the orderly development of the machinery of government. It is not, if I might use the expression, the answer of grave consuls and senators to a national problem. It is the reply, perhaps, to the dangerous machinations of the Tribune of the people.
  The House listened with deep interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), whom I am sorry is not in his place. Apart from his severe criticisms of the Bill, he devoted most of his speech to what he called the background, and it is into that territory that I ask the permission of the House for a few moments to follow him. We here, and I think the country generally, still find it rather difficult to discover the real facts about the raw materials problem. There is certainly a great conflict of evidence.
  Some maintain that there is no serious shortage of raw materials and that the rearmament programme can be carried out with no real difficulty. Others, like the right hon. Gentleman, assert that the programme is not physically practicable with the materials available. Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman's resignation speech. Others tell us that everything was all right before Korea. It appears that Korea is a sort of popular "get-out" nowadays. It is used to cover a multitude of sins.
  I remember when I was a young officer those periodic checks on stores and equipment which were so awkward and sometimes, to us, so expensive. But, of course, on active service the lost blankets, the missing bicycles and the disappearance of tents and the like were all covered by the comprehensive and unanswerable formula, "destroyed by shell fire." So it is with Korea. I do not know what the Government would do without it; it is a sort of blessed word like "Mesopotamia" was to our forebears. In any event this is now the popular method of Government alibi, "Please teacher it was not me; it was the other boy." Sometimes it is, "That Russian boy, who is such a bully," and sometimes it is "That American boy, whose parents are so rich."
  It never occurs to them to look closer home and blame their own lack of foresight. But the perplexing thing about the
  1500
  Korean excuse is that it is not borne out by the facts. The stockpiling activities of the United States have, in fact diminished since Korea as was proved by several speakers from this side of the House and by some hon. Members opposite. Tin, lead and wool purchases have been either largely discontinued, or reduced and purchases of copper and zinc have been spread over a longer period. It is true that in terms of money American stockpiling expenditure in the second half of 1950 was at the same rate as in the previous 18 months. But it is evident that when allowance is made for the great rise in prices the quantities are substantially less.
  Can it then be that it is not all the fault of the Americans after all? Such a conclusion would be very dreadful. Some hon. Members opposite could scarcely bear it. Can it be that even after Korea had it not been for the usual dilatoriness of the Governmental machine as it now operates all would have been well? After all, the Americans do not control all the material in the world. Quite a sizable amount is in the sterling area in general and the British Commonwealth in particular. Can it be that in spite of repeated warnings from the right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House—I remember particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) and more respectable hon. Members who might have been trusted in respect of all this—I mean hon. Members free of party prejudice—the Government have shown in spite of warnings the same complacency as they have shown over other major crises in the last six years?
  Or is it perhaps in the pre-Korean period and not in the post-Korean period that we should look for an explanation? It is one of the weaknesses of bulk buying in time of peace, unsupported by the sweet and simple sanction of the navicert that if the main and governing principle proves to be wrong the effects are disastrous in every field of policy. Undoubtedly, 18 months or so ago the Government had a big gamble. They gambled on falling prices and they have been badly stung, as so many people have been in our financial history. They backed a horse called "Recession" and, as with many other sportsmen, their fancy let them down.

  1501
  I think this is clear from an unusually very frank broadcast made by the Foreign Secretary last October. He lifted the veil a little and made this statement with all the injured innocence of the disappointed punter:
  " At the beginning of the summer "—that is the summer of 1950—
  " it looked as if there was going to he an easing of prices."
  That was the reason why they held out of the market for so long. They waited and waited for the fall in prices. That is why they got no meat from the Argentine and no newsprint or zinc from Canada; they were waiting for the prices to fall. And so all dollar purchases were frowned upon and all dollar sales were encouraged, no matter how vital to our economy these materials might be. Therefore, the stocks of materials were run down and the stocks of gold and dollars were accumulated.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman puts all the blame on bulk purchase, will he explain why it is that stocks of raw wool and other commodities bought by private purchase, which had been on private purchase for several years, declined almost more than any other raw materials bought in this country?
  Mr. Macmillan: Because, of course, the Government do not allow them to buy without their permission and licence.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many licences have been applied for or issued in the case of raw wool in 1950, or will he admit it was completely free from licence?
  Mr. Macmillan: I quite agree, but I am saying that over the whole field the whole effort of the Government was to persuade people not to buy. The whole machinery of the Government was used for that purpose. The disadvantage—and I am not putting it at more than disadvantage—of this system is that, if you have a number of private estimates, some of them may be wrong, but some may be right; but, if you have one single view pressed by the Government, if that should be wrong you are wrong over a much wider field.
  I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Huyton has returned. I have something further I should like to say about his speech. The Ministers primarily concerned are now telling us
  1502
  quite a different story from the one they told us up to a few months ago. It is true that the difference is that they are now out of office, but I have always regarded them as very truthful men. Sometimes I think that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) suffers from an excess of imagination, but the former President of the Board of Trade follows a more prudent course. He is a statistician; he is even—if the term is not too painful—an economist.
  I will say frankly that I did not much like the tone—nor did the House like the tone—of his words about the peoples, policies and administration of the United States. I agree with him about one thing. I think we have a fine British Ambassador in the United States, and I resent as much as he did the recent attack upon Sir Oliver Franks in the "Daily Express." I cannot imagine why he should be so objectionable in that quarter, for after all, he is not even an old Etonian.
  This is not the occasion, nor is it my duty, to reply in detail to the right hon. Gentleman's charges. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest at once, because, like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I am born of an American mother. Perhaps I may also say this. The Americans have been good comrades and partners to us in war, and, since the war, they have shown to Britain, to Europe and even to the whole world a generosity absolutely unexampled in the history of the world. I think we should do far better to try to work, with good understanding and frankness as partners should do, but not with those words, like "whining" and "bleating" and all the expressions the right hon. Gentleman used. If that is the way in which he tried to negotiate with the United States, I can quite understand the position.
  I must now turn from the background, and the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Bill, to the Bill itself. All that the Bill really does is to remove from the present Minister of Supply certain functions which he has failed, no doubt due to other occupations, adequately to perform, and to hand them over to the Lord Privy Seal. It truncates the Minister of Supply; or at least it amputates important parts of his ministerial body. It sets up another Ministry of Supply, to perform some, but not all, of the functions in this sphere which at present belong

  1503
  to the Ministry of Supply and to the Board of Trade. That is what the Bill does.
  It can be argued that both these Ministries, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply, are overworked and overloaded. But what is that due to? It is due to the Government's itch for interference with all industry, and, above all, to the crazy decision to proceed with the nationalisation of iron and steel. I am ready to admit that the Lord Privy Seal is a more sensible man than the Minister of Supply. They are both great capitalist magnates, but I really think that the Lord Privy Seal knows more about industry, and if he had been made Minister of Supply we should have been very glad; or if a much more radical re-arrangement, such as I have tried to describe, of Governmental functions and structure had been proposed, upon a sound and lasting basis, we should have been ready to consider it with sympathy.
  There are many suggestions which could be made, some of which might involve new Ministries, but also involve the suppression or amalgamation of others. But this, like all the plans of the planning party opposite, is not really a plan at all. It is just a hastily botched up device. It has the fatal flaw of meeting an emergency situation, which may pass, by the creation of a new and permanent Ministry, with all the paraphernalia of Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, Private Secretary, Permanent Secretary, and all the rest. I should not be surprised if we got a second Parliamentary Secretary soon, or even, as the fashion is today, a Minister of State.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman was once in the fashion as Minister of State.
  Mr. Macmillan: I have never been a Minister of State—never. The right hon. Gentleman assured us that there would only be an increase of staff of 100 or so as a result of this change. At least he was frank enough not to follow the usual procedure on these occasions, when it is claimed that the creation of a new Ministry will lead to a substantial reduction of staff. But if he puts it at 100—and we have had some experience of this over the last 10 years—I make a bet with
  1504
  him that within a short time it will be three or four times that number.
  Mr. Stokes: I will take the bet.
  Mr. Macmillan: All this will not, in my belief, facilitate, but will rather hinder business. It will create a new set of Departmental jealousies and inhibitions. It will give fresh opportunities for what Mr. Robert Sherwood called, in his admirable book on President Roosevelt's papers, "the bureaucrat's occupational disease—jurisdictional jealousy." In many cases, where responsibility is divided—and examples have been given today from all sides of the House—this will not help to clear the course for the unhappy industrialist. It will merely put up another fence.
  I invite hon. Members to read paragraph 6 or paragraph 11, to both of which the former President of the Board of Trade called our attention. Take the case of cotton and wool, two materials which play a fairly important part in our economy. Here the responsibility will be divided. The White Paper says:
  "The Minister and the Board of Trade will exercise their particular functions "—
  in regard to these materials—
  " in close co-operation with each other."
  That phrase has a very familiar, almost ominous ring.
  What it really means is, for the officials more inter-Departmental committees, and for the industrialist more hours of weary trudging from Department to Department, more correspondence pushed backwards. and forwards, more disappointments, more delays. The Lord Privy Seal told us that the Federation of British Industries and other similar organisations had been consulted as to this project. I am sure he did not wish to mislead the House, but "consult" is a rather ambiguous phrase.
  It is my understanding that these bodies were informed of the Government's firm decision to set up this Ministry in this form. What they were consulted about was not whether they approved the project, but as to the detailed arrangements which might be made if the project materialised. In other words, it was like doing what used to be done in the Middle Ages. When a great State personality was condemned to death, he was consulted as to whether he preferred the axe or the silken rope.

  1505
  Ministers having got into this jam because of their own folly had two courses open to them. The first and simplest would have been to dismiss the other Minister chiefly at fault. One had already conveniently gone. But then, think what might have happened. It was widely rumoured that the loyalty of the Minister of Supply was not altogether to be trusted. He had no doubt been screened from time to time by Transport House, but the result was, to say the least, uncertain.
  When his Parliamentary Secretary deserted, it was thought that only the Minister of Supply's greater caution had saved him from that plunge into the icy water into which the President of the Board of Trade—a more simple character, it would appear—had been so firmly and so fatally propelled. Nobody yet knows quite how it happened. Was it suicide or was it murder? Not until the book is open and the letters are published shall we ever know.
  It was impossible to remove the Minister of Supply for political reasons. Therefore, the only thing to do was to carve him up, and this Bill is the result. Accepting, therefore, the dogma of the immutability of the Minister of Supply, it might still have been possible to follow another course. The Lord Privy Seal might have been given, without a Ministry, but with a small and expert staff, the general task of supervision over the whole field of raw materials. In that event, the formal and legal authority would have remained with the present Ministers and Ministries.
  But the Lord Privy Seal could have played a role which has often been played with conspicuous success by a senior Minister, charged with general functions, presiding over a team of Ministers specially concerned, and free from detailed responsibilities; able to go abroad and to stay abroad as long as is necessary for these negotiations. For all this we know that the Lord Privy Seal has great qualifications. He is sensible, genial and energetic. If it were possible to imagine the Minister of Supply being jollied along by anybody, the Lord Privy Seal is the man to do it.
  The Government have followed neither of these courses. They have chosen a compromise which can only lead to more, and not less, confusion. The degree of this confusion has been well
  1506
  illustrated by speeches not only from the Conservative benches, but from the Labour benches and, indeed, from all sides of the House. The Lord Privy Seal has done his best to defend it in a thoroughly sportsmanlike way which we would have expected of him, but I do not think he is very happy about this organisation. A Minister, yes; a Ministry, no.
  The country is not really looking for new Ministries. It is looking for a completely new team of Ministers. Meanwhile, we are forced to the conclusion, that this is a plan, as, indeed, was indicated by many hon. Members, including some who have lately held high office. hastily conceived and ill-contrived to cover up the administrative failure of the Government and to meet a purely political emergency.
  9.45 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Mr. Gaitskell): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) described this Bill as. raising no party issue, and I listened throughout the debate hoping I should hear from at least one hon. Member on the benches opposite what might be described as a reasonably objective speech. Alas, there was no such thing and the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) were, true to his usual form, partisan in the extreme. I have no objection to having a party debate but let us not disguise it. Let us at least admit it is a party issue and we will fight it out.
  This Bill is a necessary and valuable. one. It is made necessary by recent economic developments, particularly in the international field. The questions that arise when we consider this matter can be divided into three. First, is it desirable that some one Minister should, in present circumstances, have special responsibilities in respect of raw materials? Secondly, if so, should he be a coordinator—the favourite word of the Opposition, the word they have now selected—[An HON. MEMBER: "Supervisor."]—I beg pardon, "supervisor" was the word the right hon. Member for Bromley composed—or should he be a, Minister with direct executive responsibility?

  1507
  One can put this more clearly perhaps by asking, should he, in carrying out those responsibilities, have to deal through other Ministers alone with no officials directly responsible to him in respect of materials, or should he have officials directly responsible to carry out his orders? The third question, if the answer to the second one is "Yes"—as we believe it is—is this: are the precise arrangements in the Bill the right ones?
  As far as the first question is concerned, there is apparently no great division of opinion in the House. Certainly we all agree that at present the supply of raw materials and their prices are, between them, really the two most vital problems on the economic side with which the Government have to deal. In the one case, so far as supplies are concerned, we all know that the productivity of our industries in large part depends on our success in acquiring sufficient supplies of imported materials, and so far as price goes there is certainly nothing more important to our balance of payments problem than what we have to pay for our imports at the moment. I think we all know how very grave the situation is as a result of the extremely sharp rise in the prices of these imported materials.
  How has this situation emerged? I must confess I do not think the Opposition's attempts to explain this solely in terms of some deficiency on the part of the Government are in the least bit convincing. Of course, it is quite true that devaluation had an initial impact on the prices of our imports. We never for one moment said it would not do that. But it is equally clear that by the middle of 1950, so far as our import prices were concerned, the effect of devaluation had been worked out.
  There is a very simple and, to my mind, absolutely convincing argument on that. It is that since June, 1950, the movement of prices in the United States and in the United Kingdom has been almost exactly parallel. It is quite inconceivable that prices in the United States would have gone up as a result of devaluation here. The plain fact, of course, is that, while devaluation had an initial impact, it was as a matter of fact, even before Korea, caught up by the rapid expansion in the United States demand, in United States money incomes.
  1508
  The United States of America suffered in the course of 1949 a slight industrial depression. It was that depression which I think most of us would say precipitated the devaluation crisis here, and as recovery took place in the United States, of course the demand for raw materials began to rise, too, and their prices went up. But all this, of course, has had a tremendous impetus from Korea, since June, 1950. When the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps one is wrong even to begin to take him seriously—speaks as though Korea were just an alibi and had no influence at all, I can only say that it is time he paid a visit to the United States and saw just what the consequences of Korea have been in that country, and through that country, of course, on the commodity markets of the world.
  The right hon. Gentleman tried to make play with the responsibility of the Government in not being able to purchase in the course of 1950 the materials that we would have liked. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) very properly at once challenged him on wool which, of course, is a commodity imported on private account on open general licence, and in fact the stocks of wool have fallen a good deal further than most. Here are the figures for a wide range. Valued at the prices ruling at the end of 1950, there was a fall during 1950 in the value of stocks of materials in this country of some £97 million. Of this £97 million, £70 million were stocks in the hands of and imported by private traders. Of that £70 million, no less than £56 million were imported from non-dollar areas—that is to say, without the restrictions imposed on dollar account.
  It is, of course, a plain fact which it is time hon. Members opposite recognised, as the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) long ago admitted in this House, that private enterprise on the whole was expecting a fall in prices at the end of 1949 and did not import on the necessary scale in 1950.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be fair, which I find it difficult to believe, would he point out at the same time that those materials were being sold for dollars at the Government's request, and the Prime Minis-

  1509
  ter was asking private enterprise not to buy stocks of raw materials?
  Mr. Gaitskell: That is quite untrue as far as the non-dollar materials are concerned. We were inviting the United States to buy rubber at that time in order to increase their stockpile and help us out.
  Let me quote— my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary quoted it the other day, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten it— what the right hon. Member for Aldershot said, not in 1949, not early in 1950 but on 16th November, 1950, in this House:
  " The purpose of my argument is to try to show that, until we can calculate the effect of a rise in prices of raw materials, we should be slow to rush into very much relaxation of dollar purchases."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1925.]
  That was, in fact, a perfectly honest statement that he was making at that time— that we ought to be very careful about spending any more dollars. It really will not do for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to start accusing us of doing in effect what their own deputy Deputy-Leader was recommending to us.
  This situation which grew up after Korea was, of course, bound to give rise to a good deal of concern in many parts of the world, and in the autumn of 1950 the O.E.E.C.— the 17 nations of Europe which it comprises— had more than one meeting on this, and great anxiety was there expressed because their economies were being affected just as much as ours and just as much as that of the United States. This was followed by the Prime Minister's visit to President Truman, and it was as a direct result of that visit—I do not believe it would have happened otherwise— that the International Materials Conference was set up.
  All this background has created a situation in which materials, both as regards supplies and prices, have become a far more burning and urgent problem to the British economy. That being so, I may say we had begun to consider, well before the Budget period, the question of organisation here at home and we had done so for two reasons. In the first place, as my right hon. Friend pointed out in his speech, it was becoming increasingly clear that if Great
  1510
  Britain was to pull her weight effectively at the International Materials Conference in Washington and in the various commodity committees there, if she was to be able to press her own point of view and play her full part there with the Commonwealth countries, it was important that those who represented her on the various committees, who were necessarily Government officials assisted occasionally, whenever necessary, by industrial advisers, should be responsible to one Minister here; and that was one of the main reasons for making the change. It was essential that we should have a co-ordinated— and I grant the word here, at this stage policy in Washington, that we should be able to look at the problem as a whole and ensure that responsibility was pinned down on one Minister in that respect.
  Secondly, it was undoubtedly the fact that, as a result of the re-armament programme, the Ministry of Supply, which is already a very large Ministry— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— responsible for the whole of the engineering industry —and it is no good hon. Members opposite arguing that it is too large and at the same time complaining when we take duties away from it. The Ministry of Supply, which is already large, with a very heavy responsibility, had imposed upon it, with the general assent of the House, the important duty of carrying out by far the greater part of the re-armament programme.
  In those circumstances one has to take a sensible view about just how large a Department should be, and it became very desirable that we should relieve the Ministry of some of its burdens. Thus, the two things worked together. It would have been possible to have taken all the raw materials problems and handed them over to the Board of Trade and to have made the President of the Board of Trade responsible for all raw materials, but I think the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton will not disagree with me when I say that that would have made the Board of Trade a wholly disproportionately large Department. Again, it is already a fairly large Department, and that would not have been a satisfactory solution.
  Those were the reasons, therefore— the need to make a single person responsible

  1511
  for handling policy in Washington; the need to ensure that those who represented us at Washington would be responsible to one Minister; and the need to get the concentrated attention of senior officials and of all officials on this vitally important problem. It was all those needs which led us to the conclusion that there must be a new Minister concerned with this task, and solely concerned with this task.
  I turn to the next question— was it really necessary to set up a Ministry of Materials? Would it not have been possible, as the Opposition claim, to have appointed a co-ordinating Minister? Let us consider for a moment what is involved in the appointment of a coordinating Minister. As I said earlier, it means, of course, that he has no power, not even direct access to the officials of the other Ministries who are actually doing the job, who are carrying out the necessary decisions to obtain raw materials. It means simply that he is in charge of the Ministers concerned but cut off completely from the executive action.
  I would say myself that there is a case for co-ordination in that sense when a problem arises of settling arguments, differences of opinion, disputes, demarcation problems, dangers of over-lapping or anything of that sort. There is then a strong case for a co-ordinating Minister. He does not then have to deal with the people concerned with executive action. The problems come up to him and he acts in a semi-judicial capacity in settling those problems.
  But can we really suppose that if my right hon. Friend had been simply a coordinating Minister we should have got an effectively directed policy in Washington— with the officials being not responsible to him, of course, but responsible to the other Ministers concerned? Can we really suppose that this division of responsibility would have made for a more efficient administration? Can we really imagine, supposing that my right hon. Friend had come to the conclusion that he ought to make some urgent purchases, that it would have been easier for him if he had had to work through other Ministers— first calling a Ministerial conference? Does that sound like a swift and efficient way?
  1512
  I can imagine nothing more confusing and nothing more weakening in trying to get effective action. I must tell the House frankly that if I had been asked by my right hon. Friend, he having been offered the job on those terms, whether he should accept it, I should have told him that I should have refused it on those terms. If one is to be responsible for procuring raw materials, then one must have officers under one who are going to do the job, and they must be responsible to one. There is really not the slightest doubt about that.
  I have no doubt whatever that if the right hon. Member for Aldershot, whose illness we all regret, had been here, he would have confirmed that he would not have been Minister of Production, responsible for machine tools, without having the Machine Tool Control directly under the Ministry of Production. Of course he would not; and that is, of course, an exactly parallel case. Moreover, I do not think that even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) would really suppose that the appointment of the late Lord Caldecote as Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, as I think he was called, appointed in 1938 or 1939 and continuing for a year after the war began, was a really conspicuously encouraging example of a co-ordinating Minister.
  At this point let me say a few words about the question of allocations, on which, I think there is still some confusion. The right hon. Member for Bromley, of course, knows the history of this. He was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, and he recalls the war period and the Materials Allocations Committee, which was set up in 1939. It is a Committee of officials with a Ministerial chairman— with a junior Minister, though not always a junior Minister, as chairman. I think I am right in saying that Colonel Llewellin, now Lord Llewellin, was the first Chairman, and I think that the late Lord Portal was the second Chairman; and there have been other Chairmen. I was Chairman myself for a time when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power.
  It is, of course, a body concerned with a very specialised job— allocating the supply of scarce materials between the different Departments. Sometimes, of

  1513
  course, it also embraces the allocation of those materials between different uses; but that is just a question of doing a little more work than that of simply dividing materials between Departments. This is quite a separate affair from the job of procurement, and, indeed, during the war, when responsibility for procuring rested with the raw materials department of the Ministry of Supply, the right hon. Gentleman will recall, he was never Chairman of the Raw Materials Committee, not because of any personal defect—
  Mr. H. Macmillan: Lord Llewellin was.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The point is that he was never at once Minister and Chairman of the Raw Materials Committee.
  Mr. Macmillan: He was.
  Mr. Gaitskell: No.
  Mr. Macmillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? This is a matter of history. Colonel Llewellin— Lord Llewellin now— held the position as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. He did the work so well that when he went to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, by general agreement, he continued to do it. At a later date Lord Portal took over the work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I thought he was Minister of Works?
  Mr. Macmillan: Later.
  Mr. Gaitskell: At any rate, there is certainly not necessarily a tie-up between a procurement Department and the chairmanship of this Allocations Committee, and, as a matter of fact, I think myself that what is far more important— and here, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman made the same point— is probably the personality of the Chairman, and not his particular Departmental position. That is the important thing.
  I would add just this. What he has to know in acting as chairman of that committee, what he has to be in very close touch with, is the Government's general economic policy, and I therefore suggest that, since the Treasury happens at the moment to have the task of economic co-ordination in the general sense— as the right hon. Gentleman says, since 1947— it is particularly appropriate
  1514
  that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—who I think the House will agree has got precisely the qualities which make for a good Chairman of this Committee— should be Chairman in the present circumstances.
  This is not a matter of any great importance; but it is, however, essential to distinguish between the two functions. My right hon. Friend's job is to get the materials, the procurement. The job of allocating them between different users is a judicial one of a rather different character. Perhaps I should add, in case hon. Members are confused, that my hon. Friend's task of deciding the allocations between Departments is again distinct from the job of distributing or granting the licences to the various firms. That is done, in practically every case, by the sponsoring Departments for the various firms concerned.
  All that will continue as it is; there is no change there: there is no change in the allocation arrangements. The only difference is that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal takes over the responsibility for procurement, and in that capacity, through his officials, plays a part in advising the Chairman of the Materials Committee. The plain fact, therefore, is that the case for a Ministry as compared with a Minister, a coordinating Minister, is really an overwhelmingly strong one. If we want to put somebody in charge of the job we must give him the tools to do the job, because without them he will not be able to do it.
  I may say that I have just been informed— and here I must correct the right hon. Gentleman— that Lord Portal became Chairman of the Materials Committee when he was appointed Minister of Works; that is to say, after he ceased to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply.
  Mr. Macmillan indicated dissent.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think my advisers would have made a mistake about that.
  The third question was whether the division of functions and responsibilities between my right hon. Friend, the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade was the correct one. I should just like to say a few things about that. First of all, the plan in this Bill is, of course,

