Sitting of 2 April 1953

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

  N.A.T.O CO-ORDINATION
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: TO ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, what recent information he has received from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on plans to co-ordinate the defence of the West; and whether he is satisfied that these plans are adequate.
  Mr. A. Henderson: On a point of order. Following the speech made two days ago by Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, in which he severely criticised N.A.T.O., I addressed a Question to the Prime Minister for answer today in view of the fact that the House is going into Recess. It has now been transferred to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and is Question No. 68. It is most unlikely that It will be reached in the normal course of events, and I wonder whether, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, a reply could be given at the end of Questions.
  Mr. Speaker: As I have previously stated, the transfer of Questions has nothing to do with me or with the Clerks at the Table, Only Ministers themselves can be the judges of their own spheres of responsibility. As to answering Questions after Question time, I think we should proceed and see how we get on. We may reach No. 68.
  Mr. Shinwell: As this is an important Question and calls for an answer from somebody in the Government, can we have an assurance that, if a Minister is willing to answer the Question at the end
  1336
  of Questions, on the assumption that we do not reach it, you, Mr. Speaker, will not withhold your permission?
  Mr. Speaker: The proper procedure is that if the Minister desires to answer such a Question he asks my permission. I will say that if my permission is asked I will not withhold it.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Military Co-operation
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when Her Majesty's Government intends to open discussions with our partners in the Commonwealth about better methods of military cooperation, including the establishment of an advisory Commonwealth Defence Council and combined staff.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I doubt whether the sort of measures the right hon. Gentleman seems to have in mind would be appropriate in present-day conditions. The existing arrangements for Commonwealth consultation and co-operation in defence are, however, kept under constant review in order that improvements may be made wherever practicable.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these words are taken wholly from "Britain Strong and Free," and does his answer mean that the policy which was set forth before the electors of this country has been abandoned?
    Mr. Foster: No, Sir. Discussions have always taken place about the importance of military co-operation with other Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us the date of the last occasion when discussions with Commonwealth countries on military co-operation took place?
    Mr. Foster: No, Sir.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not know anything about this?
    Mr. Foster: No, Sir, it does not.
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and learned Gentleman does know something about it, will he inform the House?
    Mr. Foster: I cannot state all my knowledge in answer to one Question.

    Ceylon (Trade with China)
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has made to the Government of Ceylon about the recent barter deal with China, in which rubber is exchanged for rice; and what was the reason for, and the result of, such representations.
    Mr. J. Foster: Since the shortage of rice in Ceylon became acute, and particularly since the possibility arose of Ceylon obtaining rice from China in return for rubber, informal exchanges of view have taken place with the Government of Ceylon. The United Kingdom Government have at no time made any formal representations to the Government of Ceylon on this subject, and have appreciated Ceylon's urgent need for rice in order to protect her standard of living. Whilst it is not customary to give particulars of representations made by the United Kingdom Government to Commonwealth Governments, I can assure the House that the United Kingdom Government did express their concern, before the agreements were signed, at the conclusion of agreements involving the supply of rubber on a large scale to China.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these representations, no doubt made under American pressure, are going entirely in the wrong direction at the present time, and that the Government ought to be seeking every possible means of expanding East-West trade instead of expressing their concern about the extension of it? In view of the severe need for rice in the sterling area, will the Government inform Ceylon that this country at least is very happy about what has taken place?
    Mr. Foster: I see no reason to make any further communications to Ceylon on this matter. The representations were not made under American pressure.
    Mr. Snow: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we seem to be getting an impression in this country that
    1338
    the United States are not up to date about the structure of the Commonwealth? They hold us responsible for actions taken on an autonomous basis by self-governing Dominions.
    Mr. Foster: It is difficult for me to answer hon. Members who sometimes have misapprehensions about the Commonwealth themselves. I cannot say anything about the apprehensions or otherwise of the United States Government.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make available in the Library, for the information of hon. Members, the report which is expected to be given every 30 days at the request of the Additional Measures Committee of the United Nations as a result of the resolution of 18th May, 1951, under which we are expected to report what embargoes we have imposed? No hon. Member of this House knows whether Her Majesty's Government make that report every 30 days or, if they make it, what commodities are mentioned in it.
    Mr. Foster: That Question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

    Migration Board (Members)
    Mr. H. Nichollsasked the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is yet in a position to state the composition of the new Migration Board.
    Mr. Foster: Yes, Sir. The following have been invited to become members of the Board and have accepted:

    The Countess of Bessborough.

    The right hon. The Lord Huntingfield, K.C.M.G.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker).

    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom).

    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien).

    Mr. R. F. Harrod, F.B.A.

    Sir Colin Anderson.

    Mr. E. G. W. Hulton.

    Mr. Nicholls: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that his answer will give great satisfaction, as showing that the first step has now been made to set up this Board? Is he further aware that the real test will be the energy and initiative that they put into the work?
    Mr. Foster: Yes, Sir. The Board hope to begin their activities as soon as practicable after Easter.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Will the Minister consider the need for co-opting an African member on the Board, in view of the importance of the land question, particularly in Central Africa?
    Mr. Foster: I will naturally consider anything that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

    Troops (Coronation Procession)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what arrangements are being made for a proper film record of troops from the Commonwealth participating in the Coronation procession.
    Mr. J. Foster: No arrangements are being made by the United Kingdom Government for a separate and comprehensive film record of troops of the United Kingdom or of the other members of the Commonwealth participating in the Coronation procession.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Industrial Modernisation, N. Staffordshire
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint a committee to advise the Government on the need for the industrial modernisation within the locality of the city of Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. P. Thorneycroft): No, Sir.
    Mr. Smith: That answer means that the Board of Trade have taken up a negative attitude with regard to the need for modern ideas. Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that such a committee has been set up for South Wales? Is it not right to apply the same policy for North Staffordshire? In view
    1340
    of the importance of modernisation in this area, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The problems of South Wales differ in a number of important particulars from those of Stoke-on-Trent.

    Advisory Service and Research
    Mr. Albuasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) to give details of the advisory service to be financed out of counterpart funds, in accordance with paragraph 3 (a) of Appendix A of Command Paper No. 8776;
    (2) to state the funds to be allocated in the forthcoming year to research in accordance with paragraph 3 (b) of Command Paper No. 8776, the subjects to be studied and the institutions which will be responsible for them.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Arrangements are still being discussed with the wide range of interested parties concerned with each section of the programme outlined in the White Paper. I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make any announcement.
    Mr. Albu: Who will be responsible for the organisation and administration of the advisory service set out in the document mentioned in Question No. 7? Secondly, in view of the very strong criticisms made by the advisory council to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research of the Government's cutting of industrial research, are the funds to be allocated under paragraph 3 (b) likely to do any more than make up for the restriction on research that has already been put into operation?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Any Question on the subject of organisation should be addressed to me. The Board of Trade take general responsibility for the application and working out of this scheme. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I cannot give an answer to the hon. Gentleman without looking at the figures.

    Welsh Tinplate (Chinese Offers)
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade what orders have been offered by China for Welsh tinplate.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have been informed that a South Wales tinplate manufacturer was recently approached about the supply of some 10,000 tons of tinplate said to be required by the Chinese Government. I have also heard that other inquiries for tinplate for China have been received by the tinplate industry, but I am not in a position to give details of the quantities involved. The supply of this tinplate would be contrary to our strategic controls.
    Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the position in the tinplate industry, and of the fact that there is some doubt whether the demand at the moment for the products of the hand mills will revive sufficiently to stop the permanent closing of the remaining 114 hand mills in South Wales? I beg the right hon. Gentleman, if he is in a position to do so, to send the orders to China, even if he has to obtain permission of Senator Battle or somebody else. Otherwise we shall have to shoulder the difficulties of unemployment in the South Wales tinplate industry.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman is raising rather wider issues. The Question refers to the export of tinplate to China, and I said that, although these orders have been offered for the export of tinplate, they would, as the hon. Gentleman knows, be contrary to the existing control.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Minister not aware that the case for at least some review of the control is now very long overdue? While we all recognise that it will not be possible to make large shipments to China if we cannot get payment from them, cannot we take a leaf out of Ceylon's book and see how far it is possible to export to China against China's exports of rice to the sterling area?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the application of these strategic controls was begun by my predecessor in the previous Government. Circumstances have not changed so dramatically as to justify substantial alterations at the present time.

    Conference, Manila
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action is to be taken arising out of the
    1342
    Trade Promotion Conference held at Manila in March, 1953; and what policy is to be adopted on the suggestions there made for world trade expansion and price stabilisation.
    (2) what action is to be taken on the barter trade recommendations made at the Manila Conference.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Trade Promotion Conference recently held in Manila was an informal meeting between representatives of a number of Governments and business interests for an exchange of views on a wide range of trade matters. Her Majesty's Government have not yet received the final report of the conference. When we do we shall study it sympathetically and with interest.
    Mr. Smith: Having read the report of this conference, may I ask the Minister whether he does not agree that there were very encouraging signs for the expansion of world trade? In view of that, should not the Minister have worked out proposals to let the world see that we have studied the results of the conference? Has he read the recent Economic Survey, and does he not agree that greater responsibility than ever now lies on his shoulders to deal with this problem?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have read the recent Economic Survey, and I would agree with the general sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman on the expansion of world trade; but I had better wait until I receive the official report before I comment upon it.
    Mr. Smith: Has the Minister read the report of the last annual meeting of Associated Electrical Industries, in which Sir George Bailey is stated to have said that with regard to deliveries, prices and quality this country could hold its own with any country in the world, but that we were running into difficulties with regard to financial facilities? In view of that report, does not my Question show the need for action to be taken?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That raises rather a different point.

    Imports from Europe
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the recently announced permission for the increased import of

    1343
    cotton textiles into the United Kingdom from the Continent of Europe will not damage domestic production; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The restrictions which were recently removed were imposed for balance of payments reasons and it was always the Government's intention to remove them as soon as circumstances permitted. I feel confident that the United Kingdom cotton textile industry is fully capable of meeting competition from Western Europe.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend then satisfied that the domestic market is in a healthy enough condition to absorb the additional textiles that are bound to be thrown on it by the recent Government decision?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am satisfied that the recent Government decision about relaxation of quota restrictions in Europe was rightly timed and right in scope, and that if it had not been taken very considerable damage would have been done to the general cause of wider expansion of trade throughout Europe and to our export trade generally.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the recent relaxation of restrictions on imports from Western Europe will affect the import of stationery from Italy.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Paper stationery may be imported from Western European and certain other foreign countries under the quota for paper manufactures, and this has been increased from a value of £350,000 for the first half of 1953 to £500,000 for the second half. The quota for other stationery has also been increased from £140,000 for the first half of the year to £155,000 for the second half. I cannot say how far these increases will affect imports of stationery from Italy.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that, as Italian stilettos come into this country in the Italian stationery quota, the announcement he has made holds out a prospect of a vast and substantial increase in the import of these lethal weapons to this country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. Thanks to the vigilance of the hon. and gallant Member, arrangements have been made to prevent the imports of these weapons under the description of stationery.

    Engineering Contracts, Middle East
    Mr. Stokesasked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the fact that the German Government are subsidising the heavy mechanical engineering and civil engineering contracting industries which are in consequence steadily outbidding British industry in the Near and Middle East, what steps he proposes to take.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The evidence at my disposal does not suggest that United Kingdom firms in the industries referred to are being steadily outbid by their German competitors in these markets. Her Majesty's Government are, of course, strongly opposed to the use of export subsidies, overt or concealed, and I should be glad if the right hon. Member would bring to my attention any cases in which such devices appear to have been responsible for our losing orders.
    Mr. Stokes: Is not the Minister aware that while the Germans were quoting 25 per cent. above us 18 months ago, they are now quoting about 30 per cent. below us, for the same goods, without any appreciable difference having taken place in our prices at all? Does not that indicate that there must be a subsidy of some sort?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There is some substance in the point which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. We have taken a leading part in seeking to get rid of these subsidy arrangements, both in the International Monetary Fund and in the resolution passed recently in the O.E.E.C., calling upon the sterling board to make an investigation. If the right hon. Gentleman has any specific cases in mind, or any views he would like to put in some detail, I shall be happy to consider them.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not the case that the German Government have recently made available very substantial export credits to assist their industries? Has the President of the Board of Trade considered the implications of that, and could not we do something more on those lines ourselves?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: We have, of course, considered the question of credit policy, and we have sought to assist our industrialists by a generous credit policy in the same way. The Question refers specifically not to credit but to export subsidy arrangements, and it is towards that that we are directing our particular attention, both in the International Monetary Fund and in the O.E.E.C.
    Mr. Stokes: While I shall be very glad to supply the Minister with any information that I have, it is only on particular cases. Will he give an assurance that he will examine the position in regard to these particular matters?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly, Sir.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is not one of the objectionable practices of the Germans the giving of discriminatory taxes to relieve these exports?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is one of the points which I think the right hon. Member has in mind.

  RELIEF AND DISASTER FUNDS
  Mr. Sparksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state those publicly subscribed national relief and disaster funds known to be in existence; the amounts subscribed; and the balances at present held in each fund.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I regret that complete information is not available.
  Mr. Sparks: In view of what the hon. Gentleman says, that complete information is not available, will he publish such information as is available? Could he also confirm that there are quite a considerable number of such funds in existence with balances, and that the purposes of those funds have become defunct with the passing of time? Would it not be in the general interest for some inquiry to be instituted with a view to applying such balances to the general purposes to which subscribers would have agreed had they been alive today?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Part of the difficulty is that a large number of these funds are not funds for which Her Majesty's Government have any responsibility in administration and, therefore,
  1346
  no certainty of knowing of their existence. But I will consider what the hon. Member says about funds of which information is available. I am bound to say that in considering that I shall have to bear in mind whether even the partial information might not be misleading and, therefore, do more harm than good.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Education (Cost)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of education, as a percentage of the Government's total expenditure, for 1873–74, 1913–14 and 1953–54, respectively.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Approximately 3 per cent., 9.7 per cent. and 6.4 per cent., respectively.
    Mr. Johnson: Does the Financial Secretary attach any significance to statements by leaders of the teachers' unions that we are economising not merely this year on last year, but cutting a smaller slice of the national cake this year than we were 40 years ago?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that anyone who is impressed by that idea would be reassured by the fact that the expenditure in this year's education Estimates is £88 million in excess of the total national Budget expenditure in the years to which the hon. Member referred, and also by the fact that large new social services, which were non-existent or rudimentary in 1913–14, now affect the total.

    Secret Service (Expenditure)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that the Vote for the Secret Service has risen from £2,500,000 to £5,000,000 a year in recent years, an increase of 100 per cent., he will appoint a committee of businessmen with a view to securing economies.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday it was announced that an independent committee of this kind is to be set up to inquire into the question of hospital beds and false teeth? Is it not just as important to economise in this Department? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous new vested

    1347
    interest growing up, that it is useless to try to prevent secret information going to the enemy and that it would be cheaper to exchange secret information with the other side?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That supplementary question raises a number of interesting and intriguing issues, but the two subject matters seem to me somewhat different.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again.

    Equal Pay
    Mrs. Castleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the resolution on equal pay sent him by the Blackburn Teachers' Association; and whether he will now implement the promise made to the House on 16th May, 1952, as requested by the association.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have noted this resolution, but I have nothing to add to the reply given on 26th March to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes).
    Mrs. Castle: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Chancellor to the fact that he himself was responsible for giving the House a definite assurance, 11 months ago, that a start would be made at an early and definite date in the operation of this principle, and that if the opportunity of the forthcoming Budget is allowed to pass without that promise being implemented, the hon. Gentleman will stand under the slur of political dishonesty?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am perfectly satisfied that the assurance I gave this House—which has not been precisely quoted by the hon. Lady—which was to the effect that we desired to make a start with this matter just as soon as it was economically possible, stands, and I have nothing to add to it.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Motion he accepted had no such qualifying phrase about when the economic situation allowed, but was a specific guarantee that an early date would be announced for a start in the existing economic situation?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad to see that the hon. Lady shifts her ground and now accepts that my assurance, as made, has been complied with. So far as the resolution is concerned, I have noted its contents.

    London Taxicab Service (Report)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to announce when the Report of the Runciman Committee on the London taxicab service will be published; and what action he is taking on the Report.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope it will be possible to publish the Report early next week. The second part of the Question will be answered after publication.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the Financial Secretary realise that the London taxicab trade faces a very serious financial crisis at present, that all the London taxicabs are running at a loss, and that it is most urgent that the Government should make up their mind what to do about this Report?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All those are matters which I think can be more fruitfully discussed when hon. Members have had an opportunity of discussing the Report.
    Mr. Vane: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if taxi fares go up, taxis will not only run at a loss, but will run empty?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That no doubt is one of the matters which will have to be considered in the light of the Report.

    Peruvian Debt
    Sir Edward Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that although the Peruvian Government has ratified its agreement with the Foreign Bondholders' Protective Council, New York, for the settlement of its debt, it has not yet come to any agreement with the Council of Foreign Bondholders for payments to be made to holders of sterling bonds; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): I am aware that the Peruvian Government has ratified its agreement for the settlement of its dollar debt, and strong representations have been

    1349
    made that the sterling debt should also be settled. I am not without hope that these may prove effective, but I have no statement to make at present.
    Sir E. Keeling: Do I take it that my hon. Friend agrees that Peru is not being quite fair to British bondholders at present?
    Mr. Maudling: Strong representations have been made to them that they should consider the sterling bondholders better than they have been doing.

    Cost of Living
    Sir E. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the cost of living and the value of the £ in 1919 compare with the cost and value now.
    Mr. Maudling: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir E. Keeling: Has my right hon. Friend guessed that the purpose of my Question is to draw attention to the unjust treatment of officers who retired under the 1919 scale of retired pay, some of whom today are getting 9½ per cent. less than they got under that scale, although they were promised that if the cost of living went up retired pay would rise?
    Mr. Maudling: I must say that that supplementary question seems to go somewhat beyond the orginal Question.
    Following is the answer:
    There is no official index which serves to measure the change in the cost of living, on a comparable basis, between 1919 and the present time. If the various indices of price for the period are used it is possible to calculate that, taking the purchasing power of the £ as 20s. in 1919, the corresponding figure for February, 1953, was 12s. 2d.
    The basis of this calculation is as follows:

    (a) Between 1919 and 1938 the Ministry of Labour Cost of Living Index is used.

    (b) Between 1938 and 1952 the price index for all consumer goods and services calculated annually for national income purposes is used.

    (c) Since 1952 the index is provisionally brought up to date by using the Ministry of Labour Interim Index of Retail Prices, which is the only official price index available monthly.

    Judges' Pensions
    Sir E. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when pensions for judges and their widows and children were introduced; and how the rates then fixed compare with the pensions and lump sums now payable on retirement or death.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to this Question is long and complicated. I am, therefore, with permission, circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir E. Keeling: I am quite happy about that, but will my hon. Friend tell us now when pensions for judges were made universal?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is the difficulty, since it turns upon the construction of a number of early statutes and also upon understanding the position prior to the enactment of those statutes. One of the earlier ones that I have looked at is the Judges Pensions Act, 1799, but there were apparently pensions before that.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Secret Service be employed on this?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will county court judges also be included in this statement, or only puisne judges and others?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The statement, I think, relates entirely to High Court judges and judges of similar status. If there is any difficulty about that, there can be no reason why the figures should not be given. I think that the answer as drafted deals solely with High Court judges and their equivalents.
    Sir E. Keeling: As my Question referred to all judges, I hope that the answer will do the same.
    Mr. Pannell: If the Financial Secretary is taking his researches back to 1799, will he also include in the answer an essay on the general level of corruption in the country at that time, when hon. Members on the other side of the House had undisputed charge?
    Sir E. Keeling: What about the Whigs?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not have undisputed charge at that time.
    Following is the answer:

    JUDGES' PENSIONS

    —

    Pension prior to 1950 Act

    Date From which this amount was Payable

    Latest statutory authority for the pre-1950 Act pension

    Superannuation provision under the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950

    Pension

    Lump Sum on retiremenet (d)

    or

    Gratuity on service (d) death in

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Lord Chancellor

    5,000

    1832

    The Lord Chancellors'Pension Act, 1832

    3,750

    7,500

    10,000

    Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

    3,750

    1876

    The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876

    2,812

    5,625

    6,000

    Lord Chief Justice

    4,000

    1825

    The Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.

    3,000

    6,000

    8,000

    Master of the Rolls

    3,750

    1825

    Ditto

    2,812

    5,625

    6,000

    Lord Justices of Appeal

    3,500

    1873

    Ditto

    2,625

    5,250

    5,250

    Other Judges of the High Court

    3,500

    1825

    Ditto

    2,625

    5,250

    5,250

    Lord Justice General and Lord President of the Court of Session.

    3,750 (three-fourths salary)

    1887(a)

    The Judges Pensions (Scotland) Act, 1808

    2,812

    5,625

    5,625

    Lord Justice Clerk

    3,600 (three-fourths salary)

    1887(a)

    Ditto

    2,700

    5,400

    5,400

    Other Judges of the Court of Session

    2,700 (three-fourths salary)

    1887(a)

    Ditto

    2,025

    4,050

    4,050

    Lord Chief Justice, Northern Ireland

    3,000 (two-thirds salary)

    1926

    The Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland Act. 1926.

    2,250

    4,500

    4,500

    Judges of the Court of Appeal, Northern Ireland.

    2,333 (two-thirds salary)

    1926

    Ditto

    1,750

    3,500

    3,500

    Other Judges of the High Court of Justice, Northern Ireland.

    2,000 (two-thirds salary)

    1926

    Ditto

    (b)1,500

    3,000

    3,000

    (c)l,750

    3,500

    3,500

    NOTES:

    1. Pensions for judges themselves (as distinct from their widows) have been in operation for varying lengths of time, in some cases since 1799 when the Judges' Pensions Act provided pensions for the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, the Master of the Rolls, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer and many others. Some of the offices covered by this Act have since disappeared and new offices have since been created.

    2. Pensions for widows and children of judges were first introduced by the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950. This Act replaced the pensions item payable by smaller pensions plus lump sums payable on retirement or on death in service and pensions for widows and children. The widows pension is one-third of the judges pension, and is supplemented for children. These new benefits are broadly equivalent in total value to the pensions they replaced.

    3. The Table above covers all the judges dealt with in the current Judges' Remuneration Bill. It shows the dates since which the various pension rates payable immediately before the change of system in 1950 had been in force. The Acts quoted in the fourth column indicate the last occasion before 1950 on which the pensions had come under legislative notice.

    The significance of (a), (b), (c) and (d) in the Table is as follows:—

    (a) The pensions in these cases have represented three-fourths of salary since 1808, but lower salaries were paid before 1887.

    (b) Before 1st July, 1951.

    (c) Since 1st July, 1951. The salaries were increased by the Judicial Offices (Salaries, etc.) Act, 1952.

    (d) Subject to reductions by the amount of the contribution towards the cost of widows' pensions.

    Gold Revaluation (Washington Discussions)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make a statement on representations made at the recent conference in Washington on the urgent necessity of revaluing gold in terms of dollars.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.
    Mr. Stokes: As the question of balance of payments must have been considered at that conference, may I ask if it is not a fact that had the price of gold been allowed to vary in terms of dollars in proportion to commodities in the United States of America, the sterling area would have been in balance with the dollar area every year since 1945? Surely the Government can tell us something about it?
    Mr. Maudling: The Washington discussions covered a wide range of financial and economic subjects, but I am afraid I cannot add anything to the statements that have been made.
    Mr. Stokes: The Chancellor keeps saying that. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of producing this valuable metal is now so high that no one can afford to do it? Does not that make humbug of the whole situation?
    Mr. Maudling: People still seem to be producing it. I agree as to the importance of this subject, but I think that if the right hon. Member will reflect on some of the monetary implications, he will also see the great importance of them.
    Mr. Stokes: I have been reflecting for years about this and cannot get any sense out of Her Majesty's Government. Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Chancellor will tell us what happened about this matter at the Commonwealth Conference and in Washington?
    Mr. Gaitskell: In order to satisfy my right hon. Friend, will the hon. Gentleman be a little less coy on this matter? Cannot we have a full and frank statement from the Government and a reply to my right hon. Friend; I am sure we should all enjoy it?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that the right hon. Member should not confuse discretion with coyness.

    Development Charge (Compensation Claims)
    Mr. McAddenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, he will make a statement about the treatment for Estate Duty purposes of claims on the £300,000,000 fund established under Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. As the House was told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) on 24th March, 1949, claims against this fund were regarded as property the payment of duty on which could be deferred under Section 6 (3) of the Finance Act, 1894, until their actual amount was known. Duty on most of these claims passing on a death has been deferred accordingly and, on the assumption that the Town and Country Planning Act becomes law, will not now be claimed. Similar treatment will be accorded in the relatively few cases in which duty has already been paid; in such cases the Estate Duty Office will be prepared, on application after the Town and Country Planning Act becomes law, to repay the duty with interest.
    Mr. McAdden: Is my hon. Friend aware that this answer will give general satisfaction on this complicated matter?

    Land Fund (Housing Sites)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in order to encourage local authorities to use difficult sites rather than good agricultural land for housing, he will make good the extra cost to them by drawing on the National Land Fund.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is no statutory authority to use the National Land Fund for this purpose.
    Mr. Vane: Would not my hon. Friend see whether the Finance Bill, which I expect we will soon be considering, cannot include a Clause enabling us to use the National Land Fund for this purpose, which is surely in keeping with its original objects?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I dissent from the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not think that the

    1355
    original object of the National Land Fund had anything to do with this consideration, which is much more a planning matter and is in general, therefore, a question for the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
    Mr. Stokes: Does not the Financial Secretary think that if the Government introduced a comprehensive rate on site values, local authorities would be encouraged to use difficult sites?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is another matter.
    Mr. Vane: Will not my hon. Friend look at this matter again? Does he not realise that from exhortation alone local authorities will never turn from the easy to the more difficult sites? Surely the Fund, which has become larger from interest receipts as the years have gone by, could usefully be drawn upon to save much good land for the country and to add to its beauty without additional burden upon the ratepayer or taxpayer.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Fund was set up for a different purpose. I am not without sympathy for the considerations relating to planning which my hon. Friend has in mind, but as I have already said, those are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many Statutory Instruments were made in 1951 and 1952, respectively.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures are: general orders: 1951, 1,166; 1952, 1,029. Local printed orders: 1951, 545; 1952, 296. Local orders (not printed): 1951, 624; 1952, 987.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that when all these figures are added together this attack on the volume of delegated legislation since the present Government came to power does not match the hon. Gentleman's vocal attacks when he was in Opposition? When is he going to produce better results to match his former protestations?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the hon. and gallant Member has had the chance to study the figures, which, I agree, are difficult to take in as they are read out, I think he will see that there has been a satisfactory reduction in general orders and in the more important and, therefore, printed local orders, and that the emphasis is now increasingly upon the smaller kind of local order, such as an order affecting the movement of cattle during foot-and-mouth disease, which is in our view the proper use for delegated legislation. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman studies the figures, he will see that we have made considerable progress.
    Sir W. Smithers: Can my hon. Friend give the total number of Statutory Orders in existence to-day? If not, will he have the number put in the Library?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that my hon. Friend has in mind the number of orders that are today effective. The Question, of course, relates to the numbers made during particular periods.
    Mr. Marlowe: Have not a large number of the orders made during the past year been made to cancel orders issued by the previous Government?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

  AGRICULTURE

    Advisory Service
    Mr. Alportasked the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement on the future of the National Agricultural Advisory Service and the prospects of restoring this link between this service and the university agricultural faculties.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): In view of the need to concentrate our energies on the production drive, my right hon. Friend is not at present proposing to make any change in the organisation of the National Agricultural Advisory Service.
    Mr. Alport: Does my hon. Friend realise that this change would restore the sense of confidence which the agricultural community have had in the National Advisory Service by feeling that it is an independent body and one to which farmers may go with the knowledge that they will get objective advice

    1357
    on the problems which affect them? Does not my hon. Friend think it important that this change should be undertaken in the near future?
    Mr. Nugent: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's premise that farmers have not confidence in the existing advisory service. My right hon. Friend has, however, set up a working party under my noble friend Lord Carrington to look into this general matter, and in due course we shall study the result in their report.

    Fruit Research
    Mr. Alportasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the establishment of a fruit research station to serve the large fruit-growing areas of East Anglia.
    Mr. Nugent: Research on fruit is considered to be adequately catered for by the East Mailing Research Station, the Long Ashton Research Station and the John Innes Horticultural Institution.
    Mr. Alport: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the growers in East Anglia appreciate the services of these stations, they feel that the facilities are not sufficient for a section of the industry which is growing rapidly under modern conditions, and that they would welcome any action by the Minister to look into the adequacy of the existing facilities?
    Mr. Nugent: I would remind my hon. Friend that these are national stations. They provide for the whole country, and the fact that they are not situated in East Anglia does not mean that their services are not readily available there.

  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Albuasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord President of the Council's Department so that a junior Minister will be available in the House of Commons with responsibility for scientific research and its application.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have been asked to reply.
  No, Sir. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works takes Questions in the House of Commons about the responsibilities of the Lord President for scientific research.
  Mr. Albu: Without reflecting in any way on the amiability or competence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman realises the considerable anxiety in scientific and industrial circles at the lack of interest shown by the Government in scientific research? Is not this reflected by the invidious comparison drawn by the Prime Minister between science and the humanities in his letter to the T.U.C. on adult education?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the desire of many people that if any changes should be made, a senior Minister should deal with these problems? Will he also convey to the Prime Minister the disappointment of many people in industry that economies are being made at the expense of scientific research?
  Mr. Crookshank: Those supplementary questions are rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. All I can say about the original Question is that the previous Government, of course, as well as the present Government, have reaffirmed that the responsibility for civilian research should rest with the Lord President.

  AMERICAN AIR CRASH, WILTSHIRE
  Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that at Bowden Hill, Wiltshire, on 7th February, a large area of the countryside was cordoned off and the Queen's highway closed by orders of American officers after an air crash; what arrangements have been agreed with the United States authorities with regard to measures to be taken by them after such accidents; and if he will discuss with them future methods by which the minimum disturbance may be caused to civil rights and by which access may be granted, in particular, to journalists on similar lines to those agreed between the Air Ministry and the National Union of Journalists.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): The report my right hon. and learned Friend has received from the chief constable does not bear out the suggestion that any large area of the

  1359
  countryside was cordoned off or that any highway was closed. He understands that for a short time there was a ban on taking photographs, but that this was soon lifted. While my right hon. and learned Friend does not think that this incident shows that the arrangements with regard to the photographing of crashed United States aircraft give rise to serious difficulties, he is considering whether any modification in these arrangements should be suggested.
  Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that when the crash occurred, and journalists presented themselves for the purpose of taking photographs, as they usually do with the agreement of the Ministry, they were prevented from doing so by a foreign Power, which had cordoned off the area of the crash? Will he take steps to give the same facilities to journalists in areas occupied by Americans as he does when one of our own planes is involved?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Wiltshire police were present throughout. There is no question about them being there at all times. There was a period of about an hour when the taking of photographs was prevented, and my right hon. and learned Friend has that matter under consideration.
  Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the National Union of Journalists have an arrangement with the Ministry that photographs are taken which, if necessary, are submitted for examination before publication? Will he give the same facilities where American forces are concerned?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As I have already said twice, my right hon. and learned Friend is considering whether any amendment of these arrangements should be suggested.

  POLICE

    Negotiating Body (Scheme)
    Mr. Edeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress was made at the recent meeting of the Police Council on the question of negotiating machinery for the police.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am glad to say that the Police Council for England and Wales and the Scottish Police Council
    1360
    both unanimously agreed, at recent meetings, on the general principles of a draft constitution for a new negotiating body for Great Britain, and recommended that the body should be set up, in advance of legislation, as soon as possible. Although certain points of detail on the drafting of the constitution have still to be discussed with those concerned, my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland hope that it will not be long before final agreement is reached and that it will be possible to bring the scheme into operation later this year.
    Mr. Ede: May the House voice its accord with the hope expressed at the end of that answer, and wish good luck and every prosperity to this machinery when it is set up?