  1515
  a flexible one, and we can very easily change the dividing line if from experience we find that is necessary. Secondly, I suggest that the division that we have made has been purely practical in character, and there has been no special dogma or doctrine or theory about it. We have simply left the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Supply materials where there would be no particular advantage in moving them to my right hon. Friend. Here again, during the war not all the materials were with the Ministry of Supply. Some were with the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and I fancy a few were even with the Board of Trade at that stage as well.
  Most of the commodities we have been concerned with this afternoon, do not, I think, cause any difficulty. Indeed, nobody has really disputed the desirability of the Timber Control, of rubber and of paper going over to my right hon. Friend. So far as textiles are concerned, he is responsible simply for procurement; everything else remains with the Board of Trade. As for the chemical industry, on which there were a number of speeches, all I can say is that the arrangements there met with the satisfaction of the trade association, which was consulted on what was proposed.
  I should say a few words, if I may, on the steel arrangements, because a number of hon. Members have referred to that matter. The arrangements are set out in the White Paper. The reason why, first of all, the steel industry as a whole is not moved to my right hon. Friend is, as he said, for the simple reason that he has certainly quite enough on his plate already, and that, in view of its intimate relationship with the engineering industry, it is far more appropriate to leave it with the Ministry of Supply.
  But here there do arise certain problems. The raw materials, the iron ore, scrap and manganese are, in fact, bought centrally by the industry—by the Federation, as a matter of fact—and it would obviously be silly to take those out. They are left with it. So far as molybdenum, tungsten and vanadium are concerned, all that my right hon. Friend is responsible for is the import of ores or concentrates. The metal, when the ores have been smelted here, is still in the hands of the Minister of Supply. There is no question
  1516
  of carving up the steel industry. All that happens is that we have given to my right hon. Friend this responsibility because in fact these essential raw materials are among those which are being discussed in Washington; they are in short supply, and it is extremely important that he should be responsible for them, as he is for the other major materials, in Washington.
  I do not say, however, that we can make a change of this kind to the satisfaction of everybody, nor would I say there are not some disadvantages. That is perfectly true. It is obviously a little inconvenient for the woollen or cotton industry not to be able to deal solely with the Board of Trade. I agree with that; but we have to balance these things against the over-riding importance of securing these raw materials and of establishing an international system of distribution and, if possible, a system by which prices will be held down.
  Mr. Odey: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is proposed to transfer leather and hides and skins from the control of the Board of Trade to this new Ministry, having regard to the close relationship between leather and boots and shoes?
  Mr. Gaitskell: Because, of course, the hides and skins are imported and are among those materials which are very scarce and upon which the price has gone up very considerably and which we therefore consider should go to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Odey: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in this instance there is no shortage?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I recognise that we could go on arguing about this. It is not easy to draw these lines. What we have tried to do in every case is, except where with the general consent of the industry it has been desirable to move a little further into the manufacturing stage—
  Mr. Odey: In this instance there was no consultation with the industry.
  Mr. Gaitskell: — to limit my right hon. Friend's responsibility to the procurement of raw materials only, but there is always an argument to be stated as to exactly where one draws a line. I would not deny that for a moment.

  1517
  I do again remind the House that I think that if we take into account the fact that the officials are being transferred— and I think that it was the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) who asked for an assurance on this point— there is really a great deal of exaggeration about the alleged dislocation and serious consequences to industry. There may be a certain amount of rough edges and friction to start with, but I do not believe this will last for long.
  The outlook, so far as raw materials are concerned, is, I think, rather better today than it was a few weeks ago. But it is certainly still extremely serious. The problem remains, so far as the physical side is concerned, of the greatest urgency and importance to British industry. If we cannot get these raw materials, we cannot hope to get our economy on such a level of output that it will give us the output for exports, for the defence programme and for the maintenance of reasonable civilian standards at home.
  At the same time, so far as prices go, we must again emphasise the vital importance to our economy of getting some stability in this matter. There have been as my right hon. Friend said, some encouraging signs here, too. It is interest
  ing that in the United States Dow-Jones commodity index there has been a fall of nearly 10 per cent. in the general index. There has, of course, been a much sharper fall in wool, rubber and tin.
  We do not, of course, want to run into a slump, and we do not want to get back to the frequently far too low levels of raw material prices that we had before the war, which would have very serious consequences in the Colonies and in other parts of the world: but we do want to introduce a reasonable stability and to take hold of this most dangerous influence upon our economy at the source, with the help of our American friends, and I am quite sure that this Bill, which enables us to set up a much more satisfactory machine at this end, will make a vital contribution to acquiring these raw materials and to price stabilisation generally.
  I commend the Bill to the House, and I wish my right hon. Friend all possible success in his new enterprise.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 296 Noes, 277.

  Division No. 152.}

  AYES

  110.17 p.m

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Adams, Richard

  Champion, A. J.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Albu, A. H.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Evans, Abert (Islington, S.W.)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Clunie, J.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Coldrick, W.

  Ewarl, R.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Collick, P.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Collindridge, F

  Field, Capt. W. J

  Ayles, W. H.

  Cook, T. F.

  Finch, H. J.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E)

  Baird, J.

  Cooper, John (Deptford)

  Follick, M.

  Balfour, A.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)

  Foot, M. M.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Cove, W. G.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Bartley, P.

  Crawley, A.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Crosland, C. A R

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)]

  Benson, G.

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Gaitskell, fit. Hon. H. T. N

  Beswick, F.

  Cullen, Mrs. A

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Bevan, Rt. Han. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Daines, P.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Gilzean, A.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Glanville, James (Consett)

  Blylon, W. R.

  Davies, A. Edward (stoke, N)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Boardman, H.

  Davies Harold (Leek)

  Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

  Booth, A.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Grey, C. F.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Deer, G.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Delargy, H. J

  Griffiths, W. (Manchester Exchange)

  Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

  Diamond, J.

  Grimond, J.

  Broughton, Or. A. D. D.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Donnelly, D.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

  Burke, W. A.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Burton, Miss E.

  Dye, S.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Edelman, M.

  Hamilton, W. W

  Carmichael, J.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Hannan. W

  Hardman, D. R

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Snow, J. W

  Hardy, E. A.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hargreaves, A

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Hastings, S

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. G

  Sparks, J. A

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mayhew, C. P

  Steele, T.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

  Mellish, R. J

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Messer, F.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Holman, P.

  Mikardo, lan.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Stross, Dr. Banett

  Houghton, D.

  Moeran, E. W.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

  Hoy, J.

  Monslow, W.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Hubbard, T.

  Moody, A. S.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Morley, R.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Moyle, A.

  Thomas, lvor Owen (Wrekin)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  lrvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Murray, J. D.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  lrving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Nally, W.

  Timmons, J.

  lsaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Tomney, F.

  Janner, B.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Usborne, H.

  Jeger, Or. Santo (St. Panoras, S.)

  Orbach, M.

  Vernon, W. F

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Padley, W. E.

  Viant, S. P.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Paget, R. T.

  Wallace, H.W.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Deame Valley)

  Watkins, T.E

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Webb, Rt, Hon M.(Bradford,C.)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Pannell, T. C.

  Weitzman, D.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Pargrter, G. A.

  Wells, Percy(Faversham)

  Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

  Parker, J.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Keenan, W.

  Paton, J.

  West, D. G.

  Kenyon, C.

  Pearson, A.

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

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Peart, T. F.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Porter, G.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Kinghorn, Sqn. Ur. E

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Kinley, J.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Wigg, G.

  Kirkwood, fit. Hon. D

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

  Lang, Gordon

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wilkes, L.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Wilkins, W A.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Rankin, J.

  Wiley, Frederick (Sunderland)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Rees, Mrs. D.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)

  Reeves, J.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Williams, 'Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Logan, D. G.

  Rhodes, H.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)

  Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

  Richards, R.

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

  McAllister, G.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Winterbottom, lan (Nottingham, C.)

  Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Wise, F. J.

  McGovern. J.

  Ross, William

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

  Mclnnes, J.

  Royle, C.

  Woods, Rev G. S

  Mack, J. D.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Yates, V. F.

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

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Younger, Rt. Hon K

  McLeavy, F.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western lsles)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Simmons, C. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Slater, J.

  Mr. Popplewell and

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield E.)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  B rsh, Nigel

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Black, C. W.

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

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

  Channon, H.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bossom, A. C.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Astor, Hon. M. L.

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.

  Clyde, J. L.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Braine, B. R.

  Cooper, Son. Ldr. Albert (llford, S.)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)

  Banks, Col. C.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Crockshank, Capt. Rt, Hon. H. F O

  Bell, R M.

  Buchan-Hepbum, P. G. T.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E E

  Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Burden, F. A.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruistip—Northwood)

  Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

  Butcher, H. W

  Cundiff, F W

  Duthbert, W N.

  Kaberry, D.

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh. S)

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Redmayne, M.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

  Remnant, Hon. P

  Davies, Nigel (Epping)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Ronton, D. L. M.

  de Chair, Somerset

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)

  De la Bére, R.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Dormer, P. W.

  Lennox-Goyd, A. T.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Lindsay, Martin

  Russell, R. S.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Linstead, H. N

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Dugdate, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

  Llewellyn, D.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Dancan, Capt. J. A. L

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. G. (King's Norton)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Scott, Donald

  Eccles, D. M.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Shepherd, William

  Elliot, Rt. Hon W E.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Errol, F. J.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Fort, R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Soames Capt. C

  Foster, John

  McAdden, S. J.

  Spearman, A. C, M.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Fraser, Sir l. (Moreoambe & Lonsdale)

  Macdonakt, Sir Peter (l. of Wight)

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)

  Gage, C. H.

  McKibbin, A.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Maclay, Hon. John

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Garner-.Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

  MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)

  Storey, S.

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Gomme-Dunean, Col. A.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.

  Studholme, H. G

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Summers, G. S.

  Grimston, Robert (Westburv)

  Marlowe, A. A. H

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Marples, A. E.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Teeling, W.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Teevan, T. L.

  Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

  Maude, Angus (Ealing, S)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.)

  Maude, John (Exeter)

  Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Maudling, R.

  Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Hay, John

  Medlicott, Brig, F.

  Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Mellor, Sir John

  Thoronton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Head lam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hn. Sir Cuthbert

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.

  Heald, Lionel

  Monokton, Sir Walter

  Tilney, John

  Henderson, John (Catheart)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Touche, G. C.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Turton, R. H.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S (Cirencester)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawa)

  Moll-Radelyfle, C. E

  Vane, W.M.F.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Hollis, M. G.

  Nicholson, G.

  Vesper, D. F.

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Nugent. G. R H.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)

  Hope, Lord John

  Nutting, Anthony

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Hopkinson Hendry

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Walker-Smith

  Homsby-Smith, Miss P.

  Odey, G. W.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Henryborugh, Rt. Hon. Florence,

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Orrmby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon.C

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Watkinson, H.

  Hudson, Sir Austin {Lewisham, N.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles lan (Henden, N,)

  Webbe, Sir H. (London)

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)

  Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

  Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)

  Hurbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

  Osborne, C.

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Williams, Charles (Torquay)

  Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N.J.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbrige)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)

  Hutchinson, Geoffrey (llford, N.)

  Pickthorn, K.

  Wills, G

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

  Pitman, l, J.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

  Hylton-Foster, H. B.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)

  Wood, Hon R

  Jeffreys, General Sir George

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  York, C

  Jennings, R

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Profumo,J.D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Joynson-Hieks, Hon. L. W

  Raikes, H. V

  Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Pearson.]

  Further Proceeding postponed, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MINISTRY OF MATERIALS [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). —[King's Recommendation signified.]
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed:
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the appointment and functions of a Minister of Materials, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the salary of the Minister appointed in pursuance of the Act and his expenses, including the salaries and remuneration of a Parliamentary Secretary and other secretaries, officers and servants and including any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under other Acts, being an increase attributable to the application of provisions of those Acts to the said Minister.—[Mr. Stokes.]
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. P. Roberts: I cannot let this Money Resolution pass without asking one or two questions. The Money Resolution does not state the amount of money to be expended. This could quite easily be worked out, and it is wrong that the Committee should pass such a Resolution without being told the amount of money involved. No doubt later on this week we shall hear the argument that the Treasury cannot afford this or that. The Committee ought to be told roughly how much this will cost. I understand that some 2,000 officials will be transferred from other Ministry's to the new Ministry. First, I should like to know what will be the total amount of their salaries and expenses, and secondly, what commitments the Bill envisages in extra civil servants and deputy Ministers and the total cost in this direction.
  Mr. Stokes: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman all the details he requires, but an Estimate is being prepared and will be submitted to Parliament before the end of the Session. At the moment I am not in a position to give a precise figure, but, as I explained in my speech on the Bill, the bulk of the provision necessary for the new Ministry has already appeared in the Estimates of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply, and this will be transferred to the Estimate for the new Ministry. The setting up of the new Ministry will, there
  1524
  fore, involve no major addition to the total provision for which Parliament has been asked in the field of raw materials.
  I explained in my speech earlier that there would be small additions in the numbers of staff required to fulfil the activities envisaged in the Bill in order to give special attention to certain aspects of the work of the new Ministry. Reference to the existing Estimates will show that, although the turnover of trade in the materials which go to the new Ministry amount to some £300 million, the operations are expected to be self-financing. Parliament was asked only for a total vote of £10 for each of the two Departments in this respect. The first aim is to make the most effective use of the money for which Parliament has already been asked, and if experience shows that more money is needed and can be used profitably, the House will certainly be asked to provide it by means of a Supplementary Estimate. I cannot give any more information than that tonight.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Jennings: If hon. Members opposite wish to throw away public money, we on this side of the House feel it is part of our duty to the people who have sent us here to protect public funds. It is perfectly fantastic for the Minister to make the statement that he has no idea how much money will be involved in this Ministry. I think it shows from the start that the right hon. Gentleman has no idea of the duties he is to perform. I would say—[Interruption.] I have plenty of time. I wish the constituents of hon. Members opposite who sent them here would listen to some of these debates. [Interruption.]I have been too long here to be bamboozled by these interruptions. If this is the best protection of public funds shown by the opposite side, I hope the country will take note of it.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: First of all, I should like to ask whether it is in order for hon. Members below or outside the Bar to take part in the discussion by shouting. It is a small point, but I should like to know.
  The Deputy-Chairman: If I had heard them I would have reproved them.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I shall be brief in the few remarks I hope to make. This is something which amounts to

  1525
  giving a blank cheque. I say that in all seriousness. I do not know why the Home Secretary is looking so anxious. This is tantamount to saying that the Minister does not know how much he wants. Surely in his own business, in which I understand he is an expert and has had the happiest results all through his life, the right hon. Gentleman would not accept anything of this kind.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that there will be some "slight adjustment" I think those were his words—and mention has been made of 100 extra civil servants. The fact is that if we add these to the 750,000 civil servants we have already, it does make a difference.
  Then, what about offices? Where is this new Ministry to be housed? How much is it going to cost? The Department must be set up either by requisitioning premises or building new premises, which is going to cost a great deal of money. Are we not entitled to know how much it is going to be, or at least given a reasonable estimate? Would the right hon. Gentleman in his own business accept a proposal such as he is putting to the House tonight? Of course, he would not. He knows he would not, although I see him wagging his head, but I hope he is going to give a little more information about what the added expense may be.
  Mr. Osborne: I should like to ask the Minister one question which I think the Committee ought to have answered. He has told us that something like 1,900 "bodies"—I think that was the term he used—will be transferred from the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply. I suppose we can take it that the expenses of these 1,900 people will be the same in his Department as they were in the other two Departments?
  Mr. Stokes indicated assent
  Mr. Osborne: Can he also assure us that the two Departments from which they come will have their expenses reduced by the amount of his expenses? If he gives that assurance it will take some of the blankness away from the cheque.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Williams: This is by no means the first occasion in this House, either in this Parliament or in the last one, on which we have been presented
  1526
  by this Government with estimates of this kind, in which the Minister comes down and says quite frankly that he has not the faintest idea how much it is going to cost. Let us have a shot at it. My shot will be just as good as his in the long run. Let us say an additional £500,000 will be required in the course of a year or so. That is the sort of thing the Government say on occasions like this. When a new Department is set up under this Government there has immediately to be a vast number of motor cars, secretaries and new buildings, especially new buildings. Does this estimate cover any sort of new buildings? If so, I would far rather that the money was spent on providing more homes for the people.
  I am sure that I could find many examples from speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite of how they waste money on buildings of this kind. In the last few, largely due to the incompetence of the Government, and because the Treasury no longer keeps an eye on things of this kind, the House has been asked to agree to this sort of proposal. Here we are being asked late at night to agree to this Money Resolution after having discussed the Second Reading of a Bill which is entirely unjustified.
  A more hopeless waste of public money has never been put before us by any Government. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should come down to the Committee and say that he has no idea of the amount involved. What is the good of saying that some civil servants will be transferred from one Department to another? We have had that again and again. However many are transferred from one Department to another, the blank gaps in the other Department are also filled up, and something has to be found for those who come in.
  In expressing my very firm dislike, not only for the Resolution we have in front of us, but also for the entirely slipshod administration of finance which has been only too clearly shown, I say that the sooner we get rid of this Government the better.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Sir Peter Macdonald.
  10.41 p.m.
  Sir Peter Macdonald rose— [Interruption]
  The Deputy-Chairman: I called the hon. Member. If he does not wish to speak, perhaps he will resume his seat.
  Sir P. Macdonald: I am grateful, Sir Charles, to be called, but I call upon you—
  Mr. Logan: If the hon. Member is on his feet for two or three minutes and does not know whether or not he is in the Committee—[Interruption.]
  Sir P. Macdonald: I am quite conscious of being called, but I was not conscious of being heard. I thought it was your responsibility, Sir Charles, to see that a Member who is on his feet, having been called, was allowed to be heard, but I heard nothing but guffaws and loud noises from the other side, and I waited for silence.
  What I wanted to say was that I view with the greatest apprehension the way in which this Money Resolution, with which we have to deal tonight, is being dealt with, especially by the Government side. I have heard nothing but laughter and cheers and guffaws. Having been in the House for quite a long time, I am conscious that when we deal with matters of this kind, matters of great seriousness—[Laughter.]I was brought up in an old school [Interruption.]
  I understand that what we are dealing with tonight is the question of voting a really large sum of money to set up a new Department, a new Ministry. I have been in the House long enough to see quite a number of new Ministries set up, and I can mention several of them. I remember that I resisted very strongly the setting up of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
  The Deputy-Chairman: This Resolution deals only with the Ministry of Materials.
  Sir P. Macdonald: I have seen other Ministries set up. One of these was the Ministry of Production. And now we have the Ministry of Materials. What does it all amount to? [Interruption.]If I am allowed to reminisce a little, I remember the time when we in the House were invited to set up the Ministry of Production. Surely the Ministry of Materials today is the same as the Ministry of Production at the time of the war. It was set up to co-ordinate other
  1528
  Government Departments which were dealing with materials. The War Office, the Ministry of Supply, the Air Ministry, and all Departments of Government were dealing with materials. A new Ministry was set up, and we said at the time that we objected to new Departments being set up. I said myself at the time, "In no time you will have at least 1,000 more civil servants in that Department, and what will they do?" We were assured at that time that only 100 people—
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is surely not the Department we are dealing with.
  Sir P. Macdonald: Then let us come to this Department with which we are dealing. It is supposed to deal with materials. What materials?
  The Deputy-Chairman: That was dealt with on Second Reading a short while ago.
  Sir P. Macdonald: The question still arises: What are we voting money for? To set up a new Department. To set up a new Minister to deal with materials. Well, I am not opposed to that in these critical times; I am not opposed to having one man who could co-ordinate all the materials necessary for our great effort. That is very important. But what did I hear today from the Ministry? He is appointing himself as Minister over his own Department, and he told us he would be responsible for materials. What materials? I listened to the right hon. Gentleman; he seemed to have a very good grasp of the situation, but as far as I could see he is not going to be Minister of Materials at all. There are four other Departments involved: there are the Minister of Supply, the Admiralty, the War Office—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to the point of this Money Resolution.
  Mr. Logan: On a point of order. Is it not unfair to the hon. Gentleman to allow him to go on in obvious difficulties?
  Sir P. Macdonald: We have all known the hon. Gentleman long enough to know that his interjections mean nothing at all — when he is here. They are just nonsense.

  1529
  While I am on my feet I wish to express the view which has been expressed many times from this side of the House, that this new Ministry, so-called, means nothing at all. We are promised that there will not be many civil servants employed, but I bet that within three months there will be at least 1,000 more civil servants serving the right hon. Gentleman. What are they going to do in the meantime?
  Mr. Shurmer: Nothing.
  Sir P. Macdonald: Exactly. Nothing. And all the time, the people who are engaged in industry, whom we ought to be helping, who are trying to produce munitions and all the necessities of life, have to go to about four different Departments for what they require to keep their industries going. I protest most vehemently against this new Ministry being set up. I am convinced that in no time we shall have another 1,000 civil servants serving another Ministry.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Pargiter: I find the reasoning of the Opposition difficult to follow. The Minister has made a reasonable explanation of the transfer of staff from other departments, and of the formation and initial running of the new Department. He gave a perfectly good reason as to how the Estimate would be presented, and I cannot understand the argument coming from hon. Members opposite, who presumably acquiesced when their Leader asked for a blank cheque from the electorate to run the country.
  Resolved:
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the appointment and the functions of a Minister of Materials, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the salary of the Minister appointed in pursuance of the Act and his expenses, including the salaries and remuneration of a Parliamentary Secretary and other secretaries, officers and servants and including any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under other Acts, being an increase attributable to the application of provisions of those Acts to the said Minister.
  Report to be received forthwith.

  MINISTRY OF MATERIALS BILL
  Considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Clause 1.—(APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF MINISTER OF MATERIALS.)
  10.52 p.m.
  Mr. P. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, at the end, to insert:
  " except raw materials used in the production of steel."
  This Clause confers powers upon the Minister who is to be charged with functions relating to raw materials and other materials. The object of this Amendment is to exclude from his powers raw materials used in the production of steel. I have listened carefully to the Second Reading Debate, and to the speeches made on both sides of the House, and I felt that when we reached the Committee stage it would be proper to give the Minister an opportunity to say whether he would consider this point. I am grateful to the Minister for being in his place, because I wish to put to him a point which, I feel, is not political and will be supported, I hope, by hon. Members opposite.
  The argument so far has been that the Minister hopes to control in one place, rather than from several places, the various licences, and so on, for which industry has to apply. While I can see the argument which he has made about leather or timber, or other commodities which he will take over from the Civil Service organisation or from other Departments, I find it difficult to do so in regard to steel, a large proportion of which is to remain in the control of the Minister of Supply.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his winding-up speech, said that certain of these raw materials were left behind because they were dealt with by the Iron and Steel Federation's buying organisation. One can understand that. But the Chancellor went on to say that these powers would only relate to ores, and that once the ores had been smelted the metal would come under the Ministry of Supply. If that is so, surely it is going to make confusion doubly worse. We will now have to deal not with one Ministry, but with two Ministries.