    College (Permanent Site)
    Mr. Edeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in finding a permanent site for the police college, which is now in temporary accommodation at Ryton-on-Dunsmore.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and learned Friend is glad to say that the Government has acquired Bramshill House and part of the surrounding park for a permanent home for the Police College. The House, which is of great historical interest and of outstanding architectural merit, will form the nucleus for the college, and the new building which will be necessary will be put in hand as soon as economic circumstances permit. He has throughout acted in consultation with representatives of police authorities and of all ranks of the police service, who have expressed their confidence in the work which has been carried on since the college was established in 1948, and their hope that it would be possible to find a permanent home for the college fully in keeping with its objects.
    Bramshill has been purchased from Lord Brocket, who has taken great pains over its maintenance, and my right hon. and learned Friend has given assurances that the utmost care will be taken to see that the house is not impaired by the development which will be necessary on the site. Lord Brocket had given certain restrictive covenants to the National Trust

    1361
    and these covenants will, of course, be strictly observed. My right hon. and learned Friend is most grateful to Lord Brocket for his ready understanding of the desirability of providing as the centrepiece of a college which is devoted to the training of the higher ranks of the police a building rich in history and tradition.
    Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the additional buildings put up do not in any way detract from the architectural interest of the building which now exists?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend has that consideration very much in mind.
    Mr. Sparks: Would the hon. Gentleman say if it is possible to increase the scope for serving constables to graduate to the police college to become qualified for the higher appointments in the service?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is going rather wide of the original Question.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Can the Minister say what we have paid for this place?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Not without notice.

    DISPUTE, AUSTIN MOTOR COMPANY (INQUIRY)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now announce what steps he intends to take to help to bring to a conclusion the industrial dispute involving vehicle builders at the Austin Motor Company.
    The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): I have decided that it is in the public interest for all the facts to be established by an independent body, and I am accordingly appointing a court of inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act inquire into all the causes and circumstances of the dispute, and to report. The constitution of the court will be announced in the course of today.
    Mr. Chapman: May I first thank the Minister for the courtesy with which he has dealt with this matter all the way through, and express on behalf of many hon. Members congratulations on his
    1362
    decision? May I ask whether he can yet say if the management concerned are willing to co-operate, and if they have given any indication that they will accept the result of this inquiry?
    Sir W. Monckton: I should make it plain that, having had a request from the union concerned to appoint a court of inquiry, I thought it right to give the management an opportunity of expressing a view. While they did not think the facts needed to be ascertained, they said that they welcomed the opportunity of seeing an independent body going into the matter. It is not a case in either instance of asking for conditions, because the consent of neither party is required, but I thought it right to ascertain the position.
    Mr. M. Lindsay: How soon does my right hon. and learned Friend hope to receive this report?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am afraid it is impossible to give a date. I have done all I can. I shall appoint the members today and tell them I want expedition.
    Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the view held by many men who have been excluded from work but who are not on strike? They think that has come about because there has been misrepresentation of the facts. For example, a number of sheet metal workers in my constituency were prevented from getting unemployment pay and forced on to the receipt of National Assistance for a period of some four or five weeks on the basis of a statement said to have been made by the Austin Motor Company that seven sheet metal workers were on strike. On investigation it was ascertained that of those seven, four had been continuously employed and three others could not be traced.
    Sir W. Monckton: That, of course, is a matter for the court, who will determine whether it comes within their terms of reference.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Minister aware that the unions were meeting in London last night, and their confederation this morning, and that it is their desire that there should be a full statement, and full production resumed as soon as possible?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am delighted to hear that.
    Mr. Chapman: Can the Minister say whether the court will hold their proceedings in public or in private?
    Sir W. Monckton: That is a matter for the court to decide, but when they make their report I shall have to lay it before both Houses.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Smallpox Outbreak, Lancashire and Yorkshire
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Minister of Health the ages of the persons in Lancashire and Yorkshire who are recorded as having developed smallpox in the recent outbreak; what was their original vaccinal condition; how many of them had been vaccinated as contacts or otherwise before the development of the smallpox eruption; and for what reason the Mons Mill at Todmorden was closed.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): The ages of the 19 cases confirmed up to yesterday ranged from one year nine months to 60 years. Of these, ten had no original vaccination, seven had not been vaccinated since infancy and two had been vaccinated in infancy and again in the 1914–18 war. Fourteen were vaccinated or revaccinated after the outbreak had started. The mill closed voluntarily for a short time when smallpox was confirmed so that investigations could be carried out and the risks of contact reduced.

    Mental Patient (Refusal of Leave)
    Mr. Marloweasked the Minister of Health why the young inmate of a mental colony who has been identified to him has been refused leave to spend Easter with his parents at Hove; if he is aware that this young man has had previous periods of leave and during such leaves has been well-behaved; upon what grounds leave has been refused on this occasion; why no explanation has been given to the parents; and whether he will ensure that leave is now granted in the absence of any satisfactory reason to the contrary.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The granting of leave to this patient is entirely a matter for the medical superintendent of
    1364
    the hospital, and I have no power to give him directions in the matter. As to the reasons for refusal of leave, I regret I cannot add to the information given to my hon. and learned Friend in my letter to him of 25th March.
    Mr. Marlowe: Will my right hon. Friend give some reasons to the parents? He will realise that it is most distressing for parents merely to be told that the son cannot go home, as he has always done before, without being given any reason. If there is good reason, should not it be given to the parents?
    Mr. Macleod: The medical superintendent has a discretion in this matter. He tells me, and I tell my hon. and learned Friend, that after careful investigation of this many times it has been decided that it is not in the best interests of the patient at present that this leave should be granted. I must say that I think that it is better for the parent that the position should be left there.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling among some members of the public, especially in the Midlands, that young well-behaved men of this type have been kept in mental colonies because they are useful, for instance, for cutting the doctor's hedge or cooking in the kitchen? Will he inquire into alleged abuses of that kind?
    Mr. Macleod: Of course I will. I will inquire into any cases brought to my notice.

  EDUCATION

    North Staffordshire
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Minister of Education what new schools are being allocated to north Staffordshire; and how many of these are to be built in the towns of Leek, Biddulph and Cheadle.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): Two primary schools and one secondary school are now being built in Newcastle-under-Lyme. No new school is at present being built in Leek, Biddulph or Cheadle, but one new school has been opened in Biddulph and one in Leek since 1939, and existing schools have been and are being extended.
    Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that because of the opening of new coalfields in the area the National Coal Board are coming into the towns of Biddulph and Cheadle, where there is now a terrific population problem? May I suggest that the Ministry are not allocating any new schools to this part of North Staffordshire, and that if the position continues there will be chaos in elementary education in these three towns in the near future?
    Mr. Pickthorn: I will make sure that the considerations suggested by the hon. Gentleman are kept fully in mind.
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Minister of Education to state the number of children now in the schools of Leek, Biddulph, Cheadle and Kidsgrove; and how they compare with the school population in 1938.
    Mr. Pickthorn: In January, 1953, there were 9,160 pupils on the registers of maintained schools in these towns, compared with approximately 7,650 before the war.
    Mr. Davies: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that those figures illustrate exactly the point I made in my last supplementary question? Therefore, will he increase the pressure on the Ministry to grant the new schools?
    Mr. Pickthorn: I am sure that the Ministry will continue its urgent activity in these matters. It is fair to add that there have been 1,000 or more places provided between the dates of these two sets of figures, and there are 300 now in course of provision by current programmes.

    Adult Education (Grants)
    Mr. Edeasked the Minister of Education if she will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the communications which she sent to the Chairman of the Universities Council for Adult Education and the General Secretary of the Workers Educational Association in which she proposed to reduce the rate of her grants from the beginning of the educational year, 1953–54, by 10 per cent.
    Mr. Pickthorn: No, Sir. As the right hon. Member will be aware, these letters were sent to the two gentlemen in question as the first steps in negotiations and discussions which are not yet completed.
    Mr. Ede: Why is not the House entitled to have this information? This is a matter of very great controversy.
    Mr. Pickthorn: My right hon. Friend has been, and is, plainly of opinion that, at the stage at which discussions and negotiations now are, they would not be assisted by this publication.
    Mr. Chetwynd: But would not the publication of these letters show that the Minister's proposal was in fact a decision to make a cut, and is not it only because pressure has been put on the Prime Minister since then that she has tried to wriggle out of it? Is not this a case where woman proposes and the Prime Minister disposes?
    Mr. Pickthorn: I do not think that it would be wise for me to try to indicate what something unpublished would show.
    Mr. H. Morrison: This is a matter of considerable public importance, and discussion has been going on for some time. Surely Parliament and the nation have a right to see the letter which the Minister sent to these bodies, and which originated the controversy? May I press the hon. Gentleman to urge on the right hon. Lady that the request of my right hon. Friend is very reasonable and that Parliament and the nation have a right to the communication?
    Mr. Pickthorn: I do not deny, but I do not think that I should be taken as assuming either way, that there is in any strict sense a right in this matter. I do not think that it will be proper for me now to attempt to add to what I have already said and to the answers which were given on an earlier occasion.
    Mr. Morrison: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Minister to what has been said and ask her to consider whether in the circumstances Parliament and the country have not a right to know what was in the letter?
    Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I had meant to say that I will, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the points mentioned.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to give notice that immediately after the Recess I shall put down a Motion calling for this information to be given.

  N.A.T.O.

    Unidentified Submarines
    Mr. Russellasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will instruct our representative in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to call for information in regard to the number of occasions in which unidentified submarines have been sighted oft the coasts of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries recently; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): No, Sir. There are satisfactory arrangements for the exchange of intelligence information in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, but it would not be in the public interest to make any statement on matters of this kind.
    Mr. Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been many reports recently of unidentified submarines in these areas, and that this naturally causes a great deal of anxiety? Can he say anything to allay the anxiety on this score?
    Mr. Birch: There have not been many justifiable reports.

    Co-ordination
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what recent information he has received from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on plans to co-ordinate the defence of the West; and whether he is satisfied that these plans are adequate.
    Mr. Birch: A military command system has now been established covering the whole of the North Atlantic area. I am satisfied that the necessary plans have been made for the defence of the region.
    Mr. Henderson: Has the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary been drawn to the public statement made by Field Marshal Lord Montgomery on Monday last in Washington, in which he severely criticised the organisation of N.A.T.O., of which he is Deputy-Commander, specifying in particular that no positive or master plan for the coordination of the defence of the West was in existence? Does not the hon. Gentle-
    1368
    man agree that this is a most serious allegation, and can he say whether Lord Montgomery has made a report to this effect to the Government? In any event, will the minister dissociate himself from this allegation made by Lord Montgomery?
    Mr. Birch: The responsibility of N.A.T.O. extends only to the N.A.T.O. area and plans are satisfactory there. I think that what the Field Marshal was talking about was the co-ordination of world strategy and not of strategy within his own sphere.
    Mr. Henderson: With great respect, Lord Montgomery spoke of the West. The published report indicates that he referred to the co-ordination of the defence of the West, which is co-terminus in present circumstances with N.A.T.O.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I press the hon. Gentleman on this point? Is not it true that, addressing a Press conference in Washington, Field Marshal Montgomery indulged in very harsh strictures of the organisation at S.H.A.P.E. and referred to too much paper and the need for eliminating waste? May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether Lord Montgomery, who is still on the active list and on the pay roll of the War Office, made any representations at any time to the noble Lord the Minister of Defence on these matters with a view to finding a remedy for this state of affairs?
    Mr. Birch: As the right hon. Gentleman says, Field Marshal Montgomery is on the staff of S.H.A.P.E. and is a servant of that organisation. It is to be hoped that he will address himself to this question of cutting out waste when he returns.
    Mr. Shinwell: But, with great respect, the hon. Gentleman must not shirk the obvious difficulties that appear for him in this Question. What we want to know, and what we are entitled to know, is whether the Field Marshal has at any time made any representations to the Minister of Defence or to Her Majesty's Government on the need for improving the organisation at S.H.A.P.E.
    Mr. Birch: Expenditure on these headquarters is controlled by international committees, on which my noble Friend is represented by his officials. It is our task to see that money is not wasted, and we do our best to see that it is not.
    Mr. Henderson: May I follow up the question which I put before my right hon. Friend intervened? In the report which I have in mind, it was made quite clear that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery was referring to the co-ordination of the defence of the West. Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they do not agree that there is no master plan for the co-ordination of the defence of the West in the event of war?
    Mr. Birch: I have said in my answer that we consider that the N.A.T.O. plans are satisfactory.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

PERSIAN GULF SHEIKDOMS (FRONTIERS)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mrs. CASTLE: TO ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations with the Government of Saudi Arabia on the boundaries of the Persian Gulf sheikdoms.
The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I will now give the answer to Question No. 71.
The House will be aware from the written reply which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave on 18th March that Her Majesty's Government have proposed to the Saudi Arabian Government that this matter should be settled by impartial arbitration. It is four months since this offer was first made and nearly three months after being rejected it was renewed.
In the meantime, the representative of the Saudi Arabian Government who improperly established himself in the Buraimi Oasis has continued, contrary to the Standstill Agreement, to exploit his position in Buraimi, to tamper with the traditional allegiance of the tribes and further the extension of Saudi influence over a wide area. Indeed, an attack was
1370
instigated under the Saudi flag against a levy post in an area never previously claimed as Saudi territory. On the arrival of our local forces, the attackers dispersed.
The Saudi Arabian Government themselves, both in official communications and in propaganda, gave the clearest indications that they intended to press still further their claims to the territory of the Trucial Sheikhdoms and the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman. More recently a second Saudi Arabian official, with an armed force, moved through Abu Dhabi territory into Buraimi and thence to various places in Central Oman, and although, according to my information, he later returned to Saudi Arabia, his activities were clearly contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Standstill Agreement, and they were also at variance with the purpose of an earlier Agreement concluded in 1951, which limited certain movements in areas claimed by Saudi Arabia.
In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government conclude that the Saudi Arabian Government have rendered both Agreements inoperative. On behalf of the Rulers under their protection, and with the authority of the Sultan of Muscat, Her Majesty's Government have decided to reserve complete freedom of action in regard to all matters covered thereby. They have informed the Saudi Arabian Government accordingly. At the same time, they have once more renewed their offer to submit the whole question of the frontiers to impartial arbitration.
Her Majesty's Government have no wish to allow this state of affairs to affect their traditional friendship with Saudi Arabia. Her Majesty's Government greatly value that friendship. Equally, I am sure the House will agree that Her Majesty's Government cannot abandon those other less powerful friends to whom they have obligations or who have asked for their support.
The text of the communication which Her Majesty's Ambassador at Jedda has today made to the Saudi Arabian Government has been placed in the Library.
Mrs. Castle: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether it is true that the Saudi Arabian Government intends to raise this matter in the Security Council, and, if that is

1371
not true, whether Her Majesty's Government would not themselves consider doing that, in view of the aggressive behaviour of the Saudi Arabian Government? Could he also tell the House whether we are getting diplomatic support in this matter from the United States of America, in view of the obvious justice of our case?
Mr. Lloyd: So far as the question of raising the matter in the United Nations is concerned, I do not think we have yet had any formal intimation that the Saudi Arabian Government are going to do it themselves. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, that is a matter which certainly cannot be ruled out of consideration, but we still hold the view that impartial arbitration is the better way of dealing with the matter, and we hope that, even now, the Saudi Arabian Government will accept that proposition. The Government of the United States have been kept in close touch with the actions which Her Majesty's Government have taken.
Mr. N. Macpherson: Is it the fact that the Saudi Arabian Government disowned the sovereignty over this territory in the inter-war period, and declined to accept responsibility for it?
Mr. Lloyd: I think the fact really is that the frontiers of this area have always been very ill-defined.
Mr. Younger: In view of the fact that there are a good many boundaries in this area which are not very well established, and that, consequently, genuine disputes do arise, which disputes may become very serious and important by reason of the belief, mistaken or otherwise, that there is still hidden oil in some of these territories, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he will always have the full support of this House in establishing in the minds of everyone in this area that such disputes must be settled in a civilised manner, through arbitration or through some international body, and not by force? Can he also give an assurance that, while this dispute is going on, he will take the necessary steps to see that no new situation is created by force majeure?
Mr. Lloyd: In my answer I used the phrase that we reserved complete free-
1372
dom of action, and we certainly intend to see that the situation does not deteriorate during this period.
Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in view of the very close friendship which has existed between the two countries up to date, he has given up all hope of a settlement by direct negotiations between the two Governments, apart from the question of arbitration?
Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, we have not given up hope—and that would be a foolish thing to do—but there has been a great deal of direct negotiation about this matter. However, we are still hopeful that we may persuade the Saudi Arabian Government to adopt the course of impartial arbitration.
Major Legge-Bourke: While welcoming what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the other States concerned, may I ask him, first, whether there is any indication of the motive of the Saudi Arabian Government in this matter; and, second, whether there is any financial obligation arising?
Mr. Lloyd: I think perhaps the guess of my hon. and gallant Friend as to the motive is as good as mine. I am not certain that I understand the purport of his second question.