  1531
  I was very much impressed by the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). He started his argument by saying that he thought it was bad that there should be a split between the two Ministries. He then went on to say, and in this I do not agree with him, that in that case ore should be given to the Minister of Materials. That is an argument which I would not accept, yet it underlines the argument which I am trying to make, of the split in the original proposal.
  The object of this Amendment is to put back those raw materials, which the Minister is trying to control, to the Ministry of Supply—where they have been at least during the war, and for some time before. I see no good reason for a change in that policy, because what is going to happen to industry itself? At the moment, industry is hampered enough under the difficulties of nationalisation; that is another issue, and I shall not dwell on it, but there is the fact. Now, industry has to deal first of all with the new Corporation; and having got through that obstacle, it has to deal with the Ministry of Supply, and then with the Ministry of Materials; and the Ministry of Materials, having obtained the ore, industry has to go back and deal with the Ministry of Supply so far as the metal is concerned, and then deal with the Corporation.
  I ask the Minister quite sincerely, is that a sensible and business-like proposal? Personally, I can think of nothing else which would do so much to make the muddle worse, and I do ask the Minister to consider this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) reminded hon. Members that the Minister will go, for example, to the United States, in his dealings in raw materials, and I "think it is accepted on both sides of the Committee that there will be important meetings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he should not be cut off from executive action; the Minister must have officers under him.
  My point is that, with regard to the demands of the steel industry, the Minister will not have any executive officers under him. He will have to take the instructions of the Ministry of Supply and he will be, therefore, in exactly the same position as that envisaged by the
  1532
  hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe when faced by negotiators on the other side of the Atlantic. If it is a question of sulphur, or leather, or timber, for example, he will have the civil servants under his control and will be able to answer the questions. But, so far as the steel industry is concerned, he will be able only to take the instructions of the Ministry of Supply. It would have been better for the Minister of Supply or a junior Minister to go with him in order to deal with the questions with the force and authority of that organisation.
  I do suggest to the Minister that if he does not accept the Amendment he will cause himself a lot of trouble; if he accepts it, he will be able to make a success of his Ministry in at least one respect. But if, instead, he is going to hang this stone of steel around his neck, he will have à great handicap from the very start. Materials in the making of steel cover an enormous range; the Minister, of course, knows that so well, and he must see the need for the Amendment.
  I do not ask him to accept it in its detail; it may well need re-drafting, but I do ask him to accept the principle. In other words, if he will say that he will look at the Schedule to the Order in the White Paper and eliminate some of the raw materials from that Schedule, it will meet my point. But I do hope the Minister will not say that this is so wide as to cause difficulty of management. As I have intimated, I will withdraw the Amendment if he will accept the principle; if he does not accept the principle, he will take on something which is going to jeopardise his Ministry from the beginning.
  Mr. Stokes: It may help the Committee if I answer the question at once and say why the Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. In Parliamentary language, it is what I think is known as a "wrecking Amendment."
  11.0 p.m.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw, withdraw.
  Mr. Stokes: Certainly, I withdraw. The situation really is this, and I thought I had explained it in my opening speech this afternoon—that it is essential in the carrying out of negotiations on the other side of the Atlantic that I should have

  1533
  these materials under my charge. Secondly, if the words were accepted as an amendment to the Bill, it would preclude at some future date, if any Government so desired, the inclusion of the iron and steel trade in this Ministry.
  There have been great arguments from the other side of the Committee asking why the iron and steel trade is not included. It comes, therefore, as something of a surprise to me to find it being proposed by the Opposition that iron and steel should be specifically excluded. It would be impossible for us to accept the Amendment, because it is essential that I should have under my control the procurement of the materials, some of which do not concern the iron and steel trade only, and, secondly, it is desirable—
  Mr. P. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman will not have these materials under his control. He can only accept what the Minister of Supply says is the position.
  Mr. Stokes: That applies to quite a lot of things. It all adds up in the general summation of the required materials. Even if the arguments were accepted, it would be impossible to accept this Amendment, because it would preclude all possibility of including iron and steel at a later stage if it were found to be desirable.
  Mr. Jennings: I have listened to the speech of the Minister and I am afraid I am not satisfied with his explanation. During the Debate we listened to a very forceful and good speech by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who explained in great detail the effect of the control of these raw materials being in two different Departments, and he instanced the particular ores and particular materials that would be in one Department under one Minister and those which would be under another Ministry. I feel, as he said, that this would cause some confusion in having to deal with two different Ministries. I speak on behalf of the specialised iron and steel industry of the City of Sheffield where they make special alloy steel, and, goodness knows, the job is difficult enough to deal with one Ministry.
  I have always been a great believer in this House that the less industry was mixed up with Government Departments
  1534
  the better for that industry, and I still take that view. Here we are getting the Minister of Raw Materials who is going to control certain special raw materials. It is true he has to produce them, but the allocation could be done through the Ministry of Supply and then the industry would know where it is. I do not think the procuration of the materials should have anything to do with the allocation.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham that we are going to create greater chaos and greater confusion among the steel-producing people, particularly in the City of Sheffield. I ask the Minister, if he cannot accept these words, to do as my hon. Friend said, to see if he will not go some distance to put some common-sense into this control so that the people running this industry will know exactly where they are instead of having to deal with so many Government Departments.
  I support this Amendment very strongly on behalf of the steel industry in Sheffield, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at it again and see if this double control cannot be eradicated and some form of sensible control put in its place so that the industry will be dealing with one particular Department.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Fort: The Lord Privy Seal, speaking earlier this afternoon, emphasised his wish to have flexibility in the new arrangements for setting up the Ministry of Materials. Consequently, I should like to ask him if he would explain one point in Clause 1 (2) and, if necessary, have a small redraft made when the Bill goes to another place.
  As I read that subsection, the enactments that are referred to in the Schedule can be applied to the new Ministry of Materials only in so far as they at present apply to the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Supply. If he looks at the Acts listed in the Schedule he will find that other Ministries are concerned, in addition to the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply. I should like his assurance that the functions of the other Ministries in so far as they are affected by the scheduled enactments can be transferred to the new

  1535
  Ministry of Materials if he finds such transfer desirable or that the necessary amendment will be introduced to make that possible.
  The matter is of some substance. Among the other Ministries referred to in the scheduled enactments, and the materials for which they are at present responsible and which he may wish the Ministry of Materials to take over, are the following: the Ministry of Food, vegetable oils and sugar, which is the raw material for a small, though important, part of the chemical industry; the Ministry of Health, pharmaceutical products; and the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the large and important group of coal-tar chemicals.
  Mr. Osborne: I was once told that the greatest virtue in politics is patience, and having sat here all day to try and put a point on behalf of the textile industry I am beginning to believe in the truth of that saying.
  The Chancellor said that the appointment of a new Minister of Materials would add to the burden of the textile industry, and I want to underline that point. The Minister knows quite well that in the Economic Survey the burden was laid upon the textile industry, not only of supplying the home market with plenty of utility goods, but of filling the export gap that was going to be left by the reduced exports of motor vehicles.
  The appointment of this Minister means that we are going to have two Ministries to deal with instead of one. Everyone who has to do business under the direction of Ministries knows that the fewer controls we have to comply with, the fewer directions we have to get, the better for our trade. Therefore, I want to make it quite clear that so far as the textile industry is concerned this is going to add to our burden. It may—to what degree none can tell—effect both our production for utility goods in the home market and it will certainly add to our troubles in the export trade.
  I should like to make this last point. I suppose that apart from the right hon. Gentleman there is no one in the Committee who knows more about this new Ministry than the former President of the Board of Trade. On the appointment of a new Minister of Materials he said that the best that could be said for this
  1536
  appointment was that it would result in greater difficulties between Government and industry; the worst that could be said for it he would not care to express to the House. Yet he voted for it. As I promised, I will not develop the arguments I would like to have made on behalf of the industry with which I am concerned, but I must warn the Minister that if he adds to the burdens the industry is already carrying the results may not be as good as he would like.
  Mr. J. Grimston: In everything the right hon. Gentleman has said it is clear that his eye is on Washington. He is regarding the powers conferred on him in the light of whether they will or will not be of use to him in bargaining at Washington. Will he also look at it from the point of view of increased production in the British Empire? I am convinced that that is where the main usefulness of this Bill is going to lie. For example, the solution to the non-ferrous metals shortage is in Northern Rhodesia; but the key to it is coal, which is in Southern Rhodesia.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order, order. That is going rather wide.
  Mr. Grimston: This Clause confers certain powers on the Minister, and I want him to see that he has adequate powers to solve the problems not only in Washington but also in the British Empire, where the permanent solution is to be found.
  Mr. Spence: I should like to add a word on the question of textiles, and to ask the Minister if he will give an assurance that he will bear in mind the importance of ensuring raw materials to that section of the trade dealing with exports of textiles. We in the industry have had every sort of exhortation to export our products all over the world, especially to the dollar countries, but so far there has never been any priority in the allocation of raw materials, except in the case of the rarer fabrics. I beg the Minister to look into this, and to give an assurance that the textile trade using wool for exports gets some sort of priority over that part of the industry which is concerned only with the home trade. If we are to do the job we ought to be doing in trying to make up the other export figures that have fallen short the industry must be given an

  1537
  assurance that the raw materials will be there.
  Mr. Stokes: The powers that this Clause give me are general powers transferred from the other two Ministries, and I do not think that I can make any further alterations on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) about the difficulty of having to deal with two Ministers instead of one, as he described it, I am aware—and I dealt with this at some length in my opening speech today, and so did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—of the difficulty, and we are seeking every possible way of reducing inconvenience to industry to the absolute minimum. That there will be inconvenience I do not doubt at all. I accept that; but the over-riding consideration to me and to the Government is to ensure that there is a regular flow of raw materials coming this way sufficient to meet our needs. We consider this is the best way of tackling the job. We are doing our best to reduce the inconvenience to a minimum and I cannot promise more than that.
  11.15 p.m.
  With regard to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston), who alleged that my eyes were on Washington, that, of course, is partly true. But I should have thought it would have been abundantly clear from what I said in my opening speech this afternoon that the Government and I are very much alive to the important part which the Commonwealth can play in this matter. The announcement that a Commonwealth Conference of Ministers engaged in production has been called gives an assurance on that point, I should have thought. I certainly assure him that I have the power to enter into all necessary negotiations with the Ministers of Commonwealth countries in order to achieve the objective he desires.
  With regard to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence), who asked about the textile trade, I am aware of the difficulty of diversion, even between procurement and distribution. The responsibility for dealing with the export trade rightly has been left to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. What materials go to which sections is his responsibility, but as he
  1538
  cannot be here tonight to hear what was said in the debate, I will certainly call his attention to what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3. —(APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES.)
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "appoint" to "secretaries" in line 10. and to insert "such."
  The effect of this Amendment would be to remove from the new Minister the power to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary. We think it is sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to be added to the list of new Ministers and, as the work has already been done by the existing staff of the Ministers, plus the Parliamentary Secretaries, it ought to be carried on in future without a Parliamentary Secretary. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman does not dissent from this view.
  Mr. Stokes: I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment, and I will tell the Committee why. I would first make it clear that I have no intention immediately of asking for a Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has authorised me to say that at the present time he has no intention of appointing one. But it would be quite wrong to set up a Ministry and exclude the possible need of a Parliamentary Secretary at a future date.
  Therefore, in our view it is necessary that the arrangement should stand as it is in the Bill, and the Amendment should not be made. If it were made, it would not achieve the right hon. Gentleman's objective, because I am advised legally that leaving the word "secretaries" in the Clause would include the possibility of appointing a Parliamentary Secretary. The Amendment which he proposes to exclude the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary would effect nothing of the kind. Even if it did so, I could not accept it.
  Mr. Hudson: I do not want to prolong the debate, but the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman tempt me to do so. For the Minister to get up and say that, supposing the House deliberately passed an

  1539
  Amendment forbidding him to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary in these terms, he would still be open to take advantage of the use of the word "secretaries" to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary, seems to me to fall little short of what has hitherto been regarded as indecent practice by Ministers towards the House. I am not going to pursue that matter, but I am advised to the opposite, and in view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment read the Third time, and passed.

  BLIND PERSONS (GUIDE DOGS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Delargy]
  11.21 p.m.
  Mr. Vosper (Runcorn): I regret that the subject I wish to raise tonight involves more than one Ministry, and I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for agreeing to reply tonight. This matter also concerns the Minister of Labour and the Minister of National Insurance. It is one which has not been raised in the House before, and relates to the provision of guide dogs for the blind, and the conditions governing the use of these dogs in this country.
  In raising this matter I have two objects in mind. If I can obtain the support of the Minister—and it is a matter which is not controversial—I believe that the lead thus given will help the development of this service, which can do, and has done, very much for the blind people. I also wish to draw attention to some of the conditions which beset owners of these dogs. I believe that if the Government can give a lead it would do much to make better conditions everywhere.
  My own interest in the matter is twofold. I have in my constituency a man who is by trade a chemical worker, and who for many years has devoted the whole of his spare time to the breeding
  1540
  and training of guide dogs. After he has given them initial training they are sent to the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, and there they are given their final training and are allocated to their owners throughout the country. My second reason is because my attention has been drawn on several occasions in the last 18 months to various Press reports dealing with instances where owners of such guide dogs have been refused admittance to various places public and private, thereby suffering hardship.
  The history of guide dogs for blind people is about 40 years old. It originated soon after the turn of this century in Germany and America. So far as I can gather it grew fairly rapidly in these two countries, but it was only 18 years ago that guide dogs were introduced here. Now, I suppose by comparison progress here has been comparatively slow, but the quality of the dogs produced here is far higher than anywhere else in the world. It is a fact that in the 18 years there has been no accident in which a guide dog has been involved. There are now 250 guide dog owners.
  Plenty of public support has, I think, been obtained for this movement, but I feel that in certain quarters there is still a doubt in people's minds as to whether guide dogs are really the best thing to help blind people. I notice that a recent report of the Ministry of Labour, which has given great praise to this movement, expresses some doubt, for it says:
  " The qualities of independence which possession of a dog does so much to foster, can be, and have been, achieved by blind persons in many different ways."
  I do not dispute that, but I believe there are three advantages which ownership of a guide dog can give to blind people.
  Firstly, it gives them power to move without a guide, and thereby they gain freedom and independence. Secondly, resulting from that independence, they are helped to get rid of an inferiority complex which they might otherwise possess. They feel, particularly if they are working, that they are on equal status with some of their fellow workers. Thirdly, and possibly most important of all, the ownership of a dog gives them companionship, because the dog in this case is not so much a pet as a partner in everything they do. Hon. Members who are dog lovers will know what com

  1541
  panionship means in this respect, but one can imagine how much more it must mean to people who do not have the use of their eyes.
  I sincerely believe that this service of guide dogs provides something for blind people that cannot be achieved in other directions. Any hon. Member who wants proof of that should talk to any one of the 250 owners, not one of whom would say that he preferred to go back to the conditions where the ownership of a dog no longer existed.
  The first question I should like to put to the Minister is to ask whether it is the policy of the Government for it concerns not only the hon. Gentleman's own Department— to encourage the development of this movement. I realise that this must be subject to the willingness of the person concerned, and subject also to reasonable conditions for the maintenance of the dog.
  As I have said, there are today 250 owners of these dogs, but there are on the waiting list some 350 approved cases. As far as I know, those 350 names have been obtained without any canvass. If a canvass was taken, there would be many more applicants. We know that there are some 14,000 blind persons who are in employment or are employable, and a great proportion of them would like to become owners of guide dogs to assist them to and from their work.
  It is of interest to remark that a new training centre has recently been opened. This raises my second point: the provision of finance. The establishment of this new training centre is costing in the neighbourhood of £25,000. The mere training of each dog alone costs upwards of £180. This money has, almost without exception, been raised from voluntary sources. If I may in passing mention my own constituency, a great deal has been done by the Rover Scouts, who have dedicated all their efforts to this good cause.
  It is the wish of the movement that it should remain on a voluntary basis they feel that the provision of direct finance is neither possible nor desirable. It is, however, possible that help can be given in other directions, and it may be that it is in fact already being given. In this connection I have reason to understand that local authorities are able to make grants towards the purchase price of a
  1542
  dog and that this can be claimed under the National Insurance Act, 1948—I imagine, under Sections 29 and 30. I have no direct evidence of this, but I know that grants have been made, and I should like the Minister to confirm that if a local authority is so willing, something can he done in this direction. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could indicate also the number of cases in which this help has been given and the progress that has been made in this direction.
  The provision of licences for these dogs does not arise, because for many years they have been free from the licence payment, but there are two other aspects in which financial help could be given. The first of these is that, I understand, in many parts of the country blind persons in employment have been able to claim the expenses in connection with their dogs as expenses against the payment of Income Tax, but there is no set rule for this and it is a matter entirely for the discretion of the local tax inspector. It would seem that, if this can be claimed as a legitimate expense in certain areas it should be of universal application.
  The second point is one drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin MacLeod), and one which I believe is common throughout the country. These dogs, whatever their breed—and several breeds have been tried—are all big dogs, and they naturally have hearty appetites, and at the moment all dog owners find it increasingly difficult to maintain their dogs out of their limited incomes. I do not know what can be done in that direction, but I am informed that in Germany, for instance, an allowance is made to provide for their upkeep.
  So far I have dealt with the supply and demand of guide dogs, and I hope I have shown that there is scope for considerable development, although that can only happen if conditions throughout the country are favourable. It is little use owning a dog if those responsible for transport, for employment, for entertainment and other public services are not willing to co-operate, and in making my Inquiries I have been surprised how varying are conditions here. For instance, I find that on British Railways guide dogs can travel free of charge, but that does not apply to the London Passenger Transport Board.

  1543
  On London buses, dogs are allowed to travel only at the discretion of the conductor, and a charge is made. In one large city in- the North, guide dogs are not allowed at all; in others they are allowed on the top deck only; in others on certain routes and at certain times. In some towns guide dogs can travel free of charges; in others dog and owner can both travel free of charge; in others—the majority I am afraid—both have to pay. I realise that the public must be safeguarded in this respect, and that each local authority must make its own decision, but I do suggest that some uniformity could be obtained if all local authorities and all those concerned were aware of the standards set by, possibly, the most progressive authorities.
  In the realm of entertainment, despite the similarity between theatre and theatre, or music-hall and music-hall very different conditions apply. Many hon. Members will probably have read of the case some few months ago of the blind music teacher who experienced extreme difficult in following his profession owing to varying conditions.
  It is perhaps in the realm of employment that we come up against the greatest difficulty. Here, I want to refer to a case which has been the subject both of considerable Press publicity and of correspondence between the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). It concerns the Corporation of Sheffield, who for some years employed in their workshops two blind persons who subsequently became owners of guide dogs. They were then informed that guide dogs could not be brought to the workshops, and they were given the alternative of continuing in work and giving up their dogs or of losing their jobs. Quite naturally they chose to give up their work, and they both became unemployed.
  One case concerned a lady and happened over a year ago, and for the intervening period of a year she has been out of employment and in receipt of National Assistance. The case is still a very live one, because only very recently she was summoned to appear before the Disablement Advisory Panel in Sheffield and told that, as she had been in receipt of National Assistance and unemployed for a year, unless she took work without
  1544
  using her dog she would be struck off the disablement list. I hear that in the last few weeks this has in fact happened; this lady has now been struck off the disablement list in Sheffield and is still in receipt of National Assistance —all because it seems impossible for the Sheffield workshops for the blind to make provision for her dog.
  Those associated with the blind movements in this country feel that a grave injustice has been done in this case. The National Federation for the Blind have pursued it in every way possible, and are particularly anxious that it should be raised again tonight.
  I think we must all be aware that a Corporation which refuses admittance to such a person's dog must have good reason for doing so, and I do not seek to quarrel with that decision. But when that body has a department which caters for blind people, I think it ought to be the first to make provision for their dogs to be admitted. The matter has been raised with the Minister, who told my hon. Friend that when the Ministry of Labour Report on the Employment of Blind Persons was published he would, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, look into the matter. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can say whether anything can be done to help this rather unfortunate lady.
  There are many different exceptions. I know Ministerial departments, local authorities, and many private employers, who admit dogs to their premises, or who, if they do not admit dogs, provide kennels for them. In the United States in 1937, legislation on a comprehensive scale was introduced on a State basis to make laws and regulations regarding these dogs. It provided that in America the dogs must travel free of charge on all transport. It provided also that in nearly every State it is an offence to prohibit the admittance of dogs to cafes, restaurants, theatres, museums, and to practically all public buildings, the only exception being cinemas. It did not provide for regulations regarding employment, but I think that there it is accepted, and particularly in blind institutions, that dogs should be admitted.
  I do not suggest legislation in this country; indeed I would be out of order were I to do so. But I do suggest that if the Government gave a lead in this

  1545
  matter and could give publicity to the standards of the best local authorities, we could get along all right, because directly or indirectly, the Government is responsible for the employment of some 25 per cent. of the population. If a good example of this sort were given, surely this lead would be followed.
  In addition, or alternatively, I suggest that a memorandum, or note, on the possibilities in this direction sent to local authorities would be of great assistance. I believe that this matter is non-controversial. I am convinced that every Member of this House has great sympathy with the blind in their problems, but I feel that what blind people want is not sympathy, but fair and progressive treatment.
  11.38 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper) for the attractive way in which he has raised this question tonight. As he says, it is not a matter of controversy. It is a matter in which we are all anxious to do everything we can to help, and I am glad to say that it has been possible to do rather more to help during the last few years than it had been for some little while before. All that he has said about the general history of this very useful and helpful association—the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association—which is unique in this country, is correct. It is the only body which carries out this work in England. Wales and Scotland.
  The hon. Member asked whether it was the Ministry's policy to encourage the development of this work. I would say, and this also answers another question which the hon. Member raised on whether any contribution to the cost could be made, that we understand that an increasing number of local authorities are making contributions to the cost of training and providing these dogs. Under the National Assistance Act, 1948, local authorities have the power to make such contributions to the Association as they wish, without obtaining prior consent from the Ministry of Health, or from any other Ministry. That means that we have not the actual figures of the local authorities which are contributing, but we understand that an increasing number are doing so. That is what we would wish them to do.
  1546
  We have not actually recommended local authorities to make contributions, but we have made clear to them that this is one way in which they can help should they wish to do so. We have left the matter to their judgment in the light of the actual cases concerned, because, as the hon. Member who raised this issue has very fairly said, it is recognised firstly, that some people are not suitable for training with dogs, and secondly, that there are many blind persons who prefer not to use them. That does not mean that there are not still a large number already using them and for whom they are quite suitable. We are very glad to see that the Association, by the opening of a new centre and we have done our best to help them in the procedure of adapting some of their premises—will be able to train more dogs and so be able to help those who have been waiting for some little time.
  The hon. Member quoted from the very valuable report issued by the Ministry of Labour and National Service, which includes a short section about guide dogs. I, too, should like to quote this short paragraph:
  " We consider that the provision of guide dogs has helped a number of blind people in their employment, and we therefore welcome the fact that the number of dogs trained each year is likely to be steadily increased over the next few years. Nevertheless, while many blind persons have benefited in this way, it would be wrong to suggest that it is essential for a blind man to possess a dog before he can go out to work."
  That is the sort of balance we should like to hold. We do not want to say to local authorities, "You must do this," but that this is a helpful way of carrying out welfare provisions for the blind, and one which is open to local authorities. Amongst the difficulties which arise in particular cases are those of ensuring that persons using guide dogs are able to take them both on public transport and to places of work. Obviously, no hard and fast rule can be made; much depends on the actual work places, and in some cases it would be unsuitable and even dangerous for dogs to be taken into them; and many blind people urge that upon us.
  But I was rather shocked to hear of the individual case which the hon. Member raised, as well, previously, as the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdate (Sir Ian Fraser). It did seem to me

  1547
  that, in this particular case, it ought to have been possible to find some way of getting round the difficulty. I find it hard to understand why the workshop for the blind could not arrange for kennels to be provided.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runcorn for having raised this matter tonight because it will give me the opportunity to send his remarks, and mine, to the local authority concerned. An expression of view here may help to get this rather difficult case put right. I should, however, mention that the authority concerned did make it clear before training started that this was the rule applied in the workshop; but the training was carried on nevertheless, perhaps because she wanted the dog for other reasons than her employment. As I say, I shall be very glad to ensure that the local authority is made aware of the feelings of hon. Members in this individual case, and I hope it will be possible to put the matter right.
  Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I apologise to the hon. Member for interrupting, but many of these institutions are not under the care of local authorities but under the care of independent voluntary bodies. Can he make sure that these voluntary bodies are made aware of his opinion as well as the local authorities?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I am referring to one particular instance because I know something of the background of it. But one cannot give a general answer. It is true
  1548
  that in some cases there are particular difficulties which make it impossible for the dog to be brought in. As I say, I hope where that is so, it may still be found possible to make provision, outside the actual workshop, for kennels and so on. I have a great deal of sympathy with the points raised about guide dogs for the blind being provided for on public transport and so on, though that is not a matter for my own Department except in so far as it comes within our general oversight of welfare provision.
  I will see that these points are discussed with our Advisory Council on Handicapped Persons, which is steadily considering all these matters in relation both to blind persons and handicapped persons, and see whether any recommendations might be sent out to local authorities after they have given the matter further consideration. I think that would probably be the best way to deal with it.
  As I have already said, we are all sympathetic with the object raised here. I am glad to say local authorities are increasingly making contributions towards this work and I hope they will continue to do so. I hope that the Association will find it possible to extend the work they are carrying out, because we are all very well aware of the great value of it. and we wish them very well indeed in their future years of endeavour.
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes to Twelve o' Clock.

  NAVAL DOCKYARDS (COMMUNISTS)
  NAVAL DOCKYARDS (COMMUNISTS)
  POST OFFICES (CONTROL OF DOGS)
  POST OFFICES (CONTROL OF DOGS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Welfare Food Vans
  Welfare Food Vans
  Meat (Exports to Canada)
  Meat (Exports to Canada)
  Packed Meals, Essex
  Packed Meals, Essex
  Milk
  Milk
  RUBBER (EXPORTS TO U.S.S.R.)
  RUBBER (EXPORTS TO U.S.S.R.)
EAST AFRICA
  Overseas Food Corporation Staff, Tanganyika
  Overseas Food Corporation Staff, Tanganyika
  Fish Marketing, Uganda
  Fish Marketing, Uganda
  SINGAPORE (EXPORTS TO CHINA)
  SINGAPORE (EXPORTS TO CHINA)
  NIGERIA (OIL MINING)
  NIGERIA (OIL MINING)
  GOLD COAST (PRICE CONTROL)
  GOLD COAST (PRICE CONTROL)
  COLONIAL STUDENTS (HOSTEL BEDS)
  COLONIAL STUDENTS (HOSTEL BEDS)
  CENTRAL AFRICAN TERRITORIES (CLOSER ASSOCIATION)
  CENTRAL AFRICAN TERRITORIES (CLOSER ASSOCIATION)
  TRANSPORT (FARM TRACTOR LICENCES)
  TRANSPORT (FARM TRACTOR LICENCES)
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (RAILWAY)
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (RAILWAY)
  ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL COMPANY (FAMILIES' EVACUATION)
  ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL COMPANY (FAMILIES' EVACUATION)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (CONSUMERS' COUNCILS)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (CONSUMERS' COUNCILS)
  HOME-PRODUCED OILS
  HOME-PRODUCED OILS
  GUIDED MISSILES
  GUIDED MISSILES
  SOLDIERS (VACCINATION AND INOCULATION)
  SOLDIERS (VACCINATION AND INOCULATION)
  MINERS (FATAL ACCIDENTS)
  MINERS (FATAL ACCIDENTS)
  R.A.F. PERSONNEL, BURMA
  R.A.F. PERSONNEL, BURMA

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

LORD KENSWOOD
2.35 p.m.
Ernest Albert Whitfield, Esquire, having been created Baron Kenswood, of St. Marylebone in the County of London —Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Craigmyle—Took the Oath.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL
2.47 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE.280 RIFLE
LORD ST. JUST: 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 whether the decision to adopt the.280 rifle for the British Forces is to be taken to imply that no further progress can now be made in standardising weapons as between Great Britain, the British Commonwealth and the United States.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, the answer is in the negative. His Majesty's Government remain fully committed to the policy which they have pursued since the war of achieving the maximum practicable degree of standardisation not only between the three British Services but with the forces of friendly countries, including, of course, those of the British Commonwealth and the United States. This policy is being pursued not only by direct discussions with other countries concerned but also through the military standardisation agency of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
376
His Majesty's Government greatly regret that it has not so far been possible to reach agreement on standardisation of the calibre of small arms and ammunition, but for reasons of operational efficiency the introduction of a new rifle to replace the obsolete.303 Lee Enfield can be delayed no longer. The Government are satisfied, after the most exhaustive tests, that the.280 rifle is by far the best available weapon and is greatly superior to any other rifle at present in service.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, arising out of that reply, can the noble Viscount state whether attempts are still being made to achieve standardisation of the calibre of small arms, or have they ceased for the time being?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, attempts have not ceased and indeed are going on the whole time. If the noble Viscount would care to look at the very detailed answer to a supplementary question given by the Minister of Defence in another place on April 25, he will see the succession of events from which we hope that eventually we shall achieve general adherence to what is now, in our opinion, the best weapon available.
LORD ROCKLEY: Can the noble Viscount say what propellant is to be used? Will it be cordite?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to have notice of that question. I cannot at the moment give any more information than the Minister of Defence has already given in the other place.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether it would not have been far better for supply purposes in the field, with armies working together, that we should have a rifle with a calibre in line with that of the arms of other members of the Atlantic Treaty Powers?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, when once we get rid of a rifle so obsolete that it was adopted just before the South African War, surely we should go in for what is, according to the experts, the best weapon available. This weapon has been approved militarily by the Standing Group of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and I say, therefore, that in every respect it is satisfactory and

377
more up to date than a special calibre weapon for the purpose which the noble Lord quite rightly has in mind.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Is there any indication that the United States or the Canadians will go to the ·280 rifle also?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I have already said on that matter.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, there must be some very technical reasons why a rifle completely different from those of all other countries should be introduced. Would it be possible for the noble Viscount opposite to supply a list of those technical reasons? It may then be possible to judge whether they are sufficient in weight to make this change-over necessary. No details at all have been given except in another place, and those given there were, to say the least, of a somewhat hazy nature.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: Naturally I cannot add to the information which the Minister of Defence has given, but I should remind noble Lords who may not have seen what was said in another place that the conclusion arrived at by the Standing Group was that the adoption of this weapon would be most valuable. It doubles the rapidity of fire; it is many pounds lighter than the other weapon which has been in use, and it fits in far more conveniently with the modernised type of infantry and similar warfare.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, if the calibre of the rifle is to be altered, may I ask whether the Bren gun and similar weapons are to have an equivalent calibre, so that there shall not be two types of ammunition in the same unit?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I am afraid I should require notice of that question.
LORD CHERWELL: Does the noble Viscount say that the advantages of the.280 rifle over the.300 rifle are so great that it is worth changing to a calibre different from that used by the Americans? The difficulties of supply are so enormous that there are a great many strong reasons against using two different calibres.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I can assure the noble Lord that all these questions have been most carefully examined by the best expert opinion at the disposal of the Government, and that the decision has been taken after consultation with the N.A.T.O. countries, after testing by experts and military approval of the weapon by the experts of N.A.T.O.
LORD CHERWELL: The technical experts may well be right if they say that the.280 is better than the.303, or even the.300. The question is whether it is so much better that it justifies us in changing over to a calibre different from that of our Allies. Can the noble Viscount say whether the experts considered the difficulties of supplying ammunition of two different types in the field or whether they merely considered technical excellence? That is the point that really arises here.
LORD GIFFORD: Could a rifle be made of similar design to the.280. but in a calibre to suit the Americans?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We do not think so.

TERRITORIAL ARMY AND Z RESERVISTS
2.54 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: 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 whether they can state the approximate number of Class Z reservists who, upon completion of their reserve service, have expressed a desire to join the Territorial Army.]
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I regret that it is not possible to say how many Class Z reservists have expressed a desire to join the Territorial Army after the completion of their period of fifteen days' training. To obtain such information it would be necessary to consult each Territorial Army or Supplementary Reserve unit which has completed its fifteen days' training; and I think the noble Lord will agree that it would be undesirable to take up the time of the units with such an inquiry at the present stage.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Viscount for his reply, may I ask him this supplementary question? Does he not think that many more Class Z reservists would be able to join the Territorial Army if they had not been sent to do their Class Z reserve training with units so far away from their homes that it has proved impossible for them, with the best will in the world, to join those units? Will the noble Viscount look into this matter, and see that the number of men posted to units far from their homes is kept to the lowest figure?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, this question has been raised with the Secretary of State for War in another place. In the view of the Army authorities it would have been impossible to arrange matters along that line, which, of course, prima facie seems highly desirable, if we are to carry out the purpose of this particular operation in which we are engaged—that is, calling up people specially suited to fill the gaps in the mobilisation machinery. It would have been impossible to secure the effectiveness that we are achieving by working along local and geographical lines. On the other hand, there is nothing in that system which need prevent those who are coming into contact with Territorial authorities, joining the Territorial Army and attaching themselves during their voluntary Territorial membership to their local units.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Will the noble Viscount ensure that this matter is given further study, particularly as the Territorial camps will be held in a month's time?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I wish that I could give an assurance; but I cannot. However, I will convey the noble Viscount's remarks to the Secretary of State.

THE BANISHMENT OF SERETSE AND TSHEKEDI KHAMA
2.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE rose to call attention to the situation in Bechuanaland; the banishment of Seretse and Tshekedi Khama; the need for an inquiry into the future of the Protectorate, and the effect of the Government policy on African opinion; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is with a sense of great responsibility that I have put down the Motion standing in my name on the Paper. I suppose there could not be any question so important to-day as that of race equality. It is against that background that I propose to discuss the whole matter. We are a multinational Commonwealth, and if we fail in recognising the rights of people of other races and other colours, then the whole basis of our Commonwealth is destroyed. It is something in which we may take some pride that the appeal to Parliament of two African princes who allege that they have been hardly used met with an immediate response. I should like to say to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, if I may do so without presumption, that I thought his forthright statement last week did something substantial to reassure our African fellow subjects in the Commonwealth and that the business in both Houses of Parliament should be devoted to this issue speaks well of the structure of the Government of the Commonwealth.
Of course, this issue is not in any way a Party issue. It is a very puzzling issue, and it is difficult to know at certain points how to make up one's mind. My Motion will command respect, I hope, not only amongst some members of my own Party but amongst members opposite, and possibly from the noble Marquess himself. I have here a letter from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester assuring me that, as he could not be here himself, he would be glad if I would make it known that, had he come, he would have spoken in support of my Motion. In this House we have this advantage: that we are free from the Party machine control. The real strength and power of this House lie in its lack of powers. In the other place, Members are bound always to bear in mind the fate of the Ministry. That is part of their duty, in considering how they should vote, and in the past

381
I have often admired the strenuous devotion and heroism with which members of my Party have sometimes discharged that part; but here the position is quite different. I can look the Chief Whip in the face, without shame and without fear. I am ready to express what is my own personal opinion on matters, because nothing that we can do in this House can possibly bring about the disaster of the return to power of Mr. Churchill.
The plain issue is this. An African Chief who had had over twenty years of excellent service, who comes of an historic family going far beyond the Great Khama of 1895, who has been praised repeatedly by all qualified observers for the way in which he discharged his duties, against whom not a word had been said until recently, finds himself, by a decision of an inquiry to which he was not a party, an inquiry not entirely based on what he had asked for, banished from his country and his estate, and subjected to a campaign of criticism which is amazing when one considers what people justly said about him throughout his longreign as Regrent. The natural response of liberty-loving people, who are brought up—as are all noble Lords on both sides of the House —to believe in human rights, is to say: this man has been unjustly exiled: let him be returned to his home. That is a plain statement which, prima facie, would command universal respect. How can our people possibly go to Lake Success and talk about human rights and equality of race, and so on, if a man in this position has his name written on what I might call an Ace of Spades, has no appeal, and finds himself exiled from his own land. Yet that is the case.
If the case rested there I should have no difficulty, with the noble Marquess's permission, in following him into the Lobby, though of course at a respectful distance. But that is not the whole case. Quite frankly, I am puzzled. In another place yesterday, the Government spokesman made a statement, which I heard in which the Government produced much evidence, and in which they said that if this Chief went back to his own country there would be great disorder. I must say that not only did my right honourable friend Mr. Gordon-Walker give that as the opinion of the Tribe, but he added many opinions of his own and of other people attacking Tshekedi in such a way
382
as to make it almost impossible in present circumstances, for this Chief to return in peace to his own home. I should like to ask the noble Marquess when he is dealing with the Motion which stands in his name on the Paper, to say exactly what it means. Does it mean that if the Government will institute a full inquiry the Motion is premature; or does it mean that inasmuch as the Government have not instituted a full inquiry he intends to press his Motion? There is a great difference between the two courses.
As I say, on the evidence which was given in another place yesterday, and on the passion which was put by the Minister into resisting the return of this worthy Chief, it seems quite impossible to suppose that he would go back to the Bamangwato Reserve without disturbance. The Government say that Tshekedi Khama is unpopular. They say they have just discovered that, and that they did not know it until two years ago. Apart from the propaganda efforts of the Minister, they base the major part of their case mainly upon a meeting of the Tribe which was attended by the Minister himself; and as your Lordships may have noticed, if you read the debate, those proceedings were arranged in a way that would have done credit to Lord Woolton or any other Party organiser. Everybody knew where he was to sit; everybody knew what he was to say, and the District Commissioner had, so to speak, issued a programme of the fête.
There were little songs of greeting for the Secretary of State—and very proper, too; and then there was the moment when the people present had to say "Pula"—which means "Hear, hear" or "Cheers." If that word could be introduced into our Parliamentary vocabulary I think it would add much to the brightness of our debate. The Minister was very quick to point out that these opinions were the opinions voiced by the speakers, and that the District Commissioner was putting down on paper only what they had already promised to say—that is to say, when speakers got up to say that they did not want Seretse back, it was what they had already decided. Can your Lordships imagine the District Commissioner, who is taking the place of the Chief who has been snatched away, being in the mere position of amanuensis? And when the Government policy is to

383
keep Tshekedi and Seretse out, and to install a new Chief—because there is a Chief of a rival faction—do you not imagine that the tribesmen, seeing the Commissioner in the seat of authority, said "Pula" and did what they were instructed to do? If it is true that Tshekedi cannot be returned without risk of disorder—and I do not know whether that is true or not, because we cannot have an inquiry to find out—then it is dear that the Motion of the noble Marquess does not fully cover the ground.
One has to go a little further back in order to get to the root of the trouble. If your Lordships examine the circumstances, you will find that the real issue arose about a year ago. I appreciate that it is a tremendous difficulty, especially for the Commonwealth Relations Office. The difficulty is that the young Chief of the Tribe, Seretse, who was over here pursuing his law studies, went through a Christian marriage with an English girl and refused to do what many people unworthily suggested—namely, to make her me of many. He stuck to her as his own wife, and she stuck to him. And that was the source of the offence. It might not mean much in other parts of the world, but in South Africa it meant a lot. I think that is the real point of the whole matter. It is a possible conclusion that the tribe do not want Tshekedi back, because if Tshekedi came back it would be the end of the return of Seretse.
Why, after the inquiry into the marriage, did the Government exclude Seretse? There is no question about his not being Chief: everybody acknowledges that he is. Tshekedi acknowledges that he is Chief. That fact has never been challenged. The Government said last year that there was such a bitter quarrel between Tshekedi and Seretse that it was impossible to let them go back without dividing the Tribe into factions. To-day, that bitterness does not exist. No Minister will rise on the Front Bench and tell we that there is now a quarrel that would cause a public disturbance between the recognised Chiefs. Nobody, least of all Tshekedi, challenges Seretse's right to be Chief. No Minister will say that there is such a bitter division as to cause discord in the Tribe. In my Motion, I do not go so far as to suggest a solution. I think the most the Government can do
384
is to make further inquiries. But a possible solution of this matter is that both men should be sent back. Why not? What is there against sending both back? Has Tshekedi committed any crime? Everybody admits that he was a model ruler. Seretse has committed no crime. If you think that a man who makes a white marriage is unfit to be Chief, you go in the face of what has been accepted by the Tribe and accepted by Tshekedi. If that is the reason, it must be stated.
I know the delicacy of the position, but I do not think it would hurt the Ministry to tell people in other States, as for example the Union, the opinions of many of the rank-and-file supporters of the Government in this country. We do not see how you can maintain respect for your own law if you are going to say that, because this hereditary Chief marries a white girl and sticks to her, he is thereby disqualified from being a Chief. Yet there was some suggestion of that kind. After reading all the documents it appears to me that the idea put forward by someone was that the simplest thing to do was to get rid of them both. That would mean getting rid of the white wife, getting rid of Tshekedi Khama and getting rid of Seretse Khama. Then the idea would be: "let us go ahead and organise the Tribe." But, as we now know well, if that was the idea it did not succeed. They did not organise the Tribe; the Tribe would not co-operate on those lines. I should think that the Bamangwato tribesmen feel very bitter that their own man, Seretse, has been excluded from his chieftainship. And, in any case, the idea that they were going ahead was quite useless. It is only recently that any progress has been made—if, indeed, it has been made—with the setting up of governing institutions in the Bamangwato Reserve.
Yesterday, the Government, seeing the feeling of utter misery reflected in the faces of Labour Members who were compelled by Party loyalty to march into the Lobby and support the Government, made an offer that they will arrange another meeting, an assembly of the Tribe, called a kgotla, with two British Members of Parliament as observers in attendance. I do not know whether any members of your Lordships' House are to go to observe as well. Let us say a word or two about this. I do not at all agree with Mr. Churchill, who said that this idea, if

385
carried out, would mean a mob decision. I think one should respect the opinion expressed by the Bamangwato tribesmen in that kgotla. But it seems to me that certain questions must be asked about this special kgotla that is to be arranged. First of all, is Tshekedi to be there? It was stated yesterday that Tshekedi can go if the tribesmen wish it. It is not unlikely, I think, that some of the tribesmen will say that they do not want him; nor will they want Tshekedi's followers to go. Why may some not wish it? Because, in order to avoid civil division, Tshekedi and a number of his followers withdrew from the Reserve. Therefore, according to the Secretary of State, they are now disqualified as members of the Tribe. Furthermore, is Seretse to be allowed to go and state his case? These are questions which: the Government must answer if they wish anyone to take seriously this suggestion that there should be this special kgotla, which is to he observed by two, or possibly three, Members of Parliament.
Again, what are the Members of Parliament to do? Are they to come back and give us a travel talk? Or is it to be their job to go and investigate the affair? Will they be entitled to ask questions? Are they to be legally qualified Members of Parliament? Are they to come back here and present a report? If they are going to do that, why not grant a proper inquiry, and have the whole matter settled once and for all. To my mind, this conception of a special assembly, under the direction no doubt of this extremely efficient organiser, with the people saying "Pula, pula" every time the Government view is expressed, cannot be described as in any way an inquiry or as a concession to the public anxiety on this score. One thing does emerge, however, and it is important and useful. The Government have recognised that the case as it stands is not satisfactory, and they have recognised that something must be done. That is why they came forward with this offer yesterday. As they have recognised that an inquiry of some kind is needed to reassure public opinion, I think that something has been achieved, and I am in great hopes that one of the Ministers skill rise in the course of this debate and tell us that before going further into this morass there shall be a proper survey so that we shall know what
386
firm ground there is on which to set our feet.
The sort of inquiry I think we should have would be something on these lines. First of all, it should be a broad inquiry. My impression when listening to the debate yesterday was this. It was a case of an extremely efficient civil servant and an extremely myopic Minister dealing with a local problem and forgetting that this local problem was part of an immense canvas. That is my general criticism of the debate. We do not want the thing judged from the point of view of Bechuanaland, or even from the point of view of the three High Commission Territories. We want it judged with this background—that His Majesty rules over the greatest African Empire in the world and that we owe a duty to our African fellow-subjects, whether in South Africa or in any other part of the world. One thing which I suggest an inquiry would do would be to produce the Harragin Report. No one knows what is in that Report. Why have we not seen it? We are told that something was said in the Report which would be falsely attributed to the Government. That, it is to be presumed, is the reason the Report was suppressed. But it is really a fantastic position, because if anyone had taken the trouble to take a note of the inquiry itself they could have produced a massive volume. What went on privately, in the office, has, of course, not been made known.
The next thing which I think the inquiry should find out is the real attitude of the Bamangwato Tribe to Tshekedi and Seretse. The inquiry should find out whether the Bamangwato people really want Seretse or whether the real reason they are afraid of Tshekedi is because they think that if Tshekedi comes back the Government will then say: "That is enough," and they will never get their proper Chief, Seretse, and his wife. Mrs. Seretse Khama—the former Miss Ruth Williams—by her behaviour in Serowe has shown herself a woman of quality. When Seretse was brought home to England—I must not say, in your Lordships' House, by a dodge, but when he was brought here—his wife, a pregnant woman, preferred to stay out there and face the thing out. That is the sort of woman she is. We should like to know

387
what the Tribe really thinks of the Chieftainship, and of the marriage of Seretse, and of his wife.
Finally, I think the inquiry should ask whether the administrative machine which was set up many years ago—in 1926 I think—which treated these Protectorates, these High Commission Territories, as though they were something separate and peculiar, is really suitable for our modern conception of the Commonwealth. I wonder if your Lordships noticed one thing which was said in the course of the inquiry. Mr. Ellander, one of the witnesses, mentioned that Seretse, having married a white woman, had been subject to an order declaring him a prohibited emigrant in Mafeking. Therefore, it would be very difficult to deal with him, because he was prohibited in his own capital. I could hardly believe it when I read that. I found out—though apparently everyone else knew it—that Mafeking is the administrative capital of Bechuanaland.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, may I make it clear that Mafeking is wholly in the Union of South Africa? It merely happens to be the place where the office of the Resident Commissioner of the Bechuanaland Protectorate is situated. Mafeking is not in the Bechuanaland Protectorate.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Lord, who speaks with the highest authority and experience is quite right, but what he says does not affect my point. These people are having their affairs administered from a town which is not in their own territory. That is to say, a man who passes from his own territory, where he is treated as an equal citizen—as all Africans are in our part of Africa—has to pass into a town where he is treated as an unequal citizen. That, I suggest, throws a real light upon the question as to whether this arrangement that the service of these two Protectorates is a part-time job for a man whose main job is to represent us in the Union, is a suitable arrangement. These Protectorates are part of His Majesty's Colonial dominions. In my opinion, their peoples should be subject to exactly the same policy as is applied to Africans in any other part of the Empire and Commonwealth. That should be made perfectly clear on this occasion. I am not criticising the policy of the Union. The Union
388
is an independent country. But the policy which the Union has pursued makes it doubly necessary that on this occasion we should make it clear that British policy for the Protectorates is the same as our policy for the Gold Coast and for Africans everywhere. If we do not do this, I do not see how we can possibly keep the Commonwealth together.
That is all I have to say. When we are looking for man-power for our Commonwealth, we have to bear in mind that these are men we should not exile. The Khama family is a family of distinguished men who are great administrators. Can we afford to drive them out at the whim of some official who is taking just the local view? I should say the reverse. I should like the decision of this House to be such as to encourage the Government to try and find a way of reconciling the undoubted difficulties and differences that exist and bringing into the service of the Commonwealth two of our most distinguished African Chiefs. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the situation in Bechuanaland; the banishment of Seretse and Tshekedi Khama; the need for an inquiry into the future of the Protectorate and the effect of the policy of the Government on African opinion.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
3.22 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had given notice of his intention to move to resolve, That, on the facts as hitherto presented to Parliament, in the opinion of this House the banishment order against Tshekedi Khama should be rescinded and that he should be at liberty to dwell within the territory of his tribe. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the Motion which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has tabled and to which he has just spoken, is, if I may say so, speaking moderately, of a fairly general character. In his speech, especially in the latter portion of it, the noble Viscount raised fairly wide issues of native policy. With these I do not propose to deal this afternoon. If the noble Viscount will forgive my saying so, I think that, in spreading the debate too widely, there is a real danger of clouding the immediate issue with which Parliament is confronted—that is, the banishment of Tshekedi Khama. It is to that issue that