INTERNED BRITISH CIVILIANS, NORTH KOREA (REPATRIATION)
Mr. H. Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make about the repatriation of interned British civilians in North Korea.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir.
As the House is already aware, the Soviet Charge d'Affaires in London informed me on 18th March that, in response to my right hon. Friend's request to Mr. Gromyko on 17th February, the Soviet Government were willing to use their good offices with the North Korean authorities to secure the release of Captain Holt, formerly His late Majesty's Minister at Seoul, eight other British civilians and an Irish missionary detained in North Korea since June, 1950.

1373
On 28th March, the Soviet Government informed Her Majesty's Embassy in Moscow that six British subjects are interned in North Korea including Captain Holt: Mr. George Blake and Mr. Norman Owen, of the Legation staff; the Reverend A. C. Cooper, Bishop of Seoul; Commissioner H. Lord, of the Salvation Army; and Mr. Philip Deane, Correspondent of the "Observer." They also gave the name of the Irish missionary Father Quinlan.
The Soviet Government stated that they had also been informed by the North Korean authorities that two British civilians, Father Hunt and Sister Mary Clare, had died in 1950; and that a third, Father A. W. Lee, was not among those British subjects interned in North Korea and that nothing was known about him or his present whereabouts.
Consultations between the Soviet Government and the North Korean authorities are now continuing regarding the precise whereabouts of those interned and the method and route of their repatriation through China and the Soviet Union to Moscow. The Soviet Government have said that these arrangements may take some time to complete but that Her Majesty's Embassy will be informed in good time of their arrival in Moscow.
Her Majesty's Embassy have asked the Soviet Government to use their good offices to obtain from the North Korean authorities the cause and proof of death of Father Hunt and Sister Mary Clare, and to ask the North Korean authorities to pursue their inquiries regarding the present whereabouts of Father Lee. The Soviet Government have undertaken to transmit these requests to the North Korean authorities.
Mr. H. Morrison: We are all glad that the Soviet Ambassador has informed the Foreign Secretary that the Soviet Government are interesting themselves beneficially in this matter, and we are glad that that should be so. But this reply does leave us in some condition of anxiety as to the speed with which this lady and these gentlemen will be released. We must also express some concern about the death of the two citizens to whom reference has been made, and the lack of knowledge as to where another one now is.
None of us wishes to say anything to stimulate friction at this point, but per-
1374
haps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would convey to the Soviet Ambassador the fact that all of us in this House are most anxious for the early release of these people and the settlement of this problem; and that, if it can be done with speed by the North Korean Government, through the representations of the Soviet Government, it would be beneficial to genuine international relations.
Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and certainly these views will be conveyed to the Soviet Ambassador.
Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, before he made this generally very welcome statement today, he took steps to see that relatives of the two persons reported dead were informed?
Mr. Lloyd: Yes. The next of kin were all informed before the statement was made.
Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: While deeply regretting the death of the two persons to whom my right hon. and learned Friend referred, I ask him whether he could say if there is any information as to the remaining eight, and whether or not they are thought to be in good health?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not think we have any precise information about that.

SUDAN (MINISTER'S VISIT)
The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about my recent visit to Khartoum.
My purpose was to see things at first hand, and to do what I could to remove the various misunderstandings and difficulties which were hindering the carrying out of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 12th February. I had talks with the Governor-General, many leading Sudanese, including a delegation from the Southern Sudan, and senior officials of the Sudan Government. I also received a deputation from the Senior Civil Servants' Association. On my return through Cairo I had a full discussion with the Egyptian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.

1375
I made it clear to the Sudanese leaders that Her Majesty's Government for their part intend to honour the Agreement of 12th February in the spirit and the letter. We intended to try to make the Agreement work and to bring into being as soon as possible a Sudanese Government. I also stressed the importance of refraining from recrimination and of concentrating upon the coming elections.
To the Northern Sudanese leaders I spoke in particular of the need to pay special attention to the problems of the South. I urged them to make friendly contact with the South. Some of the Southern leaders felt that they had not been sufficiently consulted about the negotiations between the Northern parties and the Egyptian Government. I encouraged them, nevertheless, to take a full part in the elections and in the normal working of Parliament within a united Sudan.
I also met many members of the Sudan Civil Service. Their task is now no easy one. Not only is it beset by all the difficulties that ordinarily attend a transfer of power, but it has, I am sorry to say, been further complicated by a series of mischievous and uninformed attacks upon them. I am confident that these attacks are unfounded. The House is already aware of the fine quality and splendid traditions of these officials. They have understandable anxieties about their future, but, in fact, their first object is to do what is best for the Sudan. I assured them that during this difficult transitional period they would have the full support of Her Majesty's Government.
It is obvious that if the Sudan is to hold its elections in an orderly and peaceful atmosphere there is an urgent need for restraint in all quarters. This Agreement will break down if there is a flood of propaganda throughout the Sudan against the Administration. I emphasised this to General Neguib, and he assured me that the Egyptian Government did not desire to interfere with the elections in the Sudan.
Another object of my visit was to try to remove the difficulties which were holding up the appointment of the Governor-General's Commission, and in consequence, the elections themselves. I have
1376
already informed the House of the steps taken in this matter. Arrangements for the appointment of the Sudanese members of the Electoral Commission now appear to be going ahead rapidly.
Her Majesty's Government's position in these matters remains clear. We shall carry out the Sudan Agreement, and we shall see that the Sudanese have the opportunity to make a free choice regarding their future status. Whatever they choose, our feelings of friendship for the the people of the Sudan will continue, and I can assure them that whatever difficulties may arise, Her Majesty's Government will carry out their promise that the Sudan shall have self-government and then the opportunity to determine their own future.
Mr. H. Morrison: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Southern Sudanese, if they so desire, will still have the advantage of the advice of British officials? I entirely agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the British officials and Civil Service in the Sudan. They are a fine body of people, and we should certainly do the best we can for them. One would hope that their services would be available if the Sudanese desire them.
Finally, is the Foreign Office aware of the difficulties of the situation, and that it is important that we should be as capable of expressing our point of view and making it known and understood, as the Egyptians appear to have done rather more quickly in recent times?
Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's last question, that is a matter which is ever present in my mind. I hope that the situation in that regard will be satisfactory in the future. I am grateful far what he said about the members of the Sudan Service, and I am sure they will be too. With regard to the British officials in the South, in certain categories their position is governed by the Sudanisation Clause in the Agreement, that is to say their future will depend upon the Sudanisation Committee.
That Committee will not be set up until after the elections. Its recommendations have to go to the new Government and then to the Governor-General, and, if there is any disagreement, to the Commission. If there is still disagreement

1377
about the implementation of any recommendations, they have to go to some international body which has not yet been precisely specified. The position is not altogether clear, but I am quite certain that a great deal will depend on the wishes of the Sudanese themselves, who have adequate opportunity for expressing those wishes.
Mr. Stokes: May I press this particular point? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether in this interim period which will elapse between the time of independence, and so on, the Southern Sudanese will continue to be able to have the advice of British officials, or will there be a hiatus? I quite understand that it is only a question of whether they want such advice and that it will not be imposed on them, but will they have a continuous opportunity of getting that advice if they so desire?
Mr. Lloyd: I think they will have a continuous opportunity if they so desire.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether there is now any reason why the elections should not be held before the rains? I congratulate him on what appears from all accounts to have been a most successful personal visit, particularly as he succeeded in keeping his shirt on.
Mr. Lloyd: So far as the elections are concerned, there are certain technical matters of which the Electoral Commission will have to dispose. The Indian Chairman of that Commission is already proceeding vigorously with his task, and when I was there he was holding consultations and considering how to tackle the matter, but I do not think I can anticipate the result of the work of that Commission. When I was there the American representative was present, as was the British; the Egyptian was available and the Indian Chairman was already working. I am confident that, so far as that Commission are concerned, they will do everything possible to have the elections before the rains.
Mr. Rhodes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his decision to go to Khartoum was a very welcome one, especially as no Minister or official from either the Foreign Office or the Embassy in Cairo has visited Khartoum since
1378
these protracted negotiations began? I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two straight questions, and to the point. Did the Minister of State make it quite clear to the Egyptians that no undue interference will be tolerated while the Sudanese are achieving their independence? Secondly, did he make it quite clear to General Neguib in Cairo that such comments as he made a week today about cleansing the filth of British Imperialism from the Nile are bitterly resented by many hon. Members of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—very well, by all hon. Members of this House and the country in general, and that it is impossible for the British officials properly to do their work if they are subject to such abuse as this during the next three years?
Mr. Lloyd: One of the purposes of my talk with General Neguib was to try to diminish the amount of propaganda that was exchanged or initiated, and, therefore, I think that I must be very careful in the answer that I give. But I did make it quite clear that I thought Egyptian interference in the elections and their continuance of propaganda against the Administration would cause the Agreement to break down.
Mr. Driberg: Whilst the main point is to proceed as rapidly as possible to self-determination and a genuinely free choice, could the Minister say a little more about the possible future tempo of Sudanisation? Is he aware that as recently as a year ago responsible Umma Party leaders were quite prepared to accept a tempo of Sudanisation, after self-government, much more reasonable than the tempo which has been recently mentioned? Is that still the case?
Mr. Lloyd: I think that it would be very unwise for me to attempt to forecast the way in which the Sudanisation Committee will approach this matter. There are several different factors to be taken into account with regard to Sudanisation, such as whether one should seek to Sudanise quickly the senior posts or the junior posts. Varying opinions are held. All that I can usefully say is that in my talks with the heads of Departments and British officials the principal matter with which they were concerned was to try to continue efficient administration. I can assure the House that their

1379
personal interests in this matter were secondary. Their first interest was how the administration could be continued as efficiently as possible. I think that with regard to the length of time that the process will take and matters of that sort it is better for me not to comment at this stage.
Mr. N. Macpherson: Could my right hon. Friend elaborate a little further on the reasons that are holding up the appointment of the Governor-General's Commission, and the extent to which that is likely to hold up the elections?
Mr. Lloyd: The Governor-General's Commission has been appointed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

CITY OF LONDON (REBUILDING)
12.23 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North): I am very glad to have the opportunity of raising today a matter which is of very deep concern to the people of London. I refer to the recent decision of the Minister of Works to approve licences for £10 million for the construction of office buildings in central London. The main point which I want to emphasise in initiating this debate is the need for an absolute priority for the building of fiats in the inner London area over every other kind of construction.
I want to make it clear to the Minister and to the Minister of Housing and Local Government that whatever arguments there may be in favour of licensing office construction in the City, those arguments are negligible beside the overwhelming need to rehouse the people of London. In the past there have always been two arguments in favour of licensing office construction at a time of housing shortage. They were arguments that were used by the Labour Government, and the Labour Government approved the building of several offices for Government Departments.
The first of the arguments was that these offices, when built, would release residential accommodation. As far as the Civil Service was concerned to a large extent that was true. Government Departments were occupying large blocks of flats all over London. But the licences which we are discussing today are, I understand, for private firms. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is his estimate of the amount of private residential accommodation, if any, that will be released as a result of the construction of these offices.
It was also said that the construction of offices did not compete with house building. To some extent there was a measure of truth in that also, but only in so far as it applied to the building of houses. In London, and particularly in the inner London area, we cannot build houses. We build flats, and where flats are concerned the position is entirely different.

1381
We use precisely the same type of material, the same type of constructional equipment and the same type of labour for building a block of offices as we do for building a block of flats. Furthermore, exactly the same type of site preparation, which is a big job as the Minister knows, is required in each case.
I say that the two forms of building compete directly with one another for resources and manpower. I wanted to discover the effect of this decision and I asked the Minister a Question just over a month ago. I invited him to
"estimate the number of flats of average size which could be provided by local authorities in London out of the building resources which will be required to construct the £10 million worth of office accommodation in central London."
He passed the baby to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his right hon. Friend side-stepped very smartly in his reply. He said:
"This would depend upon the design and method of construction of the flats."
I am left therefore to make my own calculations. I believe that the average cost of the average size flat in central London is roughly £2,000. From that figure I estimate that Londoners are being deprived of no fewer than 5,000 flats as a result of this decision to build offices. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept my calculations. I hope he will give the House his own.
To do the Minister justice, he did not fall back on those two old arguments. When I put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman on the same day as to why he had authorised these licences, he produced some new ones of his own. He said:
"It is of national importance to begin the rebuilding of the City of London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1953, Vol. 511, c. 202 and 204.]
We all agree that the City had its share, indeed more than its share, of bombing. The City looks a mess and we all look forward to the day when it can be rebuilt. We hope to see it rebuilt just as soon as the country can afford it, but I do not believe that London is ashamed of its battle scars. On the contrary, London is rather proud of them, and the people of London do not want to see those scars removed at the cost of dealing with the housing problem.
1382
The right hon. Gentleman claims that the erection of these offices will add to the economic strength of the country. In what way will it do that? Does he not agree that it is far better for the economic strength of the country that the workers, both office and manual workers, should be decently housed? I believe that not enough attention has been paid to the relationship between productivity and good housing. It is an important factor. Of course, there is bound to be some overcrowding in offices in the City, and no doubt it causes some discomfort, but what is discomfort of this nature compared with the ghastly conditions in which tens of thousands of Londoners are still condemned to eat, to live, to sleep and to bring up their children? I believe that the office workers themselves would take this view if they could see some of the conditions under which these people are living.
Then the right hon. Gentleman offered the most astonishing argument of all, that since housing sites in London are limited, the housing programme will not suffer. It is true that the bombed sites resulting from the war are now largely built on or in the process of development—the larger ones at any rate. There are still plenty of small sites, but these are mostly infilling jobs and are unsuitable for large schemes.
But what about slum clearance? By now the London boroughs ought to be hard at work on programmes of slum clearance. There are many authorities who are anxious to get ahead, who want to use their powers under Section 3 of the 1936 Housing Act but the Government will not give them the permission for which they are asking. There are enough areas in London in urgent need of demolition and reconstruction to keep the building resources of London busy for 10, 20 and probably 30 years, but we are not allowed to get on with the job.
Does not the Minister appreciate that London is still in desperate need of rehousing? Despite everything we have done in seven years, the problem seems still as serious as it ever was to those of us who come face to face with it every day. I want to quote one or two illustrations taken from my own borough of St. Pancras. I am especially fortunate here in that St. Pancras was one of the selected areas for the sample tables of the 1951 Census recently published by