389
my Motion is confined and it is on that issue, and that issue only, that I propose to speak to you this afternoon.
For a great many of us on these Benches, and I believe for a good many noble Lords in all parts of the House, it raises a fundamental principle of British justice—namely, that a British citizen should not be deprived or restricted in his rights and liberties except as the result of some offence of which he has been convicted under the law. There is nothing new about this principle. It goes back to very early times in our history. There is a Charter of Henry III dated 1224, which I should like to read to your Lordships. It says unequivocally:
"None shall be condemned without trial. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be desscised of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any other wise destroyed, nor will we pass upon him nor condemn him, unless by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."
That, stated briefly, is the broad principle on which our British way of life has been founded. It applies without distinction to British citizens of all races, religions and colours. Tshekedi Khama is a British protected person, which for this purpose, is exactly the same thing, and it is our submission that this justice has been denied to him.
Tshekedi Khan a, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has already told your Lordships, is a distinguished member of the Barnangwato Tribe. He acted for a great many years as Regent of his country, and during that period, from all the inquiries I have been able to make, he earned golden opinions from higher authorities. His loyalty to the Crown was undoubted; his word was his bond. Like any strong ruler, of course he made enemies, but there is no evidence I have heard that he committed any crime. On the contrary, his integrity has been above reproach. I understand that the Government themselves recently underlined this fact by offering him an important post under the Crown, as agricultural adviser for the whole Protectorate. In 1949, as the result of certain events into which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, entered to some extent, but into which I do not think it necessary to go to-day, after retiring from the Regerrcy—to which it may he said he has no ambition to return—Tshekedi
390
Khama decided voluntarily, of his own free will, to absent himself from the tribal territories for such period as he thought proper. It was clearly his right to do this. This was a matter for his own individual decision. It did not result from any offence on his part. It was a purely personal matter which, I submit, gave the Government no right, if I may use the words of the statement which was made by the Under-Secretary of State in this House on June 19, to "confirm" this decision. It was his decision, not theirs. Yet, as the result of an inquiry into other matters which did not involve any charges against Tshekedi himself, and purely on the grounds of public and general policy, it was decided, at the end of March, 1950, to refuse him permission to return to the tribal reserve. He was, in fact, banished.
The Government contend, if I may quote the Under-Secretary of State again, that Tshekedi Khama's presence in the tribal area "might lead to disorders." They do not even say, "would lead" to disorders; they say only, "might lead" to disorders. Nor, so far as I can see, have they produced any effective evidence that such is the case. In fact, I believe it to be true that since his banishment he has entered the territory on several occasions, under conditions, I agree, of great inconvenience; but he has entered under permit to attend to private affairs, and no disturbances of any kind whatscever have occurred. Yet now, since that date, the sentence of banishment has been tightened and he is not permitted to enter the area at all.
The Government base their decision on the grounds of public order. They say—and I quote again the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, last week:
"My right honourable friend was faced with the situation in which he had to balance the private rights of an individual against the public good of the tribe."
I must say that that statement fills me with alarm. It seems that in the view of the Government and their supporters the individual has no rights at all. In the past, an individual, unless he had committed an offence, was not only secure against the deprivation of his civil rights and liberties, but he was entitled to the, protection of the law. Now it seems, in Bechuanaland at any rate, that that is no longer true. If he is inconvenient to the

391
powers that be, if he is unpopular, as is alleged in this case, or equally, if he is too popular in another case, he can be proceeded against by administrative order, though he may have done nothing wrong at all. It is not what he does, but who he is, that matters. That is a doctrine we are very familiar with in countries east of the Iron Curtain. It has been used to justify the banishment, or imprisonment, or worse, of any citizen of whom the Government or a majority in the country happened to disapprove. I always understood it was the doctrine par excellence that we who believe in freedom are most concerned to fight for freedom. If we once accepted this other doctrine in British territories, I believe the whole basis of our civilisation would be undermined. What becomes of the liberty of the individual? What becomes of the rights of the minorities? They are all swept away, and everything if left to administrative convenience.
It is perfectly true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said earlier this afternoon, that in the debate yesterday in another place the Secretary of State proposed a compromise to meet the admitted difficulties of the case. Tshekedi is to have another chance. It is proposed that a new kgotla will be called to consider his return to the tribal area. At this kgotla two or three Members of Parliament are to be present—presumably to ensure that the proceedings are fairly conducted—and Tshekedi himself is to be present, if he is willing to appear. The decision is to be reached, I take it, in the light of this kgotla; otherwise, there is no point in holding the kgotla at all. Superficially, this may appear to some an attractive offer, but, like the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I am quite unconvinced that the proposal meets the needs of this particular case.
For one thing—though I am sure it was not his intention—the decision of the new kgotla has already been prejudiced by what was said by the Secretary of State in another place yesterday. First—and I must say that I deeply regret it—he repeated the allegation which he had heard when he was in Bechuanaland, that if Tshekedi returned, the
"Tribe were frightened that he would get hack to a position of power and then revenge himself on them."
It is true that the right honourable gentleman did not say that he personally
392
accepted that view, but he did not repudiate it; and by the mere fact of repeating the allegation, he gave a substance to it which it did not have before. Secondly, he said quite definitely that:
"there was no doubt that if Tshekedi went back, not only would there be no further progress, but we should find the present good relations replaced by non-co-operation."
Is it not certain that these remarks will be repeated in the Bamangwato Tribe? Will it not be pointed out by the opponents of Tshekedi that the Government are behind them? His enemies will be encouraged; his friends will be discouraged. In such circumstances, the kgotla will be a farce, and the result will surely be a foregone conclusion.
Moreover I personally do not like the idea of justice arising from a mass meeting. I do not say that in any term of offence against the meeting, but as objective comment on the character of the meeting. There are a great many legal authorities in your Lordships' House. Would any of them say that that emotional atmosphere was likely to produce unbiased justice? Nor am I convinced by this new idea of the infallibility of the kgotla on which the Government now base their case. After all, it was not so very long ago that a kgotla was held to decide whether Seretse should be Chief, and they decided definitely against it, in the first instance. But His Majesty's Government never showed the zeal which they now show to accept that decision. They hesitated; they vacillated; they waited until the views of the tribe had changed —and, presumably, because the decision of the Tribe was not acceptable to their own supporters in this country. Why are they now so ready to accept the decision of a further kgotla?—unless it is that they think it is likely to coincide with their own views. That is not the way in which we have always been accustomed to administer justice in this country.
This, to many of us—because this is not a Party issue—is a fundamental issue on which we do not feel we can afford to compromise. I most sincerely—and I mean it sincerely—beg the Government to retreat from the course on which they have so unhappily entered; to rescind the order of banishment on Tshekedi Khama, and to allow him to return to his tribal area with the full rights of a private citizen, to carry on his private

393
affairs as a private citizen. As your Lordships know, he has considerable properties there: he is a rancher on a large scale; he has developed his properties; he has bought cattle—on which he is an acknowledged expert; and he has sunk boreholes. His presence is vital if his estates are to be properly administered. That is all he asks for, and that, surely, is mere justice. If the Government are willing to do this, we on this side of the House, I am certain, shall be very happy, and we shall not seek to delve further into the past, which I agree it is better, in such circumstances, to bury.
I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who asked me a direct question on this point, that it is the restoration of Tshekedi Khama, and not merely an inquiry, to which we attach importance. But if the Government were to refuse to reverse the decision, if that were their attitude to-day—although many of us would find some considerable difficulty in supporting the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on account of the wider issues he has raised, both in the words of the Motion and in his speech, which, in our view, are not relative to the plea which we are advancing—then we should have no option but to press our Motion to a Division. The issue to many of us is too great for any other course to be possible. On the ore side, as we see it, there is principle; on the other, there is expediency—and. in my experiency of public affairs, such as it is, expediency is the most dangerous of all counsellors. It very often means sacrificing everything for which you stand to gain some temporary advantage. Yet the long range results of expediency may well be disastrous, as in this case. What will be the position of other African Chiefs in the future who wish, and ought, to rule with a firm hand? They will know that they will make themselves unpopular, perhaps with wide sections of their people, and they will say to themselves: "If we do that, when the day of trouble comes the British Government will not stand by us, but will abandon us." What could be worse than that? What could be more damaging to our prestige and reputation?
We are told—and this is a point of importance—that our representatives on the spot have supported the Government's view. I am not in the least sur-
394
prised about that, nor do I blame them: indeed, like others of your Lordships, I have the highest respect for Sir Evelyn Baring and those who work under him. I believe it is natural that in the position they occupy they should take this view. Their job, as local administrators, is to secure the smooth administration of the territories for which they are responsible, and on that purely limited basis the advice which they have given may he well based. But we here have to take account of far wider considerations than merely local administration. They, the local administrators, are not concerned with fundamental principles; but we here in Parliament are concerned with those principles. One of the main purposes of our existence as a legislative Chamber is to maintain the high principles and repute on which our Commonwealth and Empire rests. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that this is not a Party question: it is a question of conscience which cuts across all Parties. It is because I believe that so profoundly that—unless the Government change their view, and I still hope that they may—I shall have no option but to ask the House, which has so high a standard of conduct, to go into the Lobby in support of my Motion.
3.40 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF LUCAN): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Stansgate has said, we can take a great pride that, in a time of such stress and tension, this Parliament can devote time to a case of injustice, as it is held to be by some people, towards two members of an African tribe for whom we have responsibility. We know that on this matter deep public feelings have been aroused, and they exemplify a public opinion which is always so very sensitive on the question of the rights of the individual and which has so often been led by my noble friend Lord Stansgate over many years. I think it is due to the depth of this public feeling that several serious misconceptions have arisen about the whole nature of the dispute, and I do not think they have been dispelled by the two speeches we have heard this afternoon.
First of all, the conflict of interest has been represented as one between the interest of an African tribe and the British Government; the interest of African

395
people, helpless and far away, against the whole power of the British Government. I submit that that is entirely wrong. The conflict of interest—which is a very real conflict, raising very difficult problems—is one between the Bamangwato people, a small tribe in a small Protectorate in Southern Africa, on the one hand, and, on the other, a single man, a distinguished, powerful and very able Chief, a member of their own ruling family. That, as we see it, is the conflict, and that is the conflict which had to be resolved by the Government. There have been allegations of injustice, and I think it has not been generally recognised that conditions in the Bechuanaland Protectorate are different from those in this country. Six or eight centuries ago there were certainly charters of individual liberty in this country, but it is only sixty years since the Great Khama sought the protection of Queen Victoria for his people. Shortly afterwards he made a journey to England, and accepted the Constitution whereby his country became a Protectorate under the Government; and that Constitution, with modifications at certain times, has remained to this day.
In matters of individual liberty that Constitution is not the same as ours in this country, and it is the responsibility of the Government to maintain order and good Government in the Protectorate within the Constitution. That responsibility is exercised through the High Commissioner and his staffs. The question of banishment without trial is entirely within the Constitution of the Protectorate, a Constitution which has been in force for forty years and more, and which has been applied by Governments of every complexion in this country. It is no new thing, as the noble Marquess was implying. There is no change of policy, and the noble Marquess must know that for many years this territory has been administered under precisely these conditions, and the power of banishment is specifically included in that Constitution. It is a power which dates from time immemorial in African tribes and in other societies, and has been exercised on certain occasions (which were mentioned in another place) by rulers of the Bamangwato and sanctioned by His Majesty's Government.
396
This question of banishment is not considered as a sentence called forth by a crime. There is no question of crime. There has never been a mention of crime, and I regretted that my noble friend spoke, I think, of the campaign of criticism against Tshekedi Khama. There was nothing which my right honourable friend said in another place which could be construed as criticism of Tshekedi Khama. Here may I digress and mention the question of supposed prejudice to the forthcoming kgotla which may be caused by the Secretary of State's speech yesterday? On two grounds, I think it is a complete misrepresentation to speak of any prejudice to Tshekedi's case being caused by yesterday's proceedings. In the first place, the Secretary of State was under a personal attack, and when we talk of campaigns one might say that there was a campaign of criticism against the Government and the Secretary of State. He was under severe attack and was required to justify his actions. His justification for his actions was the state of feeling of the Tribe, which he quoted. That cannot be considered as prejudicing the case; moreover, the Bamangwato are not so easily convinced. They are not so pliable as to accept everything that a Secretary of State says. A number of cases have occurred where the Secretary of State would have liked a kgotla to be held, or a certain decision to be taken, and the Tribe took the contrary course. The suggestion that there has been anything done or said to prejudice the forthcoming kgotla is completely without substance.
I hope that I have said enough to show that there is really no question of injustice. Tshekedi Khama's interests unfortunately conflicted with those of the Tribe and it is the Tribe that we have in mind. As your Lordships know, under the existing Constitution the responsibility rests with the High Commissioner, and the High Commissioner is ultimately responsible to the Secretary of State. It is the Secretary of State who has to make up his mind whether and in what conditions a risk to law and order in the Protectorate or in the Reserve would exist. To make up his mind he must take the best evidence available. What was the evidence at his disposal? How could he find out the state of feeling in the Bamangwato Tribe? First, there are direct expressions of opinion by tribal leaders and headmen,

397
who have volunteered statements to the officials, either individually or at kgotlas, which are the traditional means of expression of public opinion in African tribes. Secondly, the Secretary of State can take into account the views of his officials.
Here I would join issue with my noble friend, who spoke in what I thought was a very unfair way about these officials. These are men who have voluntarily devoted their lives to this service, which means that they give up their lives to the welfare and good government of the African tribes. Nobody has forced them to do that; there is no reason why they should have done it; and it is reasonable to assume that they wanted to do the job as well as possible and that they have the interests of the African people at heart. I regret the suggestions that they were motivated by self-aggrandisement or of the exercise of dictatorial power and the currying of favour with their superiors. All this has been implied with regard to the kgotla held in February. I must protest, on behalf of these servants of the Government and of the African people, against the bandying about of such irresponsible accusations—for I can only call them so. That is the second form of evidence as to tribal opinion that the Secretary of State had at his disposal.
He had also his own eyes and ears to assist him, for he himself spent some days in the Protectorate, met large numbers of people, attended various tribal meetings, and formed certain opinions, as he was entitled to do. Fourthly, there are other African peoples living in Southern Africa in roughly comparable conditions, and it is good evidence to hear what they think. Leaders of African opinion in other pares of Southern Africa also have their views.
LORD HARLECH: Where?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: In Basutoland and in South Africa.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Were they invited to give their opinions?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: That I cannot say. The opinions were given, in the case of Basutoland, with the greatest sense of responsibility. The Paramount Chief in Council gave her opinion with every sense of responsibility and with willingness that it should be quoted. Other tribes, too—and remember that we are
398
now talking about only one tribe, numbering some 20,000, out of a population of 200,000 in the Protectorate—in the other Reserves in the Protectorate are entitled to their views; they have expressed similar views. All the weight of African and official opinion I have mentioned was to the same effect: that there would be a risk to law and order if Tshekedi returned to the Reserve. Against that the Secretary of State had the views of Tshekedi himself; and surely no one would suggest that a responsible Minister having to make up his mind on an important matter would ignore the whole weight of African opinion and take that of the most interested person himself.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But is it not a fact that on the occasions when Tshekedi did go back there was no disturbance?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Those were limited visits, undertaken for specific purposes while the banishment order was in force. The people had no reason to fear that Tshekedi would be returning as Regent, or that he would be returning permanently to live in the Reserve.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is a very important matter and I should like the noble Earl to deal with it as he goes along. He admits that when Tshekedi returned—I think for four months—while the order of banishment was in force, there was no disorder of any sort or kind in the Reserve. Is it not a fact that Tshekedi has made an offer to the Secretary of State that he will continue to live outside the territory, provided that he is able to return to look after his own affairs, exactly in the way he did during that four months' period last year? Will the Secretary of State accept that offer?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The visits referred to were undertaken purely for the purpose of looking after his own interests in the territory. The offers made by the Secretary of State during his talks with Tshekedi early this spring were for similar visits. I cannot at the moment give the exact details or the exact conditions, but they were for conditional visits. In addition, if my memory serves me aright, it was requested that certain of the more distant cattle, stations should be withdrawn and concentrated into one area of the Protectorate, instead of being

399
scattered over a number. Those conditions, admittedly, were proposed by the Secretary of State, but Tshekedi did not feel able to accept them. I cannot agree with the statement that the fact that no disturbances followed the visits to the kgotla last year is a proof that disorders would not follow Tshekedi's permanent return.
Now, my Lords, the criticisms that have been made of the Government's policy have, for the most part, consisted of throwing doubt on the genuineness of tribal opinions which I have mentioned. It is clear that many people in this country are very deeply and sincerely disturbed by a doubt whether these repeated expressions of opinions of the Bamangwato have been correctly interpreted. To allay these doubts—and it is obvious that doubts on such a matter must be allayed —the Government have agreed to invite the Bamangwato people to express their opinion again on the matter of the return to the Reserve of Tshekedi. The proposal is that a kgotla should be held in the fairly near future. Some words of the noble Marquess rather implied that this kgotla was of little value and, therefore, that it was not be relied upon as an expression of opinion. But, of course, the ballot box has not yet penetrated to the Bechuanaland Protectorate. The time-honoured, traditional tribal method of expressing an opinion on important matters is the tribal meeting, or kgotla. The noble Marquess, who has been in the Dominions Office, must know that that is the only known method of obtaining the views of the tribesmen, and, moreover, the method best known to the Bamangwato people.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, because I know he has a difficult speech to make, but he is really misapprehending the point I made, which was that the result of the kgotla had already been prejudiced by the strong expressions of view by the Secretary of State himself in another place yesterday.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: It may have been that the noble Marquess was out of the House when I mentioned that point. I cannot agree that the Secretary of State's speech yesterday prejudiced the case. I do not believe that the
400
Bamangwato people pay all that much attention to the words of the Minister in Parliament.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
THE EARL OF LUCAN: There have been many cases where they have not been as compliant as the noble Marquess may think. Moreover, the Secretary of State was putting his case against a Motion which he thought, if carried, would have a very grave effect on the Protectorate. He was bound to give all the evidence on which the Government policy was based, and it cannot be accepted that the future—in this instance, what will happen in an African meeting a month hence—was prejudiced by yesterday's events. The Government hope that the kgotla will be held sometime in the near future. Consultations about the date and the mechanism of calling it are starting immediately. It is obviously desirable that the state of uncertainty should be ended as soon as possible. At the same time, there are physical limitations for the Members of Parliament who, it is suggested, should go out and attend this kgotla. It will probably be some weeks before the kgotla can be summoned.
A very important question is the presence or otherwise at this kgotla of Tshekedi Khama and his followers. The view of the Government is that they would wish Tshekedi to have every possible facility for presenting his case fully to the kgotla, and they will not put any obstacle in his way. The banishment order allows for visits to the Reserve under permit for special purposes, and the Government would, of course, give such facilities. As to the followers of Tshekedi who are now resident in the Bakwena Reserve, from the Government point of view there is no ban and no obstacle to their going back. There is, however, the question of tribal law and custom. It is not for us, the Government, to override anything in tribal law which might say that someone who has left the Reserve, taken up residence and become a member or citizen, so to speak, of another tribe, is still qualified to attend. All the Government can do is to say that they hope that Tshekedi will be given full facilities for presenting his case.

401
My noble friend asked for what reason the Members of Parliament would go there? Why should there not be a proper inquiry instead? As I have said, the object of this second kgotla is to allay the doubts which exist in the minds of so many people, particularly in the minds of Members of Parliament. If some Members can be present at the kgotla, they can satisfy themselves that it is a genuine expression of opinion. Whatever decision is come to by this forthcoming meeting, will be taken very seriously by the Government. Noble Lords will realise that the Government cannot abdicate their functions, give up the whole of their responsibility and leave matters to be decided by a tribal meeting. What they will do is to treat any expression of opinion by that kgotla as important evidence of the feeling of the tribe. There are other considerations that also have to be taken into account but, so far as the public opinion in the tribe goes, that kgotla will be taken as evidence of genuine public opinion.
There are many other speakers, and your Lordships will not want me to go into great detail. Some of the details of the evidence mentioned were largely dealt with during the debate in another place yesterday. I will not deal with all of those, but should like to end by saying that the Government's policy in this territory has been set out, I think I may say repeatedly set out, both in the White Paper and by the Secretary of State, and by the Prime Minister yester day. Some of the criticisms directed against the Government seem to assume that the main object of the Government is to introduce direct rule of the most autocratic kind, to perpetuate that rule and to pay no attention to the wishes and the social, economic and political development of the African people. That is entirely contrary to the fact.
LORD HARLECH: Nobody has suggested it.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I must say in a most emphatic way that these accusations are completely unfounded and that the object of the Government has been to introduced democratic forms of government to lead the people steadily towards increasing self-government. To that end, the first thing that has to be
402
done is the ground work, the setting up of the local government system and the gradual devolution to local authorities of powers proper to their, so in time building up a politically mature society in these tribes.
There has never been any change in Government policy on this matter. I realise that the people who accuse the Government of high-handedness and the wish to suppress native institutions hold their views, no doubt with complete sincerity. But perhaps I may be permitted to say that it is a matter for regret that this anxiety for the well-being of the Africans should take the form of accusations of deliberate bad faith on the part of the Government and of Ministers, and of reflections on the integrity of the officials who are serving the Government in Africa.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never made any accusations such as that. I do not know what the noble Earl means by saying that. I paid a tribute to Sir Evelyn Baring and all the people who acted under him. The noble Earl's accusation is monstrous.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: If the noble Marquess says that, of course, I accept it. I thought the noble Marquess implied that the civil servants out there were concerned only with administrative convenience and not with principles.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl will forgive me, I said they were concerned with local administration. It is true that I said that it seemed to me that if the Government swept away all the other principles to which we have always adhered, they were leaving nothing but administrative convenience. That I said of His Majesty's Government. I hold that view and I repeat it. But with regard to Sir Evelyn Baring, and those who worked under him, I said they were concerned with local administration, and not with principles.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I am quite sure that we do not want this debate on such an important matter to be conducted other than in the best possible spirit. I wrote down the words that the noble Marquess used. He said:
"The Civil Service are not concerned with fundamental principles."