1383
the Stationery Office, so that the figures which I shall give to the House are accurate and up to date. I make no apology for quoting these figures because they are an index of human discomfort, frustration and, in some cases, sheer misery.
Out of 48,000 families in St. Pancras 33,500 live in shared dwellings. That means they have not got their own front door. The Minister will know what that leads to in the way of trouble with neighbours, difficulties about the pram in the hall, the use and cleaning of the stairs, and so on. This means that 70 per cent. of the population are sharing a dwelling as compared with 15 per cent. for the whole of England and Wales.
More than half the families in St. Pancras lack their own water closet; more than three quarters of the families in St. Pancras lack their own bath; and more than one quarter of them are without their own stove and sink. Nearly 4½ per cent. of the population are living in overcrowded conditions of more than two persons per room, and for this purpose rooms include kitchens.
All these figures, which are not untypical of London, are just about double the national average. My own borough council recently overhauled their housing list and the resulting figures are an accurate index. There are now 6,000 families on the housing list, one in every eight in the borough. Over a quarter of these are really urgent cases on grounds of ill-health, of sanitary conditions and serious overcrowding, and, even if the past rate of housing is maintained, many of these families will have to wait up to four years at least.
In this category of urgent houses there are families where there is tuberculosis, where perhaps, a parent is in a sanitorium and the doctor forbids them to come home to a damp and overcrowded basement. There are families where the parents have to share the same bedroom with adolescent children of opposite sexes. There is, of course, the equally tragic group of young married couples living with in-laws who can see no hope of being able to live a normal married life in their own home, because their cases are not even priority.
1384
I could weary the House with endless individual cases to underline the point I am trying to make, but I shall quote just one letter which I received only yesterday from a hospital almoner about a patient who is a constituent of mine. She is suffering from a serious complaint, and is expecting a baby shortly. The husband and wife and one child
"are living, eating and sleeping in one room at the top of the house. The fresh water supply is out in the yard, which means that the wife has to go up and down two flights of stairs for this and also to empty out used water, as there is no sink in her room and no lavatory in the house. You will appreciate that this is an extremely difficult situation for her as she has a young baby and, from a medical point of view, it is serious as she must avoid all undue strain."
That is not the worst case by any means, but it happens to be the most recent one I have had.
The Metropolitan borough housing lists are only half the story. The London County Council have on their waiting lists nearly 200,000 families, 70,000 of which are categorised as priority A. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), if he is fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, knows a lot more about the L.C.C. aspect of the problem than I do.
I hope I have said enough to convince the Minister that there is still a desperate need for rehousing the people of London and that it is utterly wrong to divert building resources away from housing at this time and in this situation. The position is that 18 months ago, possibly longer, an absolute ban was placed on the building of offices and no further licences were to be issued. The £10 million grant which the Minister has just made is the first breach of that principle. I want to ask him certain specific questions about those licences and to ask for one or two assurances.
Is there any way in which these licences can be rescinded or suspended? If so, will the Minister take appropriate action? Over what period is the £10 million to be expended? How many licences does it represent? There are rumours that it represents a very small number of large licences. Which firms have been granted the licences? Is the Bank of England one of them? How are these firms chosen by his Department out of what must have been hundreds of applications

1385
from City firms? Rumour in the City has it that there has been an ugly scramble for licences. How does the right hon. Gentleman discriminate? On what basis does he select his fortunate candidates for these licences?
Has he given any starting dates? If so, how many? Will he give an assurance that he will not give starting dates for a long time in those cases which have not been awarded them already? Above all, will he give an assurance that no more licences for offices will be issued for a long time to come? Finally, will he tell the House and the country that he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will in future see that the maximum building resources of London are devoted to housing the many ill-housed people there, who have suffered for so long and perhaps too patiently?
12.40 p.m.
Mr. C. W. Gibson: We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) for raising this question, which is of very great importance to London and, in particular, to the tens of thousands of families on the waiting lists there.
Unfortunately, both the Minister of Works and the Minister of Housing and Local Government have been extremely coy in answering Questions on this subject. They have dodged quite straightforward requests for information as to what effect the granting of permission to spend £10 million on office building will have on the supply of materials and labour for the housing work of the London County Council and the London boroughs.
On Monday last I put down a Question for Oral answer. It was not reached, but I have had an answer in writing. I asked if the Minister of Works could tell me the estimated number of skilled building operatives who would be employed on this work. His reply was that he did not know. I have tried to find out what would be the effect on the supply of materials, but, again, the reply I received from the Minister was that he did not know. Are we to understand, therefore, that this enormous sum of money—£10 million—has been allowed for the building of offices in the City of London without any inquiry as to its effect either on
1386
the supply of building materials or labour in London?
The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): No.
Mr. Gibson: The Minister mutters "No," but he has not answered any Questions which we have put to him on that point. None of us is against the rebuilding of bombed offices in the City of London. We all want to see them rebuilt. But there must be priorities in this matter, in view of the housing position in London, and up till now the first claim on building materials and labour has been given to housing. That has gone, and I am afraid that this is only the beginning —although it is a very big one, of £10 million—of a break into the supply of building materials and labour for London housing.
The Minister cannot avoid breaking into the labour supply which is used on housing if he goes on with this proposal. The suggestion that there is a pool of unused labour which can be used on this work and which will not in any way interfere with the development of housing is quite wrong. The figures published by the Ministry of Labour Gazette prove it. I took the trouble to look them up yesterday, and the Minister will find them on page 97 of the March Gazette. The number of unemployed building trade workers, including civil engineering contractors' labour, is only 36,700 over the whole country. That is a tiny-proportion of the 1,250,000 men employed in the industry, and it gives no slack for additional large work anywhere.
I am much more interested in the position of London. The returns show that for the four weeks ending 14th January, roughly 29,400 building trade and civil engineering contractors' men were placed in work, but there were 16,932 vacancies unfilled, apparently because the Ministry could not find men to fill them. For the next period—the four weeks ending 11th February—the number placed went up to 34,152, but the number of vacancies unfilled also increased, to 18,059.
With a labour market of that kind in the building industry it is futile to think that we can start several million pounds' worth of new work in the City of London. I admit that the work in question is important and that it ought to be done at

1387
some time, but it is futile to suggest that we can start on it now without drawing labour from housing work. We are short of skilled labour on all our housing sites in London.
Mr. Eccles Mr. Eccles indicated dissent.
Mr. Gibson: The Minister shakes his bead, but it is true. We have been short of skilled labour ever since the war. We have been short of bricklayers, carpenters, plumbers, tilers and similar people. There is plenty of unskilled labour. The figures of unemployment in the building trade in the London area, which were given to me by the Minister some weeks ago, showed that most of these men were unskilled workers.
They have probably been absorbed again since then, but the skilled operatives out of work in the building industry in these days are out of work only because they are changing their jobs. They find themselves without jobs only when the jobs on which they are working finish and they have to transfer to others. They may lose a day or two, or sometimes a week, in getting on to new sites.
The figures published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette this week prove that the granting of permission to commence the large rebuilding of offices in the City of London will inevitably draw labour from housing work, and that will be a crime. I do not want to go into a lot of illustrations, which we could all give. What my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North has said is quite true.
The tragedies which exist in London just now are appalling, in spite of the fact that large numbers of houses have been built in the London area since the end of the war. The fact that the London County Council urgent and priority list is well over 70,000 is proof of the tremendous need for getting on with house building as fast as we can and doing nothing which would in any way reduce the speed of that building.
If this work on office building in the City of London starts it will act as a magnet which will draw all the best skilled operatives from house building work. As one who has spent a lifetime in the industry, either as a worker or as a trade union official, I know that if a
1388
big rebuilding job starts in the City it will be regarded generally as good-class work, and the men know that they will be offered more money to go to it. That will also have the effect of drawing them from other work.
Men can express their skill more fully in work of this kind, and that will mean that thousands of skilled operatives— bricklayers, carpenters, plumbers, plasterers and tilers—will be drawn off work which they are now doing, because none of them is out of work in the London area and the London suburbs. It is a crime that the Minister of Works should have suddenly announced in the House, quite off the cuff, that he will permit £10 million worth of work to be done in respect of the rebuilding of offices in and near the City of London. He cannot do that without seriously interfering with the flow of housing production by all the housing authorities in the London area.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have another look at this question, take the hints that have been thrown at him by my hon. Friend, and change his mind about this. There is no immediate urgency for office accommodation. All the work has been done. It may not be in the best of conditions, but if we have to balance that against the tremendous housing shortage in the London boroughs, the needs of the people on the waiting lists must come first and we should not allow such an enormous slice of the materials and labour which this proposal will involve to be drawn off the housing work which is being done.
If the Minister carries out this proposal he will deserve the censure of every elector in London, and he will earn the contempt of the thousands of people on the waiting lists, whose opportunity to be properly housed will be postponed for years. With all the best will in the world, it will take London another five or six years to rehouse only its urgent cases, assuming that no more are added to the list. If that work is to be hampered by labour being withdrawn to other work and by the creation of a shortage of materials of all kinds, the opportunity to rehouse those people will be postponed for a few more years.
I am glad my hon. Friend raised this matter and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that he has changed his

1389
mind and that he will give those on the waiting list of London a little brighter hope than they have at the moment.
12.51 p.m.
The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): I am glad of the opportunity to say something about the building programme in Central London. May I thank the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) for giving me notice of one or two questions which he would like to have answered? I will try to give him the answers.
First, however, may I make one or two comments about the building situation as a whole? New building is going very well and, if we take the aggregate of all kinds of building in the country, we find that the volume of new construction has been expanding steadily over the last year.
We want to maintain the rhythm of expansion in step with the increasing supplies of building materials, and in that connection the Ministry of Works have a part to play in managing the flow of licences. We divide each region into zones which are based on the distance from their homes which the majority if building workers can be expected to travel to and from their jobs. That gives us the basis of a zone. We look at each zone all the time and try to feed in new work, sufficient to replace the jobs which are coming to an end.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) raised the point of the labour statistics, for it simply is not good enough to look only at the latest statistics in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for this purpose. That, I am afraid, is how my predecessors always tried to work the building programme. They would have done very much better if they had listened to what the industry itself could tell them about the situation six or 12 months ahead.
That is what we do, and the reason is that it takes a long time for the architects to prepare the drawings and the civil engineers to get the sites ready, and if we are not looking forward all the time, and if it is a fact, as it is in London, that the big jobs are coming to an end—they are all getting near the stage of completion—we shall be in very great trouble next autumn and winter.
May I give the figures? The average amount of work fed into London in 1950
1390
was £17,500,000 a month. It is now running at only £12,500,000 a month, which is a drop of £60 million a year. This £10 million will, therefore, be seen not to be a very large sum.
Mr. K. Robinson: Do not the figures suggest that, whatever success the Conservative Government's housing drive may be having elsewhere, it is clearly running down in the London area?
Mr. Eccles: If the hon. Member will await the figures he will see that he is entirely wrong. I will deal with London housing in a minute. The decision to hold down the rate of building, other than houses, in London was deliberately taken to free men to travel to the outskirts of London where housing estates were being built. That was the decision taken before my time and it was quite sensible, but it is a policy which cannot be pursued beyond a certain point, and it has now been pursued beyond a sensible point.
One quarter of the building workers in the country live in London. That is a formidable army—over 250,000. I cannot follow the figures of the hon. Member for Clapham, which suggest that only 36,000 men are in work.
Mr. Gibson: I did not say that. I said that 29,469 were placed in vacancies during the four weeks ending 14th January.
Mr. Eccles: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
The total number is approaching 300,000. We can see that there will not be enough work in London in midsummer and autumn. What extra work should be fed in? This is the point of difference between the two sides of the House. For obvious reasons, there is no defence work in London; we cannot put airfields or camps or storage depots in such a vulnerable place as London. There is very little industrial building, for it has been the policy of all Governments to steer factories away from Central London.
We come now to social service building, if that is the right expression, including housing. In London, the programme has been expanding at least as fast as in the country as a whole and, in fact, a little faster than in the country as a whole; and I think the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North might give

1391
me some credit for having done so much better in this matter of housing than Socialist Ministers have ever done. Let me give the figures. In 1952, 27,500 flats or houses were completed in the London area. Of course, most of them had been started under a Labour Administration. To-day, 40,000 flats or houses are under construction in the same area—an increase which is greater than the average increase for the country.
Mr. Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Large numbers of these are flats, which take very much more than a year to construct. He has given figures of buildings under construction and compared them with figures of buildings which were completed.
Mr. Eccles: No doubt the average time of completion could be worked out. We will see what the number of completions is. I believe that we shall get very nearly 40,000.
I do not believe that there is an area in the country where it is more difficult to find and prepare sites for houses or flats than it is in London. The borough which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North represents is rather fortunate in that respect. If the hon. Member does not think so, I can tell him that the rest of London is in a much worse position; there are more sites in the hon. Member's borough. As he knows, however, they take time to prepare, bearing in mind the demolition work and all the other work which has to be done. These difficulties are bound to increase in London and, with the best will in the world—and although this is not our main reason for building offices—we do not think that we can spend £10 million as quickly in housing as we could elsewhere. But that is not our main reason.
For reasons which the House knows, repair work in London has been falling off. In spite of the big increase in housing which we have achieved, the total volume of work in London is steadily declining and the position of the main contracts —their average life before they reach completion—is becoming less favourable to employment. I need only cite the work on the Coronation. If we were not doing that work, a considerable number of
1392
craftsmen would be out of work today. All that work is coming to an end. Much more formidable than that is the fact that the large buildings in London are nearing completion, because very few licences have been issued since the ban, to which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred, was imposed over two years ago.
Hon. Members are aware that the blitzed city procedure was applied to all blitzed cities except London. Since 1949 the other blitzed cities have had a special allocation of licences which is running at about £4½ million a year, or something like that. London was excluded from the blitzed city procedure. I am not quite sure for what reason. It cannot have been simply that in the case of houses against offices houses were preferred, because if that had been the principle applied it could have been applied quite as much in Bristol as in London.
I imagine that the reason was that the headquarters of the great City companies in London were not really looked on with much favour by the Socialist Party. They had their rules of snobbery as other people do, and they felt that they did not wish to see those great buildings go up again. Be that as it may, I think that to exclude London from the blitzed city procedure was a very bad decision, because the offices of those great companies play a most important part in the balance of payments.
Mr. Gibson: So do houses.
Mr. Eccles: One must keep these things in perspective. A £ earned in the overseas business of bankers or merchants or insurance brokers or shippers is just as good, when it comes to paying for food and raw materials, as a £ earned by visible exports.
Mr. Robinson: But we do not have to build palatial offices to earn it.
Mr. Eccles: We know this will help. I will come to that in a moment.
When I reached the conclusion that we ought to take steps now to increase the building work in Central London the Government applied a criterion, which was something that the hon. Gentleman asked about. Our criterion was that those buildings should strengthen the national economy. We applied this criterion on a wide basis. I was asked about the buildings within the £10

1393
million. It is quite true that there are only about 30 buildings. Among them are the Baltic Exchange, two bank buildings—one the Bank of England building—two insurance offices, the headquarters of a coal exporting firm, new headquarters for the Federation of British Industries.
Further, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will be glad to know, new headquarters for the Trades Union Congress, new headquarters for the diamond trade, and a number of university extensions connected with laboratories where chemistry can be taught. I think the House will agree that these are buildings of a nature to assist the vigour of our economy. About three-quarters of the £10 million is being spent within the boundaries of the City itself.
I was asked several specific questions about licences. Licences are issued as soon as the architects are ready to start. I do not believe in the system of instalments, of which my predecessors were very fond. It is not efficient to give part of the licence for a building this year, and say, "Come back again later and get the rest." We are giving the licences for the whole of the building. I suppose that it will take three years at least to spend this £10 million, which, after all, is not a really great amount when we are short by £5 million of work a month compared with what was being put into the London area in 1950.
Six licences have already been issued: two are about to be. Naturally, the starting dates follow automatically. The whole point of this operation is to get some more work going in London on picked projects as soon as we can.
Mr. Gibson: At the expense of housing.
Mr. Eccles: We need more large building projects for precisely the reason the hon. Gentleman referred to and rejected, namely, that this is the kind of work necessary to keep the skilled craftsmen employed and on which to provide training of apprentices. This point has been represented to me by the leaders of the building trade unions, to whom I refer the hon. Gentleman for further information. Let me give one instance. It is absolutely necessary to put in more work for stonemasons, and the T.U.C. themselves have come forward with a building project that is to provide quite
1394
a lot of work for London stonemasons. That is a very good thing.
How many skilled men would be employed at the peak of this programme? At the outside 1,500, I think, but it is very difficult to give an accurate estimate because I really do not know what amount of the £10 million will be spent over any period. The labour situation, put shortly, is that unless we start more work of this kind either skilled craftsmen will leave London or leave the industry, and we wish neither of those things to happen.
Those are the economic reasons for what we have done. There is another consideration. I am sure that the pride of a great many people is wounded when, eight years after the war, the City of London still shows all those ugly scars and shapeless ruins.
Mr. Gibson: It is more important to house the people.
Mr. Eccles: I believe that any hon. Member who takes a walk around St. Paul's, past all those bombed sites, must feel shame at all the ragged, toothless gaps in an area which has been and will be for many years the centre and home of the greatest financial and trading community in the world. It is our view, on this side of the House, that it is our duty to heal those scars. What can we use those bombed sites in the City for except offices, and offices selected with a view to increasing the earning power of the country? It would be quite wrong to put factories there. It would be a waste of space to put up houses or flats there.
Sir Leslie Plummer: Blocks of flats?
Mr. Eccles: We are carefully picking out the sites suitable for the work to be done. It is in our national interest—and here I firmly disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clapham— to have a programme of balanced expansion going on all the time. When the Russians recaptured Stalingrad they refused to allow a single house to be built until all the factories and offices had been rebuilt. We are not going to take the exactly opposite view. We take the view that it would be wrong to put all our eggs into the housing basket, to give it, as I was asked to give it, absolute priority.

1395
We have done so much better than the last Government in housing that I think that at least we are entitled to see that some of this expansion in the total of new construction which we have brought about should be used for other purposes. We are going to push on to reach 300,000 houses a year—far more than the Labour Party would ever dream of doing.
Mr. Gibson: Just a dream.
Mr. Eccles: Wait and see whether it comes true.
If the hon. Member really thinks that we ought to give absolute priority to housing let him ask himself what happens if one lives in a fine house but cannot earn the money to pay the rent, or cannot afford to pay for the articles necessary for a good breakfast. That would be our problem if we neglected the all-round expansion of the buildings and assets which earn for us our income in the world. Therefore, we have decided to give these licences for offices and for other large buildings in Central London for three reasons: because the employment prospect calls for more work, because the buildings selected will help our national economy, and because we have a debt of honour to pay to our capital city. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North is convinced that what we are doing on a modest scale is right.

WAR PENSIONS
1.10 p.m.
Sir Ian Fraser: The British Legion, I venture to submit, is a patriotic body of men and women who seek to look after the interests of their disabled comrades but are, nevertheless, mindful of the needs of others. They are a responsible body, and I am convinced that any action they take does, in their view, take into account the best interests of the country as a whole.
Her Majesty's Government have decided to ask Parliament later in the year to consider the merger of the Ministry of Pensions into a new Ministry to be called the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Some part of the work of the Ministry is to go to this new Ministry and another part of it is to go to the
1396
Ministry of Health. There will, I understand, be a White Paper and later a Motion.
I do not propose to take up more than one minute of my brief time today in discussing this matter. Some may think that it would be better to wait for the White Paper to see what the proposals are before forming any judgment, and I do not wholly deny the validity of that suggestion. Nevertheless, I think it should be placed on record at this early stage that, so far as my knowledge goes, certainly the British Legion—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I do not think the hon. Gentleman is now in order. This would need legislation, I understand.
Sir I. Fraser: With respect, I believe that the merger is an executive act which will be based upon a Motion to Her Majesty.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is purely an administrative matter the hon. Gentle-ment is in order, but if it involves legislation then, as he knows, it cannot be discussed on this occasion.
Sir I. Fraser: I think, with respect, that my submission is a correct one. This Motion will come before the House and I do not propose to deal with it for more than a minute now, but I think it right at this early stage to place on record the fact that, within my knowledge, the British Legion, B.L.E.S.M.A., St. Dunstan's and, I fancy, most other organisations concerned with the welfare of ex-Service men are most anxious about this merger. They feel that they will be losing a friend in the Ministry of Pensions; a friend with whom we have argued many times, but who, nevertheless, has over the years come to know our needs.
However well the new machinery may work, we doubt whether the well-being of ex-Service men will, when they are only part of a big Ministry, be so well cared for as it has been during the past years, when they have had what they regard as their own Ministry. However, final judgment on whether the merger is a good thing or not will, in my view, depend much more upon what Governments do for disabled ex-Service men by way of improving their war pensions.

1397
That brings me on to the main matter I wish to raise today. Before continuing with that, may I have the sympathy of the House if I most reluctantly make a personal statement. Being a war pensioner myself I am interested in this matter. Though I have not in 35 years had any increase in my own basic rate of war pension, I have had an increase of 7 per cent. in the total money that I take away each year by way of a special allowance. I have had that 7 per cent. in the 35 years, but no increase in my basic rate; nor do I expect one; nor do I ask for one; nor do I make any complaint that I have not had one.
I mention this most reluctantly, but it is right to declare an interest. I would add that except for myself and a few others, almost the whole membership of the British Legion conducting this campaign are wholly disinterested in this matter. There can scarcely be many pleas that come to this House from great bodies of citizens—in this case numbering over a million—who are wholly disinterested. The greater part of the membership of the British Legion does not receive a war pension, and I submit that makes the appeal we make more important than it would otherwise be.
The British Legion has, in the constituencies, by communications to the House and by deputations to Ministers, invited us all to consider their case. They have carried out what they have called their war pensions campaign. I believe they have carried it out with accuracy and courtesy, and I should like to thank hon. and right hon. Members for the way in which they have met my comrades all over the country and dealt with their requests. I would just add that we have made no discrimination between our claims upon any Government of whatever party.
The British Legion asks that the basic rate of war pension should be increased to 90s. a week, and I want to clear up some misunderstandings about this. This does not mean that hundreds of thousands of men are to have 90s. a week. If our claim were granted and the basic rate for the 100 per cent. disabled private soldier were raised to 90s. this year, the average increase in the war pensions of all war pensioners would be 14s. l½d. a week. Not 90s., not 35s., but 14s. l½d.
1398
Last year, it will be remembered, Her Majesty's Government gave a rise of 10s. a week on the 100 per cent. basic rate. That was the highest rise we had had, and involved more money than all the benefits that had been provided for war pensioners in the past six or eight years. Nevertheless, it did not give everybody 10s. a week. It gave to war pensioners an average of 4s. 0½d. a week. At the same time, in the same Budget, about that amount was taken away.
Now the Chancellor, economists and many hon. Members may think that the incidence of taxation, or of the alterations that are made in subsidies in a Budget, are irrelevant to the war pension. Taking a very precise economist's view, one may think that is so. But the man in the cottage or the street who is getting so many shillings extra is bound to take into account how many shillings less he is getting at the same time, and if to him the result is either negative or all square, he says, "I have had a Dutchman's rise."
I make these points in order to clear away the idea, which I have heard expressed in some quarters, that "Ninety bob is much too much for us. You should not ask for so much. You should ask for less." Let me just show in terms of a typical example what this rise to 90s. a week in the 100 per cent. basic rate means. A man who lost his leg above the knee—what is called a 60 per cent. pensioner—got 24s. in 1919; today he gets 33s.; we say he ought to have 54s.
We say that if 24s. was right then, an increase to 33s. now does not make up for the fall which has taken place in the value of money during that time. We claim that the basic rate of war pensions is, as a whole, 38 per cent. below what it ought to be if it were put in its proper place in the cost of living scale. Our argument is not so much that we want a rise, or even a preference, but that we have been left behind, and that our disabled men ought to be put in their right place in the cost of living scale.
That brings me to the cost-of-living scales, which I wish to discuss very briefly. There are two. One is the index of consumer goods and services, a very reputable index upon which this Government and previous Governments have based the Economic Survey. Thus,

1399
it is an official index and not an invention of the British Legion. According to this index, in order to have the same purchasing power today as it had in 1938, the basic war pension for a 100 per cent. disabled man ought to be a little over 90s. Let me remind the House again that it is 55s. at present.
Of course, the Treasury might rind some other index upon which to base its calculations or some other datum line from which to start. There are two main indexes, and hon. Members may be sure that the British Legion has chosen the better. Clearly, the Treasury might choose the other, but, if they did, they would be appealing to an index which had its origin in the Boer War and was so out of date that the Government changed it, knowing that it was unrepresentative.
Moreover, in 1948, during the period of office of the first Labour Government after the war, a large number of my hon. Friends, including most of the notable figures on the Front Bench, voted against the Labour Government when they refused to set up an impartial outside inquiry into this matter. Although we did not vote on a rate of pension, we clearly implied to our ex-Service citizens that we had in mind to do better, and many of us said that we thought that the basic rate of that time was inadequate. Therefore, I cannot believe that the Minister would appeal to the Boer War index. On the other hand, if he thinks that the index of consumer goods and services is too good and raises too high the point at which we think we ought to be on the index, the British Legion would always be very willing to talk to him about that.
What we ask is that the Government shall accept the principle that compensation for loss of limb, health or sight should at least be on the basis that it buys now as much as it did in earlier years. The Minister might argue that the cost of living was very high in 1919. So it was, but thereafter it fell rapidly and it did not return to that point until the last war began, so that for 20 years our older ex-Service men were enjoying a higher rate of pension. I say without fear of contradiction that the basic rate of war pensions buys less today than it
1400
has done at any time in the last 30 years. That surely is a prima facie case for action or for inquiry.
I would also add that there are many widows of ex-Service men who did not receive widows' pensions for technical reasons or for reasons of administrative convenience, which the Legion does not think is just, and that there are many civilian widows who get more from National Assistance than war widows get from the Ministry of Pensions, which we also do not think is right.
I promised to be very brief, but I do not want to be accused of being unfair, and, therefore, I want very shortly indeed to indicate what has been done in recent years for war pensioners, because it will set the scene for consideration of this matter and will also lead me to my concluding point. Five major acts have been taken by Governments over the past 20 years by way of improving war pensions. The first, and, in some ways, one of the most important, was the stabilisation which took place in 1928 of the war pension at 40s. per week. According to the fall in the cost of living at that time, it could have been dropped very considerably. But it was not dropped; it was stabilised. The importance of this point is not merely the benefit it then gave to all the pensioners of the first war but that for 20 years the nation established that as the minimum basis. Many thought it was inadequate, but it was at least established as the minimum basis. Therefore, it does not seem unfair that we should take the basis in 1938 as the basis from which to calculate what our figure ought to be now.
The next very important act of State was that in 1943 the benefit of the doubt was given to the pensioner in discussions as to his eligibility and the onus of proof as to his rights was transferred from the claimant to the Ministry. It is impossible to say how much that cost the nation, but it was a most generous gesture and a most just gesture, and it brought into the ranks of the war pensioners very large numbers who were not in in earlier days.
Then in 1945 came the extension of children's and wives' allowances to all children and wives instead of only to women who had been married or children who had been born to the man at the time the disability occurred. That was a generous act by the new Labour

1401
Government of 1945 which was very much appreciated. In 1946 the Labour Government added 5s. to the basic rate, and last year a Conservative Government added 10s. to it.
It is clear that all parties have had a share in dealing with this matter over the last 20 years, and I make no point as to whether one party has done better than another. I merely say that at this moment the basic rate of war pension buys less than it has ever done in the past 30 years and that 94 per cent. of our war pensioners do not get adequate allowances, or compensation of any other kind, to make up for that deficiency. The Budget is due on Tuesday week. We earnestly hope that it may contain provisions which will recognise the duty which this great nation owes to its disabled ex-Service men and women.
1.29 p.m.
Mr. Harold Finch: I join the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) in his plea for an increase in the basic rate of war pensions. There can be no doubt at all that, with the increased cost of living and the increase in the standard of living, disabled ex-Service men are at present finding themselves in a very precarious position. That applies particularly to those who are totally incapacitated. We marvel sometimes how they exist on the present rates. We are justified in making a strong plea to the Minister to reconsider the whole question of basic pensions.
This takes on added importance as the bulk of those in receipt of pensions are less than 100 per cent. disabled. Apart from the basic pension which they receive, the only other allowance they may get is that for loss of occupation or for "lowered occupation"—under the Industrial Injuries Act we term this a hardship allowance—at a maximum of 20s. per week.
There are many disabled men who, before disablement, were in occupations which, in many cases, afforded them a high standard of living and large remuneration. I need only cite the cases of skilled engineers, those in the profession and skilled miners underground who became disabled after serving their country and are now unable to follow their pre-accident occupation. In recent years there has been an increase in
1402
remuneration in the professions and in industry generally.
We have only to cite the case of the skilled miner. Formerly, he was earning £6 or £7 a week, but now it has gone up to £10 or £12 a week. The disabled miner has no redress in these circumstances. He is tied to the 20s. He may be following an occupation which gives him £5 or £6 a week, which is a big difference compared with the money paid in his former occupation The maximum he can get on that £5 or £6 a week is 20s. a week.
Mixing with large numbers of these disabled men, I find this is a greater cause of discontent than anything else. These disabled men see around them their contemporaries of pre-war days getting a fairly high remuneration in the trades or professions of which they were members before disablement, but which they cannot follow any longer. They cannot, therefore, enjoy the benefits of these high wages. No wonder there is a growing feeling of discontent in those circumstances. I hope that as a result of this debate consideration will be given to what I term the occupational rate or special hardship allowance, because it does not make up at all for the loss which these men have made as a result of being disabled.
There is one other point I should like to stress before I sit down, and that is the unemployability allowance. We are inclined to get confused about these allowances. Under the Industrial Injuries Act, unemployability allowance is payable to a person only in respect of himself, whereas if he is in receipt of sickness benefit he receives an amount for himself and his wife and first child. I understand that, in the case of war pensioners, if a person is not entitled to sickness benefit he may be entitled to unemployability allowance at the rate of 35s. for himself and a certain amount for his wife. If he is entitled to sickness benefit the amount paid for his wife is £1 1s. 6d. If he is entitled to unemployability allowance he gets a lower rate than he would get if he were entitled to sickness benefit. I hope that the Minister will give attention to that.
Those are the two points I wanted to make. They are very important and are causing a good deal of discontent to our war pensioners. If something could be

1403
done by the Minister to remedy that position it would be widely appreciated. I hope he will look at the problems of lower occupation allowance and unemployability allowance in order to ease the serious situation in which many of these disabled war pensioners find themselves at the present time.
1.35 p.m.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: I should like to support as warmly as I can what my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said today, and I hope that the Minister will look into the points put by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). I myself feel that we sometimes overlook one of the most important features of this war pensions matter. We tend too often only to give war pensions for war disability at the same time as we are able to give increased social service benefits of other kinds to the civilian population.
I do not in any way wish to make the division any more marked than it is at present, but I believe that there is a difference between those who have rendered service to their country very often abroad, and have been injured as a result in a time of grave national emergency, and those who have been injured in civilian employment when they have been within reasonable access of their homes or have actually been living in them. I have always felt that that distinction has never been made clearly enough in this House, nor has any Government of any party been prepared to make that distinction and to appreciate the fact that the war pensioner is in a special position.
I want to declare an interest, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale. I am in receipt of retired pay as a result of war disability and in consequence I have an allowance in respect of my family. I am probably in a more fortunate position than a great many people. There are some disabilities which never can be fully compensated. For instance, a person who follows anything in the nature of a cultural activity like piano playing, or one which depends on hearing, suffers irreparably if war disability interferes with those interests. Minor injuries to ear or limb can cause
1404
an amount of suffering for which no money will ever compensate.
I hope we will try to encourage the House and, indeed, the country to take a rather different attitude in this matter.-I see a paradox in the arguments for and against treating differently the volunteer or the conscript soldier. It can be argued, on the one hand, that a man who volunteers knows what risks he is taking when he volunteers, and, therefore, ought not to be entitled to greater compensation than those who have been conscripted into the Forces. On the other hand, it can be argued that the man who volunteers is a better man than the one who is driven and, therefore, he should be paid more. My belief is that those two arguments cancel each other out.
I know that there are many hon. Members who feel that those who volunteered for the First World War before conscription was ever brought in ought to be in a different category from everybody else. I have a great deal of sympathy in favour of that view, but there is the argument that the person who is taken into the Forces whether he likes to or not ought to have, as a result, a greater assurance from the State as to his security if he is injured during the course of his activities in the Forces, because it was something for which he did not volunteer.
As I have said, those two arguments about cancel one another out, and it is a pity to allow them to influence the bigger decision with which we are faced, namely, should not the ex-Service man who has been disabled in the service of his country be paid a higher rate of benefit than those who suffered in civilian life, whether in peace or war?
Of all the things I disliked in the last war nothing equalled the aerial bombardment of London. Although I served for a good many years overseas and had many unpleasant experiences, the bombing of a big city was about the most unpleasant. Civilian populations in the last war went through unpleasant times which were comparable to those being suffered by the people in the Forces, but there was one great difference to which the House and the country have never given enough regard. It is that the civilian population were among friends and within reach of home or the homes of their friends, to which they could go. Forces overseas were not in that position.