403
We hold the view that under the Constitution of a country the Civil Service do not make recommendations, apart from what is required of the administration in the observance of fundamental principles. The noble Marquess's observation sounded rather like a criticism.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount will forgive me for saying so, but that is not true at all. The local officials are not concerned with the fundamental principles which dominate the policy. It would be absurd if they were. Supposing they disagreed with their Ministers or superiors, they would all the time have to be resigning from their job is. Their job is to carry on the practical administration of the territory concerned. It is for the Government to be concerned with fundamental principles, and it is our complaint that they are not.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I must apologise to the noble Marquess if I misunderstood his words. But I was struck by something that Lord Stansgate said when he spoke of some decisions having been come to through the whim of an official. I must express some resentmentat such an attitude to the Government and to officials.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am sorry to have attracted the fire which was directed against the noble Marquess, and which I was enjoying very much. I cannot regard the fact that I said that some decisions were come to through the whim of an official as a very serious attack upon the Civil Service.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I would only say that in a matter like this, which so vitally affects the view of the African tribes under our control, we should give credit to those who disagree with us for having methods at least no worse than our own.
4.14 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, your Lordships have just listened to a most amazing reply. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has fought stalwartly all his life for ultra-liberal principles of all kinds, quite rightly and naturally has raised this very human issue regarding the treatment by successive Ministers of Tshekedi Khama. My noble friend Lord Salisbury did not go into or enlarge upon a number of the details which appeared in the departmental brief given to the Minis
404
ter, which took up most of his speech and which were entirely irrelevant to the two speeches that had gone before. The noble Earl sat down without saying one word on this broad issue of the consistent "cat-and-mouse" banishment of Tshekedi Khama. Why has Tshekedi Khama been banished periodically and allowed back under proper surveillance? To make it worse, where can he go? Do you want him to go to the Union? Do you want him to go to Central Africa, or to East Africa? He has many friends, even in Nigeria, Uganda and the like, for he is one of the most celebrated and admired Chiefs in all parts of Africa. He has a great reputation among Africans.
Here is the remarkable example of a Lovedale boy who, with great merit and great knowledge, has brought forward his own tribal area on his own initiative by building schools and engaging in entirely new ventures. He has made many improvements in agriculture, and, above all, he is renowned for his great leadership in the war. I have personal knowledge of that because I was High Commissioner. He recruited throughout the High Commission Territories and in Rhodesia. He made many visits to African troops of all tribes, who regarded him as one of the great leaders at the Front. As an ex-High Commissioner, I must say that it makes one sick to hear the kind of inadequate speech that your Lordships have heard from the Government Front Bench—a sort of departmental brief—when a great human and a great constitutional issue is at stake. I speak with feeling on this matter. I have worked with Tshekedi. I have the greatest admiration for him. I owe him a great personal debt of gratitude.
Then there is the way in which the High Commissioner is treated. We get these letters exploited by Socialist Ministers. There is the honourable gentleman, Colonel Lipton, who objects to Tshekedi going to Bakwena. Where is he to go? The Bakwena are kinsmen of the Bamangwato. It is one of the smallest and the weakest and the humblest of the native Reserves. He cannot even go there. That has been criticised in a letter in The Thnes from this Socialist Colonel. I really think that the way in which first Mr. Noel-Baker and now Mr. Gordon-Walker have personally treated Tshekedi is one of the blackest spots in the history

405
of the treatment of the African people. Having been Secretary of State for the Colonies and having worked amongst these people, I want to say that emphatically. I feel most bitterly on the subject. What I want to know is whether the kgotla is going to be fairly conducted. Is it going to be really free? I hope so. Of course, it will have to be a very large kgotla to deal with all the Bamangwato Tribe. As a matter of fact, the Bamangwato are a minority in the Bamangwato Reserve, as we delimited it. The Bamangwato proper in the Eastern part are outnumbered by the elements of other tribes. who are resident in that Reserve, including quite a number of Damaras from South West Africa, the Bakwena, and the like. After all, this Reserve is a comparatively modern creation. Chief Khama, by his skill in war, saved the whole of the Northern Bechuanaland people from being over whelmed by the Matabele, and by his ability as a statesman he created the Bamangwato, who are a comparatively small people.
It is absolutely essential that when the kgotla is called we should know beforehand who is going to preside. I hope it will be an African. But let it be an African who is not known to be a partisan of one side or another. We could not carry on the business of the House of Commons unless there was an impartial Speaker. I think it is all-important that the President of this kgotla which is to be summoned should be absolutely impartial, and that it should be a very large kgotla. There should be a minimum of 6,000 or 7,000 people in attendance, and there should be no hurrying of its deliberations. And be sure it is absolutely fair. I think it is probably as good a device as any, in view of the mess that this matter has got into. After all, the mess goes back to the refusal to publish the report of the judge. The judge was asked to carry out an inquiry, and everyone in Basutoland, Swaziland and the other Protectorates—I was in Rhodesia at the time—said: "Thank goodness there is to be a judicial inquiry! We shall hear the objective truth from an impartial judge." But the Government have suppressed the report of that judicial inquiry and have declined to publish it, though repeatedly pressed to do so. Why they have refused I cannot understand. I
406
think that among all the instances of tragic mismanagement in Africa for which this Government have been responsible, this is one of the cardinal examples of maladministration.
The conclusion one comes to about all this is that there is perpetual difficulty as between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. I was for three years under the then Dominions Office, as High Commissioner. Before that, during all my official life I was under the Colonial Office. The bulk of the officials in the High Commission Territories are Colonial Office people, seconded from the Colonial Empire for service there; but when they are in the High Commission Territories they are under the Commonwealth Relations Office. I more and more feel that the time has come when, if we are to go on administering the High Commission Territories in South Africa, they must he dealt with by the same office, the same people and treated with the same policy as Central Africa, East Africa and West Africa. The duality cannot go on. It is extremely difficult, too, for the High Commissioners. One staff is entirely a Commonwealth Relations Office staff. The Commonwealth Relations Office people have had nothing to do with the Territories, though they are very able and have had great experience of Australia, Canada, Newfoundland, Eire and latterly of India, Pakistan and Ceylon. However, they have had no African experience, and they have no obligation to take an interest in that Continent. Then there is another staff of people, drawn from the administration of the three High Commision Territories and from the Colonial Service in the Colonial Office. The result has been that two completely watertight compartments have existed. I find it difficult to believe that we can indefinitely go on organising those three High Commission Territories in that way.
I had always hoped that the Dominions Office people would visit the High Commission Territories, so that when they returned to the Dominions Office they would have some first-hand knowledge and some opinions formed at first-hand. But no, they were much too busy dealing with the Union Government and the Union point of view on all these matters. And quite right too, for that is their job; it is an ambassadorial function. It

407
is high time the administration of the South African High Commission Territories was transferred from the Commonwealth Relations Office, with all its new policies and new world-wide responsibilities, to the Colonial Office. That is my considered opinion. I can see that the change Would be beset by certain practical difficulties, but I think it is necessary. What has brought matters to a head is this extraordinary treatment of one of the outstanding Africans.
I have one other point to raise. Why did the Government, when all the trouble was going on about Seretse's marriage—that is now, rather wisely I think, forgotten—never stop the Press of this country calling him "His Highness." Tshekedi was never "His Highness." None of the other Chiefs in the High Commission Territories—the Paramount Chief of Basutoland or the Paramount Chief of Swaziland—is entitled to such a title. But it was: "His Highness Prince Seretse" and "Princess Ruth," or "Their Highnesses." When all that was going on in the British Press, without any interference from the Government, I happened to be in Uganda. It is the case, of course, that only the native rulers of Uganda and Zanzibar have been recognised by the British Crown as "Highnesses." It caused a great deal of feeling when the people in those countries suddenly saw all these references in British newspapers and other publications to Seretse as "His Highness." Tshekedi has never claimed the title of "Highness." Many people can have no idea how much harm that kind of thing causes, not only in the Union of South Africa and in the High Commission Territories but also in East Africa and West Africa. Again, I say, the handling of this tragic affair in this one Reserve of the Bechuanaland Protectorate shows that our whole set-up, our whole machinery for governing these territories, must be reconsidered. I feel bitterly that Tshekedi Khama, one of the outstanding Africans of his time, has had shabby treatment from successive Socialist Ministers. I sincerely trust he is not going to be let down in the future. We owe him a great debt of gratitude; at least, we owe him fair play. I trust that you will not go on encouraging the campaign to "do him in."
4.28 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I rise to speak for noble Lords who normally sit on these Benches, in support of the Motion on a matter which has been discussed fully, not only in another place yesterday but also in the Press and, indeed, in every corner where intelligent argument takes place. When I say that we support the Motion, I feel that, after listening to the debate to-day, we preferably support the Motion of the noble Viscount. Lord Stansgate, because it seems that there is a certain amount of confusion about the question of banishment itself. Many of us may not like the penalty of banishment or the fact that it can exist in the British Empire, but it does exist in certain corners of the British Empire, and we cannot consider to-day whether that position should be changed. It is a very big matter which should be submitted, I suggest, to a Select Committee or some such appropriate body to take a decision upon it. My second point is, given that this penalty of banishment still applies in parts of the Empire, has it been properly and fairly applied in this particular case? It seems to me that Lord Stansgate's Motion takes that question rather more widely than does the Motion of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. For that reason I, for one, would follow the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, into the Division Lobby at an even more respectful distance than he is following the noble Marquess.
I am very glad—as I am sure all noble Lords are—that no element of Party spirit has come into this matter, controversial though it is. And May I be forgiven if I say that it gives me great pleasure to know that the lead which the Liberal Party gave last night in another place by putting down a similar Motion or Question, has been so enthusiastically followed by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, whom, if I may say so, I always regard politically and affectionately as a sort of prodigal uncle. I hope that, unlike the weary, plodding ploughman, he will hasten his steps much more quickly on the homeward way. I was also pleased that noble Lords on my physical left, and political right, should also lend support to the Liberal view, whether that word be spelt with a large or a small "1" or, as in some parts of the country, with a double "Ll."

409
In the course of this regrettable dispute a great deal of detail has been made available to those who care to read it. But at this stage your Lordships should get rid of details so far as possible and look at this matter in the broad. A case has been made out on one side and a case has been made out on the other. In neither instance is the evidence presented in a form which would be accepted by a British count of law, but in each instance there appears a strong prima facie case for investigation and examination, to ensure that injustice has not been and will not be done. There are two parties to this dispute and one of them appears to have assumed additionally the rôle of judge, and has given a verdict in his own favour. I do not say that this is a fair summary of the position, but it is an impression that is widely held in this country and cannot be ignored. That seems to me to be the crux of the matter, and it is quite immaterial and irrelevant that one party is a powerful Government Department and the other is an African from a far-away part of the British Empire.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, would agree with me that, much as we admire the very fine record of Tshekedi Khama, as a matter of propaganda (if I may use the word in a kindly sense) we should have preferred to see in his place some poor African coloured farmer, without influence, wealth or position, so that we could demonstrate even more forcibly than we are doing that any citizen of His Majesty in any part of the Empire, whether white or coloured, can have behind him the full weight of both Houses of Parliament in London. I am not trying to prejudge this matter. Many of your Lord ships, though not all, I gather from the last speaker, will feel that the Secretary of State has discharged a particularly difficult task with good will and good intention. But the point is: Has he done it with good judgment? He brings evidence to show, of course, that he has used good judgment, and the other side brings evidence to show that he has not used good judgment. This is a perfectly normal position in any dispute; and surely the next step after that is to put the matter before an impartial judge or tribunal. It is for that reason we consider that an official and impartial inquiry should be set up to look into this matter.
410
One of the matters that should be looked into is the propriety of setting up another tribal congress to decide a question which had already been dealt with on two or three occasions. Even if this inquiry were in the nature of an appeal against earlier decisions, it would make no difference. There is no stigma in the action of appealing, no stigma on either side, whatever the conclusion may be. In this country, where in many cases the laws are very different from those in Africa, it is open to any citizen to pursue his appeal through all the courts of law right up to your Lordships' House. I stand open to correction, if that is not so. The only thing which would debar a citizen from taking that course would be that his appeal was either frivolous or unduly vexatious. I do not think any of your Lordships would consider either party was other than sincere. It is for this reason, for the right of any sincere man or body of men to have a case judged impartially, that we on this side of the House support the Motion proposed by the noble Viscount.
4.35 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I cannot pretend to be an expert on the dynastic aspect of Bamangwato affairs, nor have I a ready-made solution that I can offer to your Lordships for the complicated situation that has arisen. Early in the present year, I spent about a month in Bechuanaland, about ten days of that period being at the headquarters of the Bamangwato and the rest of the time travelling about to various other centres. During that period it was impossible to avoid hearing a great deal about the complications that had arisen through what I might call the Seretse-Tshekedi affair. In the kgotla which I attended, I tried, so far as possible, to lead the discussion away from that; but, as your Lordships will realise, if you want people to talk freely about matters that concern you—and in this case the matter concerning me primarily was the technique of native administration—you must allow them pretty considerable latitude in talking about matters which concern them and in which they are primarily interested. Though I did not make any deliberate attempt to inquire into all the facts, or to ascertain what was the general opinion on this subject, nevertheless I could form certain conclusions.

411
I formed the conclusion, first, that there was a very considerable state of tension in the Bamangwato area. I formed the conclusion also that it would be wise if we could proceed now with the scheme for the institution of local councils and, so long as there were no other native authority, of a Central Council. These are the three conclusions I formed. I am bound to say that I formed them partly on the particular ground of the existence of this tension, and partly on the general ground of the necessity of pushing forward with a policy of instituting local councils in the interests of the promotion of systems of local government. I know that if I attempted to go any further than that, I should be reminded that, after all, I was dealing with the same officials and probably for the most part the same "unofficials" of the Bamangwato people as the Secretary of State. He was there only a fortnight before me, and I should not be able to pretend that I had any independent source of opinion that was not open to him. I naturally saw the ex-chief, Tshekedi, for whom I have as much admiration as the noble Lords who have spoken. I saw him in the Bakwena Reserve, but I did not see any of the members of the group who went with him to Bakwena, and whom I know to be some of the most distinguished and experienced men who have been concerned in the administration of the Bamangwato Tribe.
Therefore, if I can offer any suggestion or advice in this matter, it is simply this. It would be expedient to proceed as soon as possible to a decision on this case and, having once done so, to stand by it. I think that much of our trouble in this case has come from variation of policy. As to the various abstract questions that have been raised in correspondence, to my mind these are considerations of a wider import than that with which I have been dealing—namely, the return of ex-Chief Tshekedi to the Bamangwato area. Contrary to some opinions I have heard here this afternoon, I think that they are of minor importance compared with the necessity of securing peace and orderly progress in the Bamangwato area. That, at all events, is my immediate and most urgent preoccupation. I look at yesterday's debate in another place, and I fear that the only impression it conveys to me is of a large
412
number of people of good will propounding a great variety of different remedies for the situation that has arisen in the Bamangwato area, but being unable to decide on any one line of action. I suggest that that is because on this occasion Parliament has gone somewhat beyond its natural functions. It has not confined itself to a discussion of principles, but has gone into a field in which its tread is always somewhat uncertain—namely, the field of administrative practice. But it is a legitimate function for Parliament to discuss these questions of wider principle in their own connection, and I think that on occasion it should do so.
I would say, in regard to some of the pleas put forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the question of the validity of the procedure by which people can be moved from their tribe to another area without trial, that it is one that has been in force for many years throughout the Colonial Empire. The noble Marquess himself as Colonial Secretary must have given sanction to a number of ordinances that embody this principle. Our concern must be not so much with that principle as with safeguarding its application—and I agree that it is the function of Parliament to see that in its application there is no injustice and no abuse of power. But can the Government, for this purpose, insure themselves against any abuse of power, or any misuse of an ordinance of that nature, by sending out a commission of inquiry? After all, there have been numerous cases throughout the Colonial Empire in which this power has been used. It does not seem to me at all reasonable that there should be a commission of inquiry upon this particular occasion and not on the other numerous occasions on which this power has been exercised. Many of your Lordships have no doubt received a number of memorials in the past regarding its recent application in Uganda.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but I take it that he is now addressing himself to the Motion moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. It is no part of the Motion of my noble Leader and myself to have an inquiry. We feel that that would be quite wrong.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If that is the case, may I ask the noble Viscount why, if an inquiry is not part of the scheme,

413
the noble Marquess's Motion refers to the fact that this man was banished without inquiry?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will deal with that point when I come to wind up the debate. I only desire that my noble friend Lord Hailey should not be under a misapprehension as to what is in our minds.
LORD HAILEY: Your Lordships will see the difficulty which some of us feel at the moment; we are never quite sure to which Motion we should address ourselves. The course of action suggested in the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is somewhat different from that suggested by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and in consequence of these two combined or allied Motions one can become confused as to what immediate action it is proposed to take. Just now I find myself very mach in the position of the amiable Irishman who wanted to know whether what he saw was a private quarrel, or whether anyone could join in. I feel in the same difficulty but I will leave that to other noble Lords.
My immediate point is that, if I take this case in particular, I see no reason to suppose that we should achieve any better resualts from a commission of inquiry than would be obtained from the opinion of responsible and experienced officials on the spot. I am perfectly well aware that no criticism has been made this afternoon of the good faith of these officials. After what has been said here, I think we may take that as common ground to both sides. But, both in correspondence elsewhere, and to a certain extent, I feel, this afternoon, some doubt has been cast on their judgment. My point is that a commission of inquiry would not be a commission to ascertain facts—as a rule, facts are well known, or easily ascertainable—but would be charged with the task of determining whether a particular course of action to be taken—namely, the removal of a particular Chief, or a particular person, from his tribe—would be necessary in the cause of peace. In other words, the commission would require to answer a rather speculative question as to whether or not this precaution was necessary in the cause of peace and good order. My point is that we are as likely to obtain a reasonable answer to that question from
414
responsible officials on the spot as from any commission that may go out to make an ad hoc inquiry.
I now come to the major point I wish to make—namely, that all these discussions in Parliament have shown an undue lack of confidence in the judgment of officials on the spot. Who are these officials? Some of their names have been given here this afternoon. Everyone has expressed the greatest confidence in the High Commissioner, Sir Evelyn Baring, and I am certain that no one who has seen his work in India, in Southern Rhodesia, or in the High Commission Territories, would have any doubt whatever that in this matter he has been actuated only by one consideration—namely, a sense of responsibility for the future of the Tribe. It may he that he has not dealt with some of these more fundamental questions to which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, referred, but his primary duty has been to consider the well-being of that Tribe. Nobody who knew him would for a moment suggest that he was guilty of anything like partiality, prejudice or arbitrary action in anything he has done in this matter. There is the Resident Commissioner, as Lord Harlech said, a member of the Colonial Service, who has had a good career in other parts of the Colonies; who when he was transferred, for a time to Swaziland, left it with almost universal expressions of regret and affection from the people. He is new to Bechuanaland, but he is in an admirable position to form a judgment. Then there is the District Commissioner, who has spent many years in Bechuanaland. It is true that he has only recently come to the Bamangwato Reserve, but he served there for some time many years ago. He has a wide experience, and has the additional advantage, all too rare in Africa, as Lord Harlech will agree, of knowing the language well and being able to address a kgotla at some length without an interpreter. Let me add this, from my personal knowledge of him: that anyone less arbitrary, less dictatorial, less inclined to impose his will on a tribe. I have seldom met. It is only fair that I should say that to your Lordships, in view of some of the criticisms which have been made in another place of certain actions he took in regard to the kgotla at which the Secretary of State attended.

415
These, then, are the men who have to deal with this question. I put it to your Lordships that, as Parliament has attempted a solution of this question and have been so hopelessly divided upon it, we can get little real guidance from its debates on the subject. I put it to your Lordships also that a mere acceptance of this Resolution, followed by a return of Tshekedi, is not in itself a solution. It is necessary to ensure that he should return with something like reasonable good will from the Tribe itself. What is the best way of ascertaining this? I know of no other way than that which I think has already, perhaps subject to conditions, gained the assent of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—namely, referring it again to the Tribe. I agree that if this is done, the kgotla should have the widest possible representation, not only of the Bamangwato themselves (because they are only 17,000 out of a total of 100,000 in the Reserve), but of all the tributary or allied tribes concerned. I think it is essential that it should be arranged that the group to which I have referred, one of the most responsible groups of people in the Bamangwato Reserve, who went into temporary exile with the ex-chief Tshekedi, should have the fullest facilities to return under something like a safe conduct from the Government itself.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said that we must not override native law and custom in this respect, and that native law and custom may not approve of the temporary return to the Tribe of men who have taken up their residence elsewhere. I do not, however, regard that as a very difficult question. I have read in the past so many cases in which ex-Chiefs or Chiefs or members of the ruling family of the Bamangwato themselves, have taken refuge in another country. Indeed, in the course of history it has become almost a family habit of the Royal Family to take refuge with the countries next door. So I feel quite certain that that would not he anything like an insuperable objection. I say that it is possible to have the widest possible representation at this kgotla. Given a reasonable time for it to meet. given reasonable facilities to the ex-Chief Tshekedi to attend himself and put his case to the Tribe, then I can think of no better way of ensuring a decision on this
416
question. May I add this? It was stated yesterday in another place that this would enable disaffected members of ex-Chief Tshekedi's Tribe permanently to banish him. It could easily be arranged that the decision of the Tribe on the question of permanent banishment need never arise. It has not been suggested here, as, unfortunately, it was elsewhere, that the consultation of the Tribe in this manner would mean yielding to mob rule. It was a very unfortunate expression, and I think it will be very much resented by the whole of the Bechuana people.
It is difficult to describe how deeply attached the Bechuana people are to the kgotla system, not only for the management of their administrative affairs, but also for the management of their judicial affairs. What are described as Chiefs' Courts or decisions of Chiefs' Courts are invariably described by the Bechuanas themselves as decisions of the kgotla. Those who have sat with the kgotla, and seen them try their proceedings, will realise how orderly is the procedure, how deeply interested the people are, and how readily the decision of a kgotla is accepted—far more readily than decisions of any of the European courts that I fiave seen in that area. The kgotla is regarded by the Bechuana as the central feature of the whole of their constitutional and political system, and I think they themselves would say that there is no better way of deciding a question like this than another reference, under the most careful precautions to a kgotla. As I have said, they themselves would be the first to resent the idea that this involved anything like condescending to mob rule. I myself see no other possible solution at the moment of this immediate question than another reference to a kgotla, under the most careful precautions to secure that it shall be of a fully representative character. I have not the smallest doubt that the responsible officers of Government on the spot would not merely be able to secure this but would be deeply interested to see that it was managed in this way.
4.57 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, your Lordships must pay every attention and respect to the experience and knowledge of the noble Lord. Lord Hailey, on African affairs, and if we dare to venture some difference of opinion in certain matters it is because some of the things

417
which he has praised seem somehow to have been interfered with. I am glad that this matter has come to this House. I view it with mixed feelings of pride and humility—pride that our fellow citizens in different parts of the world can appeal to the highest court of public opinion in this country. That it has aroused such feeling in the country shows that the spirit of liberty and the desire for full freedom for all citizens is not yet dead. That has come at a very opportune moment, when one felt that the prestige of the country was involved in other directions. But I am bound to say that I feel a sense of humility that this question should have arisen during the regime of the present Government. After all, we can do no other than endeavour, by discussion and clash of opinion, to find a solution to this problem, if we possibly can.
At the first I was inclined to support the Resolution submitted by the noble Marquess, but I feel that the debate yesterday in another place has made it impossible foe Tshekedi to go back at the present time and for us to consider the matter on those lines. Therefore I rise to give my modest support to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Stansgate, that some fuller inquiry should be made. If one expresses a little doubt about the meeting of the kgotia as suggested, it is only because of the experience we have gained from the trouble which has arisen over Tshekedi and Seretse. After all, there was a tribal gathering in December, 1948, when Seretse's wife was not allowed to enter tribal territory. In June, 1949, the Tribe again met and agreed that she should enter as his wife, with succession of issue, but no notice was taken by the Government. The Government banished Seretse not only from the tribal land, but out of Bechuanaland. No reflection whatsoever on the officials concerned has, I am sure, arisen in the mind of any noble Lord to-day, but it cannot be far from the minds of some of us that there has been some degree of racial prejudice. Yet when the tribe met—within ten months—and discussed the Tshekedi feud and the reason for his banishment, that decision was accepted by the Government. It seems to me that this was a matter of convenience, and it gives great cause for disquiet and ground for the suggestion that has been made that the meeting was "rigged" before it assembled. Tshekedi
418
himself was refused permission to attend that meeting or to state his views. These are the things that create doubts. One cannot help wondering why the unanimous tribal decision to ask for the return of Seretse was ignored. Such actions cause unease in the minds of those who are concerned about the freedom of speech and the administration of justice in the British Commonwealth.
I understand that there are eight main tribes in Bechuanaland. There are also Crown lands administered direct by Commissioners. Why has there been no attempt to train the tribes in democratic government? Tshekedi himself has asked, "Why so slow?" and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, raised the same point to-day. In sixty years nothing has been done in this matter. I was interested to see a letter in The Times the other day from a lady of great authority on African matters, Miss Margery Perham, in which she said that there was a case for inquiry at once. At any rate it is good that the matter has been raised here to-day. It is not a question of finding fault with officials; it seems rather to be one of misconception or misdirection at the highest level.
I should like to support the suggestion made by Lord Harlech that it is time that the administration of these tribes was removed from the Commonwealth Relations Office and placed under the Colonial Office, which seems to me to be the proper Office for the purpose. As Tshekedi himself has said:
"Most fundamental is the question of transferring the High Commission Territories from the Commonwealth Relations Office to the Colonial Office, which has the experience, the machinery and the trained first-class men for the job."
There is a further point. It was suggested by the noble Marquess that Tshekedi had probably been offered a position as agricultural officer. It is a fact that Tshekedi has proved of very great value in that particular respect and that we have lost a great deal in the loss of his services. He has done much for agricultural education; he has improved the breeds of cattle, and so forth—things which are very much needed in Africa. For that reason alone we ought to try to avoid losing his valuable experience and help.

419
It is now some years since I was in Africa, but I remember well my impression that these people were awakening and beginning to take a deep interest in their affairs, and were expecting a larger share in their government. One rejoices to see the greater sense of confidence that they have in the Home Government. At the same time, they will take notice of such matters as those we are now discussing. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said truly that we in this country and Commonwealth are responsible for the largest measure of government over African tribes. I believe it is true to say that in West Africa we have the largest Commonwealth population outside India. We do not desire to place our relationship with these people in jeopardy by such actions as we are discussing this afternoon. I hope the matter will be thoroughly sifted and, in particular, that the suggestion of the transfer of Colonial administration to the Colonial Office will be carefully considered.
5.8 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, it might have been thought that the full discussion which took place yesterday afternoon in another place, and the decision which the Government anounced they had taken on this particular matter, would have rendered a further discussion unnecessary, if not, indeed, futile. But I think it would be true to say that we have had a most valuable debate on this matter this afternoon. When matters of civil liberty are at stake, as they are in this instance, it is impossible to have too thorough or too complete a discussion. Considerations much more fundamental than the mere exile of this particular Chief are at stake, because this a matter which has its repercussions all over the world. It is a significant thing that in the debate this afternoon all noble Lords who sit on these Benches and who have spoken from behind the Government Front Bench itself are taking the same line, and that yesterday afternoon in another place, if the Whips had been taken off and the debate had been completely free, there would have been no doubt at all where the overwhelming opinion of the Party which supports the Government would have been. This is a very serious matter from the point of view of the Constitution of this country and of our system of Parliamentary Government: that it should be im
420
possible for the mass of the Party to bring its opinion sufficiently to bear upon the Government to see that the views which are undoubtedly the views of the Party are carried out by the Government who depend for their position on the votes of those Members.
The Parliamentary institutions of this country upon which our political life and our liberties have been built from the time of Magna Charta, which was so appositely quoted to us this afternoon by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, are much older and more fundamental than the Parties which happen at the present time to conduct the politics of this country. If those fundamental liberties are once to be thrown overboard and disregarded, then the whole of the institutions upon which the civilisation of this country is built will be in grave danger of falling by the way. It is undoubtedly true that the Executive power in the State is always the great enemy of civil liberty. It is a natural thing, because administrators are concerned with getting things done, and when you are concerned with getting things done you are likely to disregard the rights and liberties of other people. That is the reason why Parliament must keep a jealous eye and constant vigilance over what is going forward in the Executive Departments of Government. It is rather an irony that at the present time the very Minister whose decisions have led to these infractions of liberty should himself have been preparing for the Press a book with the significant title Restatement of Liberty. Restatements of liberty are dangerous things. The traditional views of liberty which date back to Magna Charta are the views of liberty on which our culture has been built up, and we know that liberty can be restated in some parts of the world in such a way as to mean that liberty ceases to exist altogether. I am not suggesting that that sort of state has been anything like reached here, but, unless Parliament is constantly vigilant on these matters, it may be reached, because the Executive is always the enemy of liberty.
There is a third institution of State also which comes in the last resort to defend the civil liberties of the people—that is, the courts of law which in this country have to pass upon a man before he can be put away from among his fellow citizens. One of the really serious

421
aspects of this particular business is that, under the Proclamation of 1907, a man in Bechuanaland, just as much a subject of His Majesty as you or I, can be banished from the territory by mere executive decree, without any court of law passing upon him at all. I suggest that one of the first things that should be done is to rescind the Proclamation of 1907. In the earlier stages of our rule in those parts, it may have been necessary to have such a Proclamation when decisions had perhaps to be taken very quickly and when it may not have been possible to hold a proper judicial inquiry before such action was taken. That such judicial inquiry is felt now to be needed is proved by the fact that the new Proclamation of 1943, which would have applied to this case if it had been made only a few weeks before, while Tshekedi was regent, applies to chiefs and, under that Proclamation, a chief cannot be banished without a judicial inquiry held, at any rate, within six months of his banishment.
I suggest that that shows conclusively that in all these cases there ought to be a proper judicial inquiry, because surely one would not say that an ordinary citizen of Bechuanaland should not have the same right as a chief to have his case passed upon by a court: for this, I will not say privilege, but common right of everybody in any modern country, has been conferred upon the chiefs. In order to be effective, a judicial inquiry should be held in public and its decisions should be made in public. It is inconceivable that in our own country inquiries in which the liberty of the subject are at stake should be held behind closed doors and that sentences should be passed by judges without the general public having any opportunity to know what they are—and yet that is what happened in this particular case. An inquiry was held into something quite different from Tshekedi Khama's rule over the Bamangwata—something which had nothing to do with whether he ought or ought not to be banished. So far as one can make out from the White Paper, as a sort of incidental recommendation it was recommended that not only should Seretse Khama be banished from the country, but also Tshekedi should be banished—a kind of attempt, possibly thought of on the spur of the moment,
422
to balance an injustice to one person by an injustice to another.
My Lords, we are not able to discover whether any reasons were set out in the decision of this court of inquiry, because it has been kept secret. The Government have refused to publish it. How can such an inquiry really be called "judicial" at all? The fons et origo of all this trouble seems to be that a recommendation of this court, the names of whose members we do not even know except that it is no doubt called after the name of the Chairman, was accepted by the Government without a great deal of thought. Now the last months and years have been spent in trying to find all sorts of reasons for upholding a decision which, in the first place, was a wrong one. When the Minister comes to make his long and elaborate statement in another place, although no doubt delivered with the best will in the world to be fair to Tshekedi Khama, in effect, as the noble Marquess pointed out, it becomes an indictment of him. It stresses points here and omits points there.
For example, reading that speech, one would fail to gather that a great deal of the trouble that is going on in Bechuanaland arises from an old family feud. That hardly appears from the Secretary of State's long speech. The Sekgomas, who challenged the chieftainship of the House of Khama, are now actually put back into power by the Government, and one of the reasons why it is so difficult to be satsfied that these so-called opinions expressed in the kgotlas are genuine is the fact that the chieftain who rules this rival group of the Sekgomas, Chief Keaboka, is at the present time entrusted by the Government with the chief judgeship of the whole Tribe. As the Secretary of State himself said in his speech yesterday in another place, Serowe is the principal centre of Tshekedi's enemies, and it is the place where this chief holds his court. So I suggest that, no doubt quite unconsciously, the Government have, in fact, played into the hands of the rival faction in Bechuanaland, and without the, sort of inquiry for which my noble friend is asking it becomes very difficult For anybody to discover exactly what are the facts of the situation.
It appears that the main elements of the Tribe are passionately loyal to Seretse Khama who is, by primogeniture.

423
their Chief. It also appears that the reason why there is possibly some feeling amongst the Bamangwato at the present time against Tshekedi Khama is the fact that they have been stirred up by allegations that he, Tshekedi Khama, has pretensions to the chieftainship. He has, as clearly, specifically and expressly as anybody possibly can, renounced his claims to the chieftainship, not only on his own behalf but on behalf of his children. That slander (because slander it is), was repeated against him by the Secretary of State in his speech yesterday afternoon. I think the criticism made from the other side of the House against the Secretary of State when he takes a line of that kind is perfectly valid. If people of eminence and authority in this country make statements of that kind, it naturally follows that credence will be given to them among the Bamangwato.
What is said by eminent people in this country is certainly repeated in those far off parts, and a great deal of attention is paid to it. That slander has been put about from time to time by the officials on the spot, and undoubtedly it is one of the main causes for this unrest in the country. One wonders whether it is merely an accident, or whether the officials are not working on the old policy which for a very longtime was used in India and which gave rise to a great deal of trouble—namely, the policy of "Divide and rule." One reason why one would like an inquiry is to make sure that that is not being done, because it is a pernicious policy to try to set one part of the Tribe or one religion off against another. In the long run it leads to the awful things which have happened in India, and a state of affairs is created which it is impossible to put right.
As opposed to that sort of action, we find what your Lordships all agree has been most statesman-like conduct on the part of Tshekedi Khama himself. He realised that a great deal of trouble had been caused by the marriage of his nephew to a white woman, and he himself had been taking the line that the offspring of such a marriage would not be in the line of succession. That matter was hammered out at no less than three kgotlas, and he accepted the decision that was given against him at the final kgotla. He has never been given credit for that. He went into voluntary exile in order to
424
avoid further trouble and dissension in the Tribe. Surely, that was a most statesman-like action. Yet it is now held against him. Indeed, this is one of the most distressing aspects of this case. It is said against him that he cannot go back now because he voluntarily exiled himself, and that, because he has done so, the Tribe will not have him back.
I now come to this kgotla which, as a concession, is to be held in order to discover whether or not the Tribe will have him back. I was very glad indeed that the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord Hailey raised various questions about the way this kgotla is to be held. Much suspicion has been thrown on the earlier kgotlas, and on what occurred; doubt has been raised whether their decisions were not, so to speak, stage-managed, and whether there is not in advance a meeting of the sub-chiefs at which decisions are reached which are afterwards (if I may use the term) "given the O.K." by the kgotla itself. So many matters of that kind have been raised and argued in the course of this discussion that I regard it as essential that in respect of the coming kgotla no suspicions of that kind should be raised. I think that is of the greatest importance, and as a matter of fact I have asked my noble friend who is to reply for the Government to answer specifically these questions: Who in fact is to preside at the kgotla? Tshekedi himself is in exile, and I believe that one of the other men of chieftain stock who would come next in order of seniority is with him in exile, and so presumably he cannot preside. The man who is actually in the Reserve, who has been acting as judicial Chief, and who comes next, Keaboka is the head of the rival faction. Obviously, it would be quite wrong that he should preside over this important kgotla. But if he is not to preside, who is?
I suggest that this is a matter of very great importance, and that this question ought not to be answered off-hand. I believe that it would be a good thing to have some kind of preliminary meeting on the spot of the officials and of the leaders, the chiefs of the allied tribes and possibly Tshekedi Khama himself ought to be allowed to be there. It could be an informal meeting, which could thresh trout this matter—because it is of outstanding importance. Of almost equal importance is the question of what is to

425
be the procedure at the kgotla. This is an assembly of thousands of people and, as we have seen from what happened before, what will happen is to a large extent decided in advance by the selection of the speakers who are to address the Tribe and by the formulation of the questions which are to be put. Unless we can be satisfied that that is to be done in a proper and above-board manner, the sort of suspicions which have been cast on the previous kgollas will undoubtedly fall on this one.
Therefore, I suggest that it is very important that these matters should be properly cleared up before the kgotla is held. I think Lord Hailey's suggestion is a very sound one—namely, that not only the Bamangwato, who are only a fraction of the people living in this Reserve, should be brought into the kgotla. I hope the Government will accept that suggestion. In fact I hope that the Government will ensure that Tshekedi Khama is allowed to attend and is given audience at the kgotla. As has been said, it is all very well for them to say that he has their sympathy, and that they will do everything they can, and so on. But is it not obvious that if the Government insist that he is to be there—and this will not be a fair business unless he is there—then undoubtedly he will be there. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will therefore make it perfectly clear that the Government will say that Tshekedi must be there.
The difficulty in this matter—and it appears very clearly from the difference between the speeches of my noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble Marquess—is whether it is possible to break up this case, so to speak; whether the case of Seretse Khama can be dealt with on its own merits or whether the whole complex situation is not so wide that it must be considered at the same time. Is not the action which has been taken against Tshekedi Khama largely due to the feeling that his case cannot, in fact, be disentangled from that of Seretse Khama? That is why I think it is necessary to have this inquiry. Can Tshekedi be allowed to go back without Seretse going back? That is a difficult question, and one upon which different people take different views. If the answer is in the affirmative then we are immediately in the domain of Power politics, and it ceases to be a question merely of what happens in
426
Bechuanaland, because although the Secretary of State himself could hardly deal with this matter in his speech in another place, undoubtedly the feeling in the Union of South Africa about Seretse, as my noble friend Lord Stansgate has pointed out, is on quite a different footing from the feeling about Tshekedi.
My noble friend Lord Lucan, who earlier in the debate made a speech on behalf of the Government, made great play with the fact that some of the local chieftains—as, for instance, in Basutoland —were supporting the policy of the Government in respect of Tshekedi. What can the people of Basutoland do about this sort of thing, entirely surrounded, as they are by the Union of South Africa and knowing well the sort of views which are held by the Government of South Africa in respect of this matter? It is not to them that one must go to ascertain the great mass of opinion in Africa about this matter: one must go to parts of Africa which really count, and which were alluded to by the noble Lord. Lord Ammon. That is the opinion with which we are concerned to-day. It may well be that a time will come when we shall have to choose between that opinion and the opinion in the Union of South Africa. I hope that it will not come to that, but our policy—and I think I am speaking for all Parties in this country when I say this—is a policy of bringing the Negro populations into full responsible government in due course. I remember being deeply impressed by a speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in which he quoted a remark about the harmony of the black and the white keys." It was a remark which I had not previously heard, and it seems to me to put the whole of this policy in the most admirable way. The policy of the present. Government of the Union of South Africa is not the policy of the harmony of the black and the white keys. It seems to me that it is only on the basis of that harmony that our Common-wealth can survive and go forward in Africa, and I regard this case of Tshekedi Khama as being the acid test of our faith in that policy.
5.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, may I first of all dispose of a question which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, put to me? It was clear that he thought that

427
in putting it he had scored at any rate an "outer." He asked why, seeing that within our Motion we said that Tshekedi Khama had been banished without an inquiry, my noble friends were disinclined to support him in his claim for an inquiry. If he had done us the courtesy of reading the Motion standing in the name of my noble Leader, he would have seen that there is no reference to an absence of inquiry into the banishment of Tshekedi Khama. That Motion reads:
"To move to resolve, That, on the facts as hitherto presented to Parliament, in the opinion of this House the banishment Order against Tshekedi Khama should he rescinded and that he should be at liberty to dwell within the territory of his tribe."
There is no mention there of his being banished without inquiry. I shall proceed to show, in a brief speech, why I do not think that an inquiry was necessary under the Proclamation, and why I certainly think that no inquiry whatsoever is necessary in order that Parliament may do justice to-day. I do not think we need any further witness. I am going to ask this House to take its decision upon the facts; and there are ample facts before us at the present time. I think—and to this extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hailey—that further inquiries are not only unnecessary but might well be mischievous. I hope that the noble Viscount will feel, if not satisfied, that at least I have given him a conclusive answer from our point of view.
This debate has ranged very wide, but I am going to cover only a limited field, because I feel that the issue before us to-day, though of tremendous importance, lies within a narrow compass and is fairly simple. In our opinion, the responsibility is that of the Secretary of State, and of the Secretary of State alone. It is not the responsibility of any kgotla or tribal meeting; it is his responsibility. That is perfectly clear from the Proclamation of 1907, under which the Secretary of State acted. The noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State, told us, in a rather odd phrase, I thought, that banishment was inherent in the Constitution of Bechuanaland. Banishment, believe me, is not inherent in any Constitution. If there are any powers of banishment, those powers do not exist under custom or common law. Those powers are conferred upon the responsible Government by a
428
Parliamentary instrument or its equivalent. There need be no dispute between us here, however, because the instrument under which the Secretary of State has acted is the Proclamation of 1907, and that the Secretary of State admits, is the power under which he acted.
What is that power? It is very carefully defined. This is how it is stated:
"The High Commissioner on its being shown to his satisfaction "—
And he is, of course, responsible to the Secretary of State—
"that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any person for the time being living in the Protectorate is a danger to the peace thereof"—
That is, a danger to the peace of the Protectorate—
"may instruct the Resident Commissioner to issue an Order under his hand directing that person to leave the Protectorate within such time. …"
The High Commissioner and the Secretary of State are entitled to act under that Proclamation if it is right so to do. But when the Secretary of State does act under that proclamation, he must justify his action under the terms of the Proclamation. This power of banishment is a very great power. It may well be that it is a power which the High Commissioner, who is in effect the Governor, and the Secretary of State should possess —I do not challenge that. It is a power which, in the past, as Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, I exercised, or authorised a Governor to exercise. But am bound to say that, before exercising that power, I did not think it necessary to have a mass meeting and take my decision on the "hoop-las," or whatever is the correct expression, given at the mass meeting. Even forty-five years ago, when this Proclamation was made, this power was given only where there was a danger to the peace of the Protectorate. I submit the Secretary of State has no right and no power to extend its scope.
We have to decide here to-day, on ample evidence, whether in our opinion the Secretary of State was so justified. What is the justification which is alleged? I am going to put it as fairly as I can—indeed, I think it will be agreed that I put it with absolute fairness, because I have taken this from the Secretary of State's speech in another place yesterday. It is that Tshekedi is unpopular and that the majority of the Tribe wart him to be

429
banished. What the Minister now proposes is that there should be yet another kgotla, at Which I think nobody in his right senses (I was almost going to say) could deny that the issue would be completely prejudged before it started. I imply no disrespect to kgotlas. I am very familiar with these meetings all over the Empire, in. the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast and elsewhere. They are not a substitute for the responsible executive judicial act of the Secretary of State. We cannot substitute for ministerial responsibility the vocal plebiscite of meetings of thousands of people. To do so is inconsistent with the Proclamation: it is an abdication of the Minister's responsibility; and it is inconsistent with British justice.
The Secretary of Slate says that he fears there will be local disorder—meaning a riot—if Tshekedi returns. Assuming the Secretary of State is right, and that there is a risk of a riot if Tshekedi goes back, is that really a threat to the peace of the Protectorate under the language of this Proclamation'? There is a risk to people in this country whenever anybody gets a bit "above himself," when windows arc broken End the police go into suppress the trouble. But that is not what is meant by a threat to the peace of the Protectorate. If that should occur, it would be for the police to suppress it. 'That is the elementary duty of Government anywhere. Even assuming that there is a risk of some local disorder, that would be no ground for action under the Proclamation. What is the evidence on this matter? We are told now that some unknown person in Cape Town sent a telegram last night saying he had consulted them—he could not say who "they" were—and they had said there would be disorder. If we are to assess this risk of disorder—and it is upon that we are asked to condone and justify the action of the Secretary of State—surely the best evidence we could have is the evidence of what has happened in the past. Last year, when Feeling ran equally high, if it does run high, Tshekedi Khama returned to his own property in the Reserve, Not a clog barked at his coming or at his going. There was no disorder. What evidence is there, then, of disorder which amounts to a threat to the peace of this Protectorate, which justifies the Secretary of State in his strong and arbitrary
430
action? At all events, the responsibility is that of the Secretary of State. He must accept it. He must not shelter behind local officials, however distinguished, or behind mass meetings, however large. Our responsibility, if we think him wrong, is to say so.
I think the issue is simple, but fundamental. Has the Secretary of State done right? Tshekedi has a. long and honourable record of service, to which the Secretary of State himself has paid tribute. Tshekedi has renounced all claim to the chieftainship. He has been an outstanding pioneer in the develcpment of his land and of native agriculture. In words common to all of us, he has been a model landlord. The Secretary of State has been so impressed by all that he has done, that he offered to make him agricultural adviser to the whole Protectorate. Perhaps Tshekedi will have a seat on one of the nationalised boards before long! Tshekedi does not seek to live in the capital. He does not seek to take part in politics. He was even prepared, although all his property lies within the tribal area, to stay outside the tribal area, provided that he is free to visit his own property and to manage his own business. Even that offer the Secretary of State refused to accept. I asked the Under-Secretary of State, during his speech, whether this offer would be accepted. I now repeat that question to the more senior Minister, and I beg him to consider it without pride and without prejudice. In view of the great anxiety which this case has aroused and of the grave issues which are involved, will not the Secretary of State even now accept this solution? If he did, I believe that it would bring the whole unhappy business to an end.
It is said that this ex-Chief is unpopular —I dare say he is—and chat because he is unpopular he must be exiled. That is a very strange doctrine in the mouth of a British Minister. Let me take an analogy, which is really not too remote. My noble Leader, Lord Salisbury, has a great estate at Hatfield; it is a model estate, as well as an historic monumelt. But imagine that it is said that a mass meeting held in Hertfordshire has declared that he is unpopular and that there will be a riot if he shows himself at Hatfield. So the Home Secretary, or the Minister of Town and Country Planning, decides that my noble friend must be banished to Yorkshire. What is the justifieation? It is said