1405
I hope the House will not think I am saying that the nursing services and all other services responsible for the wounded in war-time were not the splendid people I know they were, but there is a difference between being treated for injury in a place where relatives can visit us in a homelike atmosphere, and being treated in a military hospital miles away from this country.
I was one who welcomed the Government's decision in the last Budget to increase the basic rate of disablement pension by 10s. It was a generous gesture and it was made clear that it was a first step. I very much hope that the Government will take further steps in the forthcoming Budget. If there is anything going at all in the way of increased social benefits, I hope that the ex-Service men disabled in war will have an absolute priority over everybody else. I grant my right hon. Friend that it will require considerable courage to take such a decision, because much pressure will be brought to bear to prevent it; but if that courageous decision could be taken it would put heart into ex-Service men all over the country in a way that would be immeasurable and immensely great. We have a Minister of Pensions whose heart is in the right place with regard to the ex-Service man, but we are not certain whether the Treasury have quite the same view as he has on matters of this kind. We give as much support to him as possible in putting his case to the Treasury.
I would go so far as to say that if it should come about as a result of the Budget that any social benefits which are given do not give priority to the ex-Service man, I should seriously consider putting down a Motion of censure about it. The time has long gone when this priority ought to have been given; nevertheless, better late than never. For that reason I would be prepared to take that step if it appeared, as a result of what comes out of the Budget, that the ex-Service man is not being given the priority which he ought to be given. It is very easy in this House to play the demagogue and want to spend money lavishly all over the place, and it is easy to think of ways in which money can be spent.
If Parliament had spent more time since the First World War in looking at these matters from the slightly different
1406
angle of compensating those who, through no fault of their own, had to make immense sacrifices in the causes for which the country stood, this debate would not be necessary today. The fact that they did not means that somebody has to do it some time. That is why I hope that if there are any social benefits in the Budget they will go to the ex-Service man before they go to anybody else. If they do not, the Government must realise that there will be very serious criticism.
1.46 p.m.
Dr. Horace King: For the first time since the war we have tried to deal fairly with the men who made sacrifices on our behalf. A great line of Pensions Ministers have built up a great national, humane institution, which people of all shades of opinion would be sorry to see go. From my own knowledge and the various contacts I have had with the Minister of Pensions, I am sure that he will regard the present debate very sympathetically.
People who are in trade and industry can sometimes raise their profits, and workers who are powerful enough can raise their wages, to meet increases in the cost of living, but these increases fall also upon those who have fixed incomes. It ought to be the duty of any Government to assist those groups in the community who find rises in the cost of living a great burden. If that is true generally, it must be acutely true of ex-Service pensioners whose fixed income is our tribute to the sacrifices they made during war.
I hope it will be possible for the Minister of Pensions to give very serious consideration to the request from the ex-Service men for some increase in their basic pension.
1.48 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I support the plea that has been made in favour of review and reconsideration of pensions, and I concentrate upon the position of the vast majority of disability pensioners who are not drawing the 100 per cent. basic pension. When an increase in pension is awarded, it does not mean that more than a very small percentage of the present pensioners will get the 90s. The problem concerns those who do not get that supplementary allowance, and who draw only 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the disability rate.

1407
The disability pension is based not upon the cost of living but upon compensation for injuries and loss of amenities, and it therefore has no relation to wages or earning capacity in any specific trade or occupation. No attention is paid to whether the pensioner is in one occupation or another or to the rate of wages. Many of these 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. disability pensioners are living as best they can. It is sometimes overlooked that they carry on their jobs at very considerable inconvenience of pain and suffering, which may last only two or three days, or for such a short time as to make it not worth their while to claim the sickness or other benefit to which they may be entitled.
Nevertheless, they are subject to not inconsiderable pain and suffering, for which there is no financial recompense, because it does not last long enough to justify them in going into hospital or taking to their beds, or drawing from the other social services which are provided for the general population.
These less than 100 per cent. disability pensioners are, of course, getting older. The disability from which they are suffering becomes just a little more irksome and difficult to bear as the years pass by, and what may seem to be a slight disability at the time the original assessment was made tends to increase with age. I hope, therefore, that when considering all these other things the Minister will not ignore the plight of the vast majority of the people who now draw disability pensions and who are not entitled to supplementary allowances, and who do not draw even the 100 per cent. disability rate.
In these circumstances, the cost of giving some measure of justice or consideration to the vast majority of pensioners would not be anything like as great as the public are sometimes led to believe.
1.52 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Williams: I ought to say a few words on this subject, because I had the privilege, a fortnight or three weeks ago, of meeting a delegation of ex-Service men from all parts of my constituency in the Droylsden division. It was made clear to me at the outset that the delegation were a good
1408
cross-section of ex-Service men from the whole of the constituency. They were an entirely non-party delegation, and they came to try to convince me that they had justification for asking for my support in any effort that was made in the House to try to improve the conditions of our disabled ex-Service men.
I agree with most of the points which have been made by hon. Members opposite and by my hon. Friends. There are, however, one or two points that I wish to emphasise, but I do so with very great diffidence, remembering the help that I have received both from the Minister and from his very able and sympathetic Parliamentary Secretary. Whenever I have had occasion to deal with them, apart from one case in which I might have thought that they could give a more favourable decision, they have been most sympathetic in stretching the regulations to the utmost in order to do something for the people whose cases I have represented to them.
There are, however, one or two arguments which the delegation put to me which I ought to transmit to the House and to the Minister. The first is the growing feeling of some of these pensioners that they are at a disadvantage compared to other people in the community with whom they live together and are correlated in their amenities and activities. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) made the point very well when he said that as the years roll on, disability becomes more aggravated. More than that, the disabled person himself recognises the full force and effect of his disability and feels it more.
A number of the men who came to see me—many were disabled in the 1914– 18 war—said that they now feel so tired because of their disabilities, as a result of the exacting nature of the work they have to perform, that when they finish their duties they must return home to rest. They cannot take part in the normal amenities and community life of the area because they are too tired. Their disabilities make them tired men, and, therefore, they are losing a good deal of the ordinary amenities and pleasures of life.
The second point which they put to me is the differences that have taken place in the emoluments in certain occupations.

1409
Two of the men told me that before the war they were in occupations which afforded them a high standard of life and emoluments. Now, however, they cannot return to those occupations because of the effect of their disabilities. They feel, therefore, that they are penalised because they have served their country.
I do not say that I agree entirely with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who may have exaggerated, but these men have the feeling that their wounds and disabilities were in many cases incurred voluntarily in order to save the freedom of the country. I agree that for some things no amount of money could provide recompense, but having regard to the fact that they are losing the amenities of life and are not now able to follow the normal occupations of their pre-disability days, these men feel that it is not too much to ask. as some slight compensation for all these things and so that they may have a little of the pleasure that money can buy, that a grateful country should be able to help.
I sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen to the Minister, who, I am certain, will transmit faithfully to him the feeling on all sides of the House that he might do something for these men. It may not be possible to meet their claims in full, but a gesture of good will at this stage would be welcomed by a large number of disabled ex-Service men.
1.58 p.m.
The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heath-coat Amory): We all feel that it is a good thing to have a talk every now and then in the House on war pensions, and I only wish that this afternoon we could have had an opportunity when it would have been possible for more Members to be present and to take part in the discussion. I know of no one in the House who has a better right than my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) to speak for the ex-Service man, nor anyone who puts his case with more skill or with more persuasive advocacy. I thank my hon. Friend also for the very reasonable and moderate way in which he has made the substantial points that he has put forward.
I should like to take this opportunity, because I do not often have the opportunity of standing at the Dispatch Box
1410
and may have even less chance in the future, of thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for the help they have given me, as they gave to my predecessors, in trying to do our best to look after the interests of the ex-Service man. However efficient and keen are my staff —and I am proud of them and I believe that they are keen and on their toes—it is impossible for us to ensure that we always keep in touch with the changing circumstances of individual cases.
It is most helpful when Members send us information which we do not possess. When we find that we can do something to assist, no one is more delighted than my staff and myself; when we find that we cannot do more we wish that we could. I am getting the same help in the wider field all over the country from the thousands of voluntary workers who are helping me in this task.
I should like to refer, first, to the question of the basic pension, of which my hon. Friend has spoken. I have received a deputation from the Legion and have promised them that the views that they put before me would be conveyed to the Government and would be considered. I will not go into the history of the basic pension, because time is short, beyond reminding Members that in 1919 the rate was 40s., in 1946 it was increased to 45s. and in 1952 was raised to 55s.
We were glad that at a time of rather exceptional economic difficulty it was found possible last year to increase the basic pension by 22½ per cent. and the basic pension for war widows with children or the widow over 40 by 20 per cent., a 25 per cent. increase in the constant attendance allowance and 25 per cent. increase in the means standards for parents' pensions.
Is the present rate the right one? What a difficult thing it is to decide what the right rate should be. One can get very tangled up in statistics. My hon. Friend referred to two different methods of calculation, one of which he called the Boer War method, which is a sort of mixture of the old cost-of-living index and the present retail price index. Adopting that one the relative rate compared with the 40s. in 1919 would work out at 52s. 4d. Comparing the 45s. rate in 1946 the relative rate would be 62s. 3d. But adopting the purchasing power

1411
formula which we sometimes call the Legion method—
Sir I. Fraser: That is not fair; it is a Government method.
Mr. Amory: I have even heard it called the Fraser method.
Sir I. Fraser: No. It is quite respectable; it is the Government method.
Mr. Amory: I agree, it is the purchasing power method and is most official in every way.
Adopting that method the comparable rate to 40s. in 1919 would be 65s. 10d. and the comparable rate to 45s. in 1946 would be 64s. 6d. We can get all kinds of results. The one which I think is not very appropriate is comparing the 40s. in 1938. If we did that the figure would work out today at 90s. 6d. It will be seen why I call it the Legion formula. I do not think it is appropriate, because the cost of living dropped between 1919 and 1938 and in that year the comparable figure would have been 29s.
Sir I. Fraser: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Government of 1928 should have let it drop to 29s., or is he approving of their stabilising it at 40s., because if they stabilised it at 40s. it is surely not unfair to start from that datum line?
Mr. Amory: No, I thoroughly approve of the highest possible rate being given and of the Government not having reduced it, but when the Government made a fresh start the rate they took was not 40s. but 32s. 6d. in 1939 and that was the rate they applied to peace-time injuries in the Services at that time.
Getting away from statistics for a moment, we have to face the fact that no Government have ever accepted an obligation to vary pensions automatically with rises in the cost of living. I doubt whether any Government could accept the obligation to do that automatically unless they agreed to do the same downwards if and when the cost of living fell. Of course, the trouble in the whole of this business is inflation. As we all know that is a terrible disease, because it hits those sections of the community hardest who can do the least to help themselves. So long as that disease is rampant and continues it is an appalling job for any
1412
Government to hope to catch up and any increases in rates are bound to be palliatives. Also, any increase in Government expenditure is obviously in danger of aggravating the trouble.
The best service which any Government can render to those in receipt of pensions —and the disabled in particular—is to tackle this problem at the source and do their utmost to kill inflation so that we can ensure that pensions shall continue to retain their value. That is what the present Government are trying their best to do at present, I think with some success, because during the last nine months the Interim Index of Retail Prices has been held about steady at 138 to 139. What it will do in the future I have not the courage to predict.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) referred to the link with industrial injuries. Quite clearly, a link of a sort does exist because that scheme when it started was actually founded and based on the war pensions scheme. The provisions are not identical and where there are differences between the provisions for war pensioners and industrial injuries pensioners those differences are to the advantage of the war pensioner.
Sir I. Fraser: Except in the supplementary.
Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend refers to the miners' supplementary, but that is quite a separate matter and outside the industrial injuries scheme itself. I think there is some substance in the view that the circumstances behind war pensions and industrial injury pensions are not precisely similar and that that link should not be carried too far nor made too hard and fast.
Some people point to increases which have taken place in wages as if that were something which was hitting at war pensions but we have to remember that, fortunately, a very big majority of the war disabled are able to be in employment and so benefit from increases in wages. Fortunately, that even applies to the 100 per cent. disabled, a very substantial proportion of whom are in employment at present.
Mr. Finch: The point is what they would have been earning had it not been for their war injuries. With the rise in

1413
wages they have lost that when the lower occupation allowance is restricted to a maximum of 20s.
Mr. Amory: I will refer to the point which the hon. Member raised during his speech in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale mentioned that under the last Budget although they had this improvement, 4s. had been taken away. He may have been referring to the food subsidies and the effect on a family of three, but we have to remember—
Sir I. Fraser: The extra 9d. a week stamp which, together with food subsidies, knocked out 4s. or 5s.
Mr. Amory: Many of them were in work and there would be substantial advantages in regard to Income Tax.
There are the special allowances. Some people say that they only refer to a small percentage of total pensioners. It is true that only a small proportion of total pensioners fall into categories of severely disabled and that is something about which we all rejoice. The proportion is tending slightly to increase and is about 6½ per cent. at present.
I will now refer to what the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) mentioned, the question of the allowance for the lower standard of occupation. I admit that this allowance is a rough and ready thing and does not fit comfortably and well into the war pensions provisions. In principle, it almost cuts across them because it is related to earnings. It is also limited. All we can claim is that it makes a limited but, we think, useful contribution to those who, because of war disabilities, have had to change their job and take one on a less remunerative scale. I agree that it is only a limited contribution because it is limited to the 20s. While I agree it does not compensate in full the kind of case the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we find it much appreciated, and we do not get many complaints. But I will examine carefully what the hon. Member has said.
His second point concerned the unemployability allowance. I am not sure that I understood his point, but I think he is wrong. Unless the wife is working —and that may have been his point— we increase the unemployability allowance by 11s. 6d. per week, and for the
1414
first child by 3s. A wife should be slightly better off than if there were sickness benefit going into the household. If the hon. Member will write to me on that point I will inform him further, but I do not think the figures he quoted were right.
Mr. Finch Mr. Finch rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I hope the hon. Member will not interrupt too often, because we are running a little behind time.
Mr. Finch: I merely wish to point out that the sickness benefit for the wife is £1 1s. 6d.
Mr. Amory: That is the rate we pay in the case of an unemployability allowance if the wife is not working. Owing to the lack of time I do not propose to say anything about widows except that I realise that a widow with no other income, and with children, must experience extreme difficulty in making both ends meet. No one will dispute that.
I appreciate the tone of this debate and the tributes paid to the work of the Ministry of Pensions. I do not think there is anything much wrong with our service at present though we must not be complacent. I agree there is room for difference of opinion about whether the rates are all of them adequate for the present price level. I would emphasise once again that the enemy is inflation. While the Government have been able to go part way to making good the loss of purchasing power caused by inflation the only satisfactory solution is to beat inflation and to stabilise, and eventually to bring down the cost of living.
The national economic and financial position is still serious and our dominating aim must be to put that right. In the meantime, let us seek out and try to mitigate every case of hardship. I hope hon. Gentlemen will continue to inform me of any individual cases when they think hardship exists. The Government have the very difficult job of trying to ensure, within the resources available and without aggravating the basic troubles from which we are suffering, that justice is done to many competing and sometimes conflicting claims. With resources limited, as they clearly are, help must be given where it is most

1415
needed and we are trying our best to do that.
I can assure hon. Members that the Government realise that it is the wish of the whole House that the needs of the war disabled and their dependants should be kept well to the fore, and that we will continue to do.