431
that his private rights must give way to the public good. That sort of thing is not the public good, and it never has been, under the British Constitution and the British way of life.
Our justification in our rule all over the Empire, which is our trust, is that we have brought freedom and justice to all the subjects of the King; and protected persons are as much entitled to those rights as any other of His Majesty's subjects. Indeed, it was that protection, that freedom and the guarantee of that liberty, that the Chiefs of Protectorates sought when they came to the great Queen, offered their allegiance and asked for her protection. That freedom and that justice is what we mean by the King's peace. One noble Lord supporting the Government said that what is really necessary is to secure orderly progress. It is; but you will not base orderly progress on personal injustice. I speak, as did my noble Leader and my noble friend below the gangway, with the responsibility of one who has held the office of Secretary of State. With the full sense of that responsibility, I feel bound to say that on all the evidence before us a wrong has been done, and we should right that wrong.
5.54 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD OGMORE): My Lords, the subject which we are debating to-day is one upon which your Lordships feel strongly; and rightly so. In my view, it would be a sad day if a matter of this kind were not debated in your Lordships' House. It is right and proper that the case should be put from the various sides —in fact, from all sides, both in front and behind me—and that the Government should have an opportunity of giving their reply to the House. Before I start on the general question and the main principle at issue, I should like to say a few words about the personal position of the Secretary of State, because he has been under very heavy fire, not only here, but in another place and in the Press. Some have said that he acted in ignorance; others have said that he was a Machiavellian character, who had some subtle plan of his own—though why any Secretary of State should want to stir up trouble, I cannot understand. To-day, a new allegation has been made against him, I regret to say, by my noble friend
432
Lord Stansgate: that he was myopic—that is to say, that he does not see straight on this matter.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I did not mean "not straight," but "not far."
LORD OGMORE: The noble Viscount has added a new definition to the term, as I understand it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD OGMORE: Whether he does not see straight, or does not see far, however the noble Viscount defines the term, at all events it is a new allegation against my right honourable friend. Therefore, I want to put this matter in a proper perspective, and to say that, having served with him for one year in his Department, during which time this matter and its other related matters were frequently discussed, I can say that all charges of that nature are entirely erroneous and nothing more than nonsense.
In my view (I must say this, since he has been attacked, and I regret that I have to say it in the presence of other noble Lords, and in the absence of other right honourable gentlemen, who have already held the office) my right honourable friend has done more in his short time in the Territories than any other Secretary of State who has ever held the office. There is only one other area in the whole of the Colonial Empire that was in a worse state of neglect than the High Commission Territories when we came into office, and that is British Somaliland, where conditions surpass belief. These were part of our neglected estates when the noble Lords opposite were in power. We did not hear all this talk on these different ordinances then; nothing was ever said in those days. To-day I am being attacked from two directions. I have two Motions to meet—Motions which Lord Rea, in a very reasonable and, if I may say so, happy speech, described as being incompatible. That is my view, and I am glad to have it reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. They are incompatible, and I do not know how one Minister is expected to answer an attack from two fronts on incompatible grounds. However, I will do my best.
The Motion of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, seeks to pre-judge the

433
issue. According to the noble Marquess, and the noble Viscount who has just spoken, they are satisfied: they have all the evidence that they need, and they are going ahead, and will force the Government to go ahead and take the action that they think fit. They are in opposition. We have the power. We shall do as we think fit.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There is the evidence on which you banished Tshekedi.
LORD OGMORE: The interpretation that the noble Viscount has put on that evidence is not the interpretation that we have put upon it. He is quite satisfied on the evidence that Tshekedi should not be banished; we say that he should be. I am not denying noble Lords the right to hold that view; they are perfectly entitled to hold it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may interrupt the noble Lord—
LORD OGMORE: I did not interrupt a single noble Lord during the whole of the debate, and I cannot, in a difficult matter of this kind, make my case if I am constantly interrupted. However, from time to time I will sit down and give any noble Lord who wishes to intervene the opportunity of doing so. The Government are responsible, and we must accept that respons bility. The Government cannot have it said that the Opposition of this House or another place determine their actions. Once they do that, then the sooner we go to the country, the better.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD OGMORE: Exacly—that is my view. When you are in government, you rule; and if you cannot or will not rule, you get out.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD OGMORE: I am glad we are at one there The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, or the other hand—a very helpful friend, I may say, in this matter—after making a series of allegations about Ministers and others, proposes a course of action which would throw the whole of this matter into doubt and would lead to that delay which the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, so definitely deprecated. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hailey,
434
is not here, and I am sorry that there were very few of your Lordships here to hear him. It was the tea interval, I know, but Lord Hailey made a remarkable speech, and one which impressed the few of us who heard it. It was really excellent, and I shall refer to it again a little later. One of the things which Lord Hailey deprecated was the use by the Leader of the Opposition in another place of the phrase, "mob rule." He told us that the use of that phrase would have a most unfortunate effect upon people in the Bamangwato Reserve, in the Protectorate and in the High Commission Territories generally. With his vast experience in India and Africa, the noble Lord said that the kgotla, and the system which it represents, was one particularly dear to the hearts and minds of the African people in those areas. He deprecated, and I deprecate—as I am sure will all your Lordships—the use of a term like "mob rule" or "mob law" for this ancient system, which corresponds very nearly to the system in this country in Saxon days.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, made a happy little joke, which added humour to an occasion like this, about the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and his position in Hertfordshire. Now I do not know what the state of affairs is in Hertfordshire—being a Welshman I would not know—but I should hardly think that the system in Hertfordshire could be compared to that in the Bamangwato Reserve. We have surely developed a little further than that in the hundreds of years in which we have had the opportunity of development. They have not had the opportunity in Bechuanaland, and that is my complaint. Anyway, in Wales we have had the opportunity since Tudor times, and we have made the best use of our facilities.
One has to consider this problem—and this is really where a lot of people have gone astray, if I may respectfully say so—in the light of a tribal society, and in a tribal society the individual's rights must always be subordinated to the welfare of the community as a whole. In a tribal society, all except the purely personal property, such as clothes and things like that, often belong to the tribe. They sow the land in common, they reap in common, and they share the benefit. Practically everything in a tribal society is held in common, and the individual counts

435
for very little. It is only with more advanced societies that the individual himself is to some extent regarded as having superior rights to those of the tribe. Your Lordships can take any tribe you like, and you will find that that is history. I have studied this matter; it applies on the frontiers of China, Borneo, Africa, and in my own country of Wales, where we had tribal society up to, say, 300 years ago, which, after all, is only a breath in our long history. In all cases, the tribe is the dominant factor, and it is only at a much later stage of civilisation that the individual takes priority over the tribe.
Another aspect of this matter with which I am sure most of your Lordships will agree, is that the Chief or ex-Chief or ex-Regent can never slip back into the obscurity of a private individual. It is impossible for him to do that in an area in which for a great many years he has been the dominant personality. In many cases in the Colonial Empire—as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, covering himself from possible attack from me, admitted—this right and power of banishment has been freely exercised. We have exercised it in Malaya. There was one old gentleman who used to write to me from time to time before I became Minister, pleading to go back to the State in Malaya from which he had been banished. There are a large number of such people throughout the Colonial Empire, because it is the inevitable consequence of a certain state of society, just as in this country the King banished people at a certain stage in our society. Often, of course, they did not stop to be banished; they went quickly, not knowing what would happen to them otherwise. But Kings and Princes and rulers took pretty prompt action against those who might be a danger to them.
This rule of banishment in the Bamangwato Reserve is not a modern rule. Your Lordships might imagine, from the fulminations of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—who in these matters has great experience, to which I pay tribute—that this Act was passed in 1947, and not in 1907. He was the High Commissioner in South Africa for some years during which this Act was in operation, and I venture to suggest that cases arose under it, or at least under the native law or cstom, in those times. I have here a large number of cases, and the noble
436
Lord can select those which occurred in the years when he was in office. I have not looked up that point, but there are a number of cases, including, I may say, that of Tshekedi's former wife. Was she a danger to the territory? Was she such a danger to the territory as Tshekedi himself? We ate asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton: What danger can Tshekedi be—a powerful Chief? In my view, he is one of the greatest personalities that Africa has ever turned out. And yet he is not a dangerous person! His divorced wife, however, is so dangerous that she has to be banished by Tshekedi himself.
What about Tshekedi's uncles? I think those were the three gentlemen—at least there were three gentlemen—who went to the Privy Council, and who were not only banished by Tshekedi, but who had their houses burnt, as well. What about them? Were they a danger? If they were a danger, were they rightly proceeded against?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord is using language now which I think he would wish to use carefully. Does he mean they were banished by Tshekedi, or banished by the High Commissioner, who was the only person who had the power of banishment under the ordinance?
LORD OGMORE: I will read to the noble Lord the language of the Privy Council. As a matter of fact, I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was Attorney-General at the time. It says:
"Their Lordships have examined the evidence and they are unable to agree with the finding of the Special Court on this part of the case. Their Lordships are of opinion that the evidence justified the above mentioned conclusion at which the Magistrate arrived."
That is, that Tshekedi was fully empowered to do what he did.
"The appeal, therefore, must be decided upon the assumption that the burning of the dwellings of the Ratshosas was ordered by the appellant "—
that is, by Tshekedi—
"in his capacity as Chief, after consulting and with the approval of the councillors and headmen of the tribe assembled at the 'kgotla'."
There is nothing there about the Resident Commissioner.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And nothing about banishment.
LORD OGMORE: No one asked about the banishment. All they were worrying about was the damage they had suffered by reason of the burning of their houses. In fact, as I read it, the Privy Council went a little further (I do not want to be quoted on this) and said that, by tribal custom, not only was there a right of the chiefs to advise in kgotla to burn the houses of people who had been a nuisance, but also to execute people and to sequestrate all their stock; and Tshekedi was rather patted on the back for having been very mild in his treatment of these three gentlemen.
A great principle is at stake here. The assumption of high moral indignation by some speakers must be put into its proper perspective. This Act of 1907 was passed by what is admitted to have been one of the finest Governments we have ever had—the Liberal Government of 1906—a Government to which even a Socialist may pay tribute for its magnificent achievements, and of which we have several distinguished representatives here.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: There are only two survivors left.
LORD OGMORE: We have the two survivors, at any rate.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: There are three survivors left. Mr. Churchill passed the ordinance.
LORD OGMORE: That ordinance was passed when Mr. Churchill was at the Colonial Office. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was a supporter of the Government at that time. I think that he became a member of the Government shortly afterwards—and he has hung on for nearly forty years before making any protest.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That only shows chat the Government are still where Lord Stansgate was forty years ago.
LORD OGMORE: What it shows is that this ordinance, which has been maintained by a large number of Governments, is necessary. The noble Marquess himself has ministered that ordinance and the noble Viscount has administered similar ordinances. Therefore the ordinance is obviously necessary.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent
438
me. I think I said I did not challenge the necessity of this ordinance at all. What I challenged was the action of the Secretary of State under it.
LORD OGMORE: The noble Viscount must not take it that every reference I make is to him. Other speakers have made the point that the banishment ordinance per se is wrong. The point may not necessarily have been made here, but this is going out to the world. I am riot at all sure it was not an underlying assumption of Lord Stansgate and of Lord Chorley. I have to answer so many attacks from so many quarters that sometimes the arrow may for a moment rest in the wrong breast. If this ordinance were wrong, if banishment per se were wrong, why has it not been dealt with before? Liberal, Conservative and Coalition Governments alike have not attacked this ordinance.
LORD CHORLEY: The new Order of 1943 which established judicial inquiry, though only in favour of Chiefs, shows that it was wrong.
LORD OGMORE: The noble Viscount did not make a single demur at the powers conferred upon him in his office by this Order—because everyone knows that banishment per se in a tribal society is necessary. So long asIhave established that point, perhaps I may go on. Tshekedi himself, as Chief, on the advice of the kgotla, has never hesitated to use this power and several times has used it, even against his former wife, and against his uncles and, no doubt, against others. He exercised it against some, perhaps, because they did not agree with him and because they might be thought to cause trouble. Chiefs have exercised the power and have had every right to exercise it under the ordinance or by tribal law. I hope it will never be said that we on this side of the House have anything but the greatest respect and indeed admiration for Tshekedi. I believe he is a remarkable man, who has served his people well in the past. We see how the best motives are often twisted and given a Machiavellian intent. Mention has been made of the fact that we invited Tshekedi to act as an economic adviser, and it has been suggested that this was the result of some subtle and deep plot. As a matter of fact, I niade this suggestion a year ago to the Secretary of State. I said: "Tshekedi is an able man, with great

439
knowledge of cattle: let us use him." He said: "Yes, we must make use of him and give him the opportunity for service." That is why he was offered that post of economic adviser. I am sorry he did not accept it. Perhaps he may yet think a little differently about it.
Tshekedi went into voluntary exile: he was not banished. But we do not hold that against him. We only say that the fact itself is significant. No one has ever asked the question: "Why did Tshekedi go into voluntary exile?" Does a man exile himself and leave his animals, lands, house and the place where he is known and where he has been a powerful figure, for a mere snap of the fingers? Is there not an important reason that leads to such action? There was a reason. He has told us that he went into voluntary exile to avoid a "state of tension" which he himself described as "bordering on civil war." That was the reason why he went; that was the tension in the Tribe described by Tshekedi himself—not by the Government or by its supporters on the Back Benches.
The noble Viscount is satisfied with the evidence already submitted; and he says that this is sufficient to force the Government, with all the responsibility they possess, to let Tshekedi go back into the Reserve. I say we have a great deal of evidence in this matter and many witnesses to call. First, there is the evidence of Tshekedi himself which I have just quoted. Secondly, there is the abundant evidence of officials, which I shall describe in a moment because it came up in relation to another question. These officials are men of great experience of Africa, of undoubted capacity, and with all the ability with which, fortunately, our Colonial servants are endowed. These are the men who have advised the Secretary of State in this matter. Can any of us here say that we are better fitted to advise him on a matter of this kind? I have never found, particularly in regard to the Colonial Service—and just as much in the Home Service—that officials arc "Yes-men." I am happy to say that in my experience, short as it is by comparison with that of the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount, I have never found an official who has hesitated for one moment to tell his Minister what he really believed to be the facts. It is for
440
the Minister to decide what action he takes upon them. I have never yet found any civil servant who is not prepared to give a Minister the advice he thinks he should, and any suggestion that the Colonial Service, with its great traditions exemplified by so many people who have served their country so well in the past, should be prepared to let the Secretary of State remain in ignorance on a matter of this kind is absolutely outrageous.
Then we have the evidence of other Chiefs from neighbouring territories who have given their views. We have the evidence of the Secretary of State himself. It is the first time in the history of this country that a Secretary of State has gone to any of these territories. No Secretary of State has even been there before. As I have already said, no Minister has ever been to British Somaliland yet, but there is still a hope. No one, as Secretary of State, had ever been to the High Commission Territories before Mr. Gordon-Walker, the man who is now called by one of my own Back Benchers "myopic," because he does not see far enough. But he went there to see what was to be seen, which is more than any of his predecessors did, either when my noble friend was supporting the Liberal Government or since he has been supporting me on the Back Benches. Finally, there is the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, who to-day made a magnificent speech, full of his great knowledge of this area. I took down his words. Recently he has been to the Bamangwato Reserve and he said that he found there "a very considerable degree of tension," and he was impressed by the necessity of pushing forward with local councils—that is what we are doing to proceed expeditiously in order to obtain a decision and stand by it. The noble Lord is very much against delay in this matter: he wanted expedition in decision, and he wanted us to stand by the decision. Noble Lords who have experience of the Army will know the old saying: "Order. counter order, disorder." That is what we do not want in this area.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, says that he accepts the evidence: that the evidence shows that there is no need for any fears on the part of the Government and that Tshekedi can go back straight away. The Government's view is that the evidence shows abundantly the

441
other way: that in fact there is cause for anxiety. But, as the Secretary of State announced in another place last night, the Government are prepared to have a meeting of the Tribe, a kgotla, summoned, and to this meeting, about which I hope to satisfy my noble friend, Lord Chorley, in a moment, two or perhaps three Members of Parliament will proceed and will observe the state of feeling and events. It so happens that, as your Lordships will remember, in 1946 a somewhat similar state of affairs, although not entirely comparable, arose in Sarawak. The Government sent out to Sarawak as observers Captain Gammans and myself. We went in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances, because at that time the minefields had not been cleared and the rivers had not been swept. We went, and we did our best to ascertain the feeling in Sarawak. I was pleased to see from the report of a debate in another place that the Prime Minister had found our report useful. It was an interesting and enjoyable experience, made more enjoyable than it otherwise would have been by the excellent travelling companion I had in Captain Gammans. I could not wish to have a more interesting and better travelling companion. So there is a precedent for this. While the Government must remain finally responsible, I have no doubt they will take into consideration the feelings of the kgotla on this question and any report that these Members of Parliament may bring back.
I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chorle3, three questions. First, he asked me who will preside at the kgotla. I am informed that the president will be selected in accordance with native law and custom. It will not be the District Commissioner, but he will have the approval of the District Commissioner, who will act in his capacity as native authority. Secondly, the noble Lord asked me what will be the procedure—that is to say, who will decide who are to be the speakers. I have the answer that the president, in accordance with native law and custom, will call upon the speakers, normally the elders, headmen and other responsible people who catch his eye most frequently. In theory at a kgotla any adult male member of the Tribe may speak. Finally, I was asked how the decision is to be taken—whether it
442
is to be by vote. The decision is taken by acclamation. A kgotla normally talks itself into a consensus of opinion, and the Chief or the president sometimes sums up. I think that is quite normal in an affair of this kind; it is not unknown even in Cabinet and other high circles of which I have no personal knowledge.
I believe that if there were any other responsible Government in this country in office, they would do exactly the same as we are doing. I do not believe that, with all the facts before them, with the responsibility of any troubles that might occur, they would do other than we are doing, whatever the political complexion of the Government of the day might be. It is easy enough to say, "We are going to do other things," but we all know from the Leader of the Opposition how much importance he attaches to pre-election manifestos. If the Conservative Opposition were in power, I doubt very much whether they would in fact do anything other than we are doing, simply because it is the only possible course, taking into account all the circumstances that are present in that part of the world.
I have been asked a question about the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked me whether the time had not come—in fact, he put it a little more strongly and said that the time had come —for a fusion of the two Offices so far as the High Commission Territories were concerned. I am advised that this would be undesirable; that there are relationships with neighbouring territories and so on, and that it would be undesirable to take it away from the Commonwealth Relations Office. The policies are the same and the practice is the same as in the Colonial Empire, and furthermore, Colonial Office officials are widely used. A former member of the staff of the High Commissioner in the High Commission Office is at present the adviser on the High Commission Territories to the Secretary of State in Downing Street, and has intimate knowledge of the area. The Chief Secretary, the three Resident Commissioners and several members of the heads of technical departments are all from the Colonial Service; therefore, your Lordships will see that there is a distinct identity of policy and practice with the Colonial Office.

443
I would submit to your Lordships that the objective of the Government in the Territories is the objective that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, to-day—that is, in effect, the peace, the prosperity and the happiness of the people. That must be our guiding light, and any other consideration, however important, must be subordinated to it. No more than that was meant by my right honourable friend in another place. I think in this case too many doctors are prescribing too many nostrums, and the sooner we get to a level keel of public opinion, or shall I say, the same prescription, the better. I venture to suggest that this House has a great responsibility, because if one of the Motions were pressed to a Division and passed—and I hope neither will be pressed to a Division—it would have an unfortunate effect in this part of Africa. This is a difficult and delicate matter. I would most strongly suggest to your Lordships that the Government's proposal in another place, which I have repeated here, is a statesmanlike proposal, and I commend it to your Lordships most earnestly and most strongly for adoption by your Lordships' House.
LORD REA: My Lords, might I make a slight personal explanation? The noble Lord who has just sat down said, I think, that I had claimed that the two Motions before your Lordships' House are incompatible. I did not mean to use that word, and if I did, it was a slip of the tongue. What I meant to say was that they are clearly different—as different as ham from eggs—but they are not incompatible. While, in the first instance, I should like
to sample Lord Stansgate's ham, I do reserve the right to consider the noble Marquess's eggs at a later stage.
LORD OGMORE: So far as I am concerned, there is a definite measure of incompatibility between this particular ham and eggs, because I have to give an answer to both. I am sorry that I have not found the supporter I had hoped in the noble Lord.
6.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it is naturally a matter of great regret to me to bring this happy and informative afternoon to an end. I had hoped to learn so much more about my noble friend's opinion, and more about the estate at Hatfield, and so many other interesting topics. But the position to which I would draw your Lordships' attention briefly, because the hour is late, is this. I have proposed a Motion which suggests that further inquiry should be made, both into the matter which concerned particularly the noble Marquess, and into other matters which appear to be irrevocably linked with that—namely, the banishment of Seretse and Tshekedi Khama. I have proposed that there should be an inquiry into those matters. The Motion seems to me to be a reasonable one and one which I hope the noble Marquess may see his way to support. Should anyone be willing to support me, I propose to divide the House.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS

Samuel, V.

Chorley, L.

Moyne, L.

Stansgate, V.

Merthyr, L.

Rea, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Straholgi, L. [Teller.]

Ammon,L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Braintree, L.

Kenswood, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Haden-Guest, L.[Teller.]

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Morrison, L.

Henderson, L.

Ogmore, L.

Amwell, L.

Holden, L.

Shepherd, L.

Archibald, L.

Inman, L.

Silkin, L.

Bingham, L.(E. Lucan.)

Kershaw, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
6.45 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I now beg to move the Motion standing in my name. There is little that I wish to add. As your Lordships know, I stated earlier in the debate the case for the Motion, to the best of my ability, and nothing that has been said since has altered my view. As I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—the rather self-satisfied speech of the noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so—I was reminded of Sydney Smith's remark about Macaulay:
"I wish I were as certain about anything as Macaulay is about everything."
The noble Lord mentioned a number of cases in which banishment had taken place in the Bamangwato area. He did not give the details of the causes of banishment, and I do not propose to ask him now; but he made it clear that all those banishments were imposed by a chief. In this particular case the banishment has been imposed by His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord made great play with the fact that the Secretary of State lately paid a visit to the territory. I can only conclude that he was so attracted by the tribal customs which he found there that His Majesty's Government have adopted their as their own.
Though the noble Lord said the Government had evidence which, in their view, entirely justified the banishment of Tshekedi Khama, he never told us that Tshekedi Khama had committed any act of any kind which was contrary to the law or which, from our point of view at any rate, would justify banishment. In fact, I am bound to say that the two speeches we have heard from the Government this afternoon—the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan.—appeared to be nothing but an elaborate piece of special pleading to justify an injustice which they could not
attempt to deny. The truth is that nothing can alter the fact that, although Tshekedi Khama has committed no offence, yet he has been banished because it is embarrassing to the Government that he should remain in the tribal area. We have heard a great deal, both from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and from the noble Earl, Lird Lucan, about ancient tribal customs which are different from ours. But surely the fact is that we have tried in those parts of the world in which we have held authority to introduce a better system of justice for the individual, and that has been one of the main justifications for cur rule. If we now lower our standard, for reasons of temporary convenience, we are, I believe, striking a severe blow at our prestige throughout the world.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has suggested that, even if Tshekedi Khama continued to live outside the tribal area, it might be possible for arrangements to be made for him to enter freely to deal with his private affairs. That is not what I regard as full justice, but it would be a great improvement on the present position. I infer, in view of the omission from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, of any reference to that matter, that even that concession is refused. In these circumstances, I have no option but to ask the House to divide on my Motion.
Moved to resolve, That, on the facts as hitherto presented to Parliament, in the opinion of this House the banishment Order against Tshekedi Khama should be rescinded, and that he should be at liberty to dwell within the territory of his tribe.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Whether the Resolution shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS

Cholmondeley, M.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Derwent, L.

Reading, M.

Falmouth, V.

Dorchester, L.

Salisbury, M.

Furness, V.

Dowding, L.

Samuel, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Bathurst, E.

Swinton, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gifford, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Baden-Powell, L.

Gretton, L.

Carrington, L.[Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Allenby, V.

Cherwell, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Harlech, L.

Bridgeman, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Hawke, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Sandhurst, L.

Llewellin, L.

Palmer, L.

Sandys, L.

Lloyd, L.

Rea, L.

Somers, L.

Merthyr, L.

Rennell, L.

Teviot, L.

Milverton, L.

St. Just, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Monkswell, L.

Saltoun, L.

Woolton, L.

Moyne, L.

Sandford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Braintree, L.

Kenswood, L.

Burden, L.[Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Hare, L.(E. Listowel.)

Morrison, L.

Henderson, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ammon, L.

Holden, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Inman, L.

Silkin, L.

Archibald, L.

Kershaw, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bingham, L.(E. Lucan.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Resolution agreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at seven minutes before seven o'clock.