DRIVING TEST EXAMINERS
2.15 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: My subject has evoked a good deal of publicity. As I see it, by this Adjournment debate we should try to achieve three things. First I hope it will convince all people in the country that a genuine attempt will be made to make them feel they are being dealt with justly. The second thing I hope will be achieved by this debate is that motorists will be convinced their position is appreciated, and that when they submit themselves for a test it will be governed by straightforward rules and not fancy tricks. Third, that the driving test examiners will feel any slur which they may think was cast upon their name has been removed. We should, however, make it perfectly clear that the driving test examiners serve the public and are not served by the public. Their interests are secondary to the interests of the public in this matter.
I received a letter from the vicar of a parish in my constituency. The Minister has a copy of the letter. I maintain that when such a constituent complains in the way he did it is reasonable that his Member of Parliament should write to the Minister about it. I wrote to the Minister a full week before I asked the Question during Question time. I told the Minister that the Question related to the case of the vicar, and so it should have been no surprise to him if in supplementary questions on 16th March reference was made to the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett.
I wish also to make clear my own position. When I received the vicar's original letter I wrote to him and warned him about the publicity which would follow. I asked whether he would reflect further on whether he wished me to proceed with the case. It was on receipt of his second letter that I proceeded, and I hope, there-
1416
fore, I shall be acquitted of any suggestion that I have handled this matter in an irresponsible manner.
The Minister said he did not keep statistics of driving tests revealing whether applicants were "ploughed" on the first, second, third or fourth attempt. Since then I have learned that 40 per cent. of the people who undergo driving tests are failed, and that refers to whether they are being tested for the first, second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth time. Those are all the statistics which are kept. After reflection, I still think that there is no better test than the one I posed originally in my Question about the sort of statistics needed to establish this claim.
I wish to take up one matter rather strongly with the Parliamentary Secretary because our relationship was quite friendly in this matter. I wish to know why he should hand out a "stooge" Question to the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus), a written Question, when it was known that this debate was to take place—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): On a point of order. Is it in order to make the implication against my hon. and gallant Friend that the Question was a "stooge" Question planted anywhere? Secondly is there anything wrong in circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a reply to an oral Question not reached during Question time?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): There is nothing out of order in circulating a reply. It is not in order to refer to a "stooge" Question, but that is a matter of comment about which I have no knowledge.
Mr. Pannell: Well, then, shall I say that that Question was an inspired Question from the Department. It was not a Question which the hon. Member put of his own volition. I should have thought that the Minister could have waited until this debate today. He could have stopped the Question rather than put out a written answer on which obviously I could not put a supplementary question. We all know that if a Member gives notice of his intention to raise a matter on the Adjournment Mr. Speaker then stops any further supplementary questions. That is a normal rule of the House.
Mr. Braithwaite: On a point of order. This is a very serious allegation. May I again put it to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Mr. Speaker did not circulate the allocations for today's Adjournment until late on Monday last. The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North put down a Question on Friday last which he believed would be answered on Monday, when the House did not sit. He was perfectly in order in putting down that Question. The allocations for today's Adjournment were not published until later.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no knowledge of the facts. I do not think that there is a point of order for me to decide.
Mr. Pannell: I take it that I am in order in making my complaint in this debate. I have had conversations with the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North. I know how that Question emanated. The point I make is that the reply to the Question on 31st March was an overstatement of the facts. It has tended to cloud the issue in the Press. I make my protest at the beginning of my speech. I will now attempt to prove my case.
By Tuesday the Minister knew that this debate was to take place. It would have been within his competence to have withdrawn the Question.
Mr. Braithwaite: The Minister?
Mr. Pannell: I am making my case. The hon. Gentleman will take plenty of time later, as he usually does, to reply. The answer made by the Minister was:
"I have had an inquiry made on the spot by a senior officer of my Department, together with the Chief Driving Examiner, and find there is no evidence whatsoever to support these allegations. The Rev. Kenneth Fawcett, the Vicar of St. Mary's, Leeds, whose letter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), when confronted with the gravity of his assertions unreservedly withdrew any suggestion of a ' racket' and confined his complaint to his own individual test."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1953; Vol. 513. c. 140.]
I am sorry, but that report of what took place varies from the Departments' note of a meeting between Mr. Fawcett and their officials, from which I now quote:
"Mr. Fawcett said that he would like to make it clear that he had never alleged that there was ' graft' in connection with driving tests or that examiners were acting improperly in their relations with driving schools. His
1418
argument was that the tests he had experienced were capricious tests not based on a proper appreciation of ability to drive a car; individual examiners had personal and peculiar views about driving which resulted in unfair tests."
That is very different from what the Minister suggested in his answer.
The literal interpretation of the word "graft" is the making of illicit profits or dishonest gains especially in connection with political and municipal business. The word "racket" does not appear in a modern dictionary. It is an American colloquialism, but Members can draw their own conclusions. I suggest that in this sense the word "racket" can be used only in the plural, and that Mr. Fawcett in using it inferred that somebody besides himself was concerned. The Minister's answer was an overstatement.
Another point is that the inquiry did not attempt to establish all that had been said. There were other matters for consideration. It may be remembered that Mr. Fawcett also said this:
"Between the tests I took a course at a motor school and the driving instructor, Mr. Maurey, of the Leeds School of Motoring, said that in his opinion my control of the car and road sense were all that could be desired. When I determined to write this letter to you I asked him to put this in writing but when he knew for what purpose I required it he said he would say it verbally but would not put it in writing for if it was found out by the Ministry of Transport examiners they would fail his pupils right and left and he would lose his means of livelihood. He also strongly advised me against carrying the matter any further because, ' If I touch those people I shall never get through the test.'"
That was part of the complaint, but the official inquiry is silent on that point. It is well known that representatives of the Minister met representatives of the Leeds School of Motoring. What is the answer on that? Although the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett caused a spark, and whatever explanations are given in the debate, the case against driving examiners does not rest on him alone. This is a matter of broad public policy which has provoked for me a considerable mail.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that I spent yesterday morning in his Department and, as fully as possible, I told his officials the course I intended to pursue today, so at least I have tried to treat him fairly. I rest my case upon the second paragraph of the letter to the Minister on 10th March in which I said:

1419
"His letter does disclose what is generally common knowledge up and down the country, that there is a close liaison between certain motoring schools and driving test examiners. The idea has grown up that unless one goes to a certain motoring school, one never passes out at all. The driving test examiners are, in the main, far too talkative importing all sorts of fancy ideas into what should be a practical test."
I stand by the original statement. I shall attempt to bring such evidence as I can to prove the point. It is not sufficient for the Minister to shoot down the Rev. Fawcett in flames. He will have to conduct his investigation over a much wider field.
I want to deal with one or two letters which have been sent to me. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that between now and the time when he answers the debate he might think whether or not it would be a good idea to take the whole of my mail and Mr. Fawcett's and have a spot cheek on these people who have been prepared to write about this matter. The check would have to be conducted by somebody outside his Department. The audit department cannot audit itself.
I have here a letter from South Leeds —from the city in which the original complaint arose. It is curious because of its opening sentence, which says:
"I have passed my test first time but nevertheless …."
Obviously the writer has no axe to grind. He says:
"I had some training from my business partner and a relative and then went to a school for a couple of lessons before the test. The instructor prevailed on me to have my second lesson an hour before the test and en route we stopped at the examiner's office (outside) so that he could find out who was to examine me …"
There is the relationship—
"He got back into the car and said he had not found out but later we were stopped by a car from another school and he gained the information that I was to be taken by the chief examiner and I was informed that this individual was very crochety.
When I reported for the test I noticed on the ' order sheet' of my examiner that my name had been substituted for another."
I can understand that. The other person may have dropped out for some Teason—
"Luckily I punctured after about 300 yards and had another test arranged for seven days later when I passed in a quarter of an hour."
1420
I received another letter from Dagenham, which says:
"I entered for my test in November, 1951— and failed. A few days later I had a letter from the Progressive School of Motoring, Aveley, offering to help me pass my test the next time."
Who told the school of motoring?
I am suggesting that there is a deep-seated suspicion in the country about these things, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. There is another constituent of mine who approached me personally about it, and to whom I said "Look here, you had better write to me, and you had better understand that you had better not write to me unless you are prepared for your letter to be used."
After that warning, this constituent wrote me this letter:
"My experience is as follows: In October, 1952, I had my first driving test, and failed. The reason given was that I gave too many signals and too long. A month later, I had my second test, and, during the test, I said to the Examiner "You will notice that I am driving at the near side of the road, because the previous Examiner had said that I drove on the crown of the road too much.' He immediately told me that I should not have said anything to him about the first Examiner, and this would probably spoil my chance of passing.
I therefore pointed out to him that I thought he would expect me to tell him of my failures, whereupon I would have tried to correct them. From that point, the conversation became heated, for then I knew, although I had not completed the test, that I would fail. I did. But not until he had given me a thorough examination on the Highway Code. He then suggested, in a very subtle way, that I should take lessons from someone who knew the finer arts of driving, such as the School of Motoring. After about six lessons, I asked him what he thought of me now. He replied by saying ' When is your next test? ' I told him it was 10 days hence, so he said ' Well, don't lose any sleep over it; you will be all right.' On the morning of the test, I had about half an hour in the city, and then we went for my test. Before we went into the office, my instructor said to me ' Unless you break the law in your test, you will pass.' I did. But how did he know? I will leave you to guess."
A gentleman from Abingdon, in Berkshire, said:
"I went to the Ministry of Transport office, accompanied by my school instructor, and we were met outside by Mr. So-and-So "—
I shall not mention his name, because the Minister would probably like to have it—
"and he asked the instructor ' What's the weather like?' The instructor replied ' Not so bad.' I found it hard to believe that, at

1421
10.30 in the morning, he could not have formed his own opinion about the weather, which was quite good, and, in fact, I concluded that, for some reason, a code was used to enable the examiner to gain knowledge of the pupil's driving ability."
[Laughter.] It is all very well for the Minister to laugh, but he will have to bear in mind that these people who write these letters are not untruthful.
The Minister must not assume that what these people are saying is untruthful. It may be wrong, but they are not deliberately perjuring themselves in writing these letters. A man in Manchester expresses the opinion that an examiner might feel liverish, hold a grudge against any race or creed, or he may have had a row with his wife, and that passing the test depends entirely on the goodness of his heart, and not on the pupil's ability to drive.
I can only say that I can remember on one occasion speaking to the chauffeur of one of the learned judges, at assize, and he told me:. "If anybody gets across the old man today, he will get 10 years," and a man did get 10 years that day. Naturally, that is not evidence, but it merely shows the sort of feeling that exists. It all rests on the basis that these people believe that these things are true.
Again, here is a letter from a professor in Exeter:
"My driving instructor told me after my first failure that professional people always seemed to need longer practice than working-class. Those who took longest to learn were the educated people, doctors, nurses, university people, clergymen and solicitors. It has occurred to me that it is very curious that the most intelligent people seem to be failed most. Could it be that they have the money to go on paying for driving lessons and are kept at it? One of my university colleagues paid £25 in driving tuition before he got through at the third attempt. I paid out £23 all told and passed at the third time."
These are university people and professional people, and I hope nobody suggests that this letter is deliberately mendacious. He goes on:
"Attractive girls and women get through very easily, I understand. If they analysed failures in relation to (1) sex and age, (2) income and (3) social class, some very interesting revelations would turn up."
A lady from Stoke-on-Trent writes:
"The first thing the examiner asked her was ' Who taught you to drive? ' He advised her to take a course of lessons with a driving school. She took a course of lessons, and the first time her tutor took her out he said
1422
'You are a splendid driver.' He admitted that she was fully competent, and spent about half the time he usually did with pupils. At the next test, he took her down for it instead of her brother. This time, the tester did not keep her out long, nor did he ' put her through it' half as much as had been done before. Needless to say, she passed."
A university lecturer from Nottingham writes to me:
"Though the instructor told me they would fail me the first time, and probably the second (which seems customary), I was astounded. Finally, some random statements between ourselves. ' A pretty face goes a long way with the examiners. A long face helps to fail a man under test—or a naturally somewhat worried or harassed look (in my case a frustrated look) in the case of an elderly man'."
After all, the Minister will appreciate that I have had a very considerable mail, and he has had enough experience as a back bencher, when he used to assail the last Government, to know that people did write letters to him, and that is a point of which he must be sufficiently aware. He must know that, although these people may be misguided and mistaken, they do write letters to their Members of Parliament, and if they write letters like these after being warned, as I have warned these people, that their letters will be used, we must assume that they are honest witnesses.
If there are enough honest witnesses who really believe that something is wrong—whether they are right or not— the matter should be inquired into. The Minister always rides off with talk about integrity. We expect our public servants to be honest. What sort of people are we to get in this country if we are always to be harping on this question of integrity? Generally, we refer to one another in this House as hon. Members, because we always believe that what we say we believe to be true. If we accept that in the one case, we should accept it in this case.
What does the Minister really think about his driving test examiners? They get between £410 and £550 a year, and there is no equal pay between men and women. Is this enough for integrity? Is it enough to keep them above corruption? The Minister, of course, had a chance of answering these questions when these people had a pay claim before the National Arbitration Tribunal. If I was fixing the rates I should fix them between £500 and £550 and leave it at that.

1423
The Minister asked for some opinions which have been expressed about this, and here are some of the opinions expressed in a statement by the Ministry of Transport on a claim for revised salary scales for the grades of chief driving examiner, supervising driving examiner and driving and traffic examiner:
"Driving examiners continuously employed in testing duties tended to exaggerate the possibility of their work subjecting them to nervous strain."
Regarding tests, we find this:
"The Acts and Regulations are, of course, concerned with many other subjects than traffic examining, and examiners need to know only the effect of small portions of them."
Then, they sum it all up with this opinion:
"The duties of the traffic examiner grade call for qualifications which are either reasonably commonplace (the ability to drive well and considerable experience of driving, which are being acquired by a wide and ever widening section of the community) or such as are within the competence of an average Clerical Officer."
The examiner has to decide whether the candidate passes or fails, and must immediately issue a certificate of competence or a statement of reasons for failure. That certificate is a very important thing to many people.
I have referred to the question of the local driving schools and their relations with the examiners, and I have a long letter here from a very well-known business house in Leeds supporting this claim. There is nothing political about this. I still feel that something is wrong. Incidentally, I would say that, possibly with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), who may be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I have had as much experience of professional driving as any hon. Member.
How much is spent on learning to drive at driving schools? Some people have written to me saying that they have spent as much as £40 in this way. I suggest that the Minister really ought to look at this matter, and that a further regulation should be brought into force which would keep the driving schools rather further apart from the matter of driving tests than they appear to be at the moment.
The present system of driving test examinations was started in 1934 during a period of savage unemployment, and
1424
this was an attractive job to all sorts of good garage foremen and people of that sort. I suggest that at that time the calibre of the examiners was a little higher than it is now. How are the driving examiners now recruited? I agree that they are recruited quite openly. The job attracts a large number of ex-policemen. That is not a bad thing, because policemen are concerned with traffic examinations and have usually a way with them.
In a time of full employment, I certainly am not going to make out a case against the employment of ex-policemen, but what sort of experience has an ex-policeman of driving commercial vehicles? People who have driven double-decker and 10-ton vehicles know that the whole technique is completely different from that employed in driving light vehicles. I suggest that many of the other people employed as driving examiners are recruited from driving schools, and that that is part of the "hook up" about which we are complaining today. Driving examiners were not placed under the local authorities in 1934 because it was thought that they might be subject to local pressure. I quite appreciate that. Who checks up on them from time to time?
No passenger is allowed in the vehicle when a driving test is being carried out unless he clearly undertakers, as of course he should, that he will not interfere with the test. I can give evidence of examiners who very strongly object to having passengers, but one of the points made in the case of the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett is that had he wanted to he could have taken somebody with him on the test.
Quite recently the suggestion was before this House that the salaries of judges should be raised by £1,000 a year free of tax, and many hon. Members opposite agreed with that suggestion. But driving test examiners are also judges. On their integrity and ability rests the consideration of road safety and of public danger, and, more important still, the preservation of justice as between man and man. A citizen's livelihood may depend upon the capacity or the caprice of a driving test examined, but in their case there is no jury at all.
No one who has read the sort of mail which I have received can be blind to the degree of distress which is often caused through a person failing to pass

1425
the driving test. At the same time, I should be the last to attempt to stigmatise a whole body of public servants merely on the ground of this case or on the ground of the large number of letters I have received on the subject. I believe that there are certain elements on the administrative side as well as certain individual examiners who fail to appreciate the conception of high integrity which should be brought to this job. I hope I have said enough to show that there is considerable public uneasiness about the matter which calls for a speedy public examination.
2.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): I rise now, first, because of the gravity of the charge made against driving examiners which requires a reply at some length, and, secondly, because we are somewhat behind the schedule which you, Mr. Speaker, laid down for us for the matters to be raised on the Adjournment today.
On 16th March, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) put a supplementary question to me in the following terms:
"Will the hon. Gentleman consider making this information available?"
That is, the information for which he asked about failures at the first attempt.
"As he will appreciate, I have already sent a letter to his Department indicating that a vicar of one of the parishes in my constituency has described the present arrangements in the City of Leeds as a 'racket.' Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of my mail, I have reason to believe that this sort of thing is fairly widespread?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1821.]
"This sort of thing," of course, being the racket.
I am glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words on this subject which, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly points out, has raised a good deal of public disquiet, disquiet stimulated by certain events which I shall now relate to the House. The driving tests were instituted under the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and. therefore, except for the war period, have been a feature of our national life for some 18 years.
To the best of my knowledge—and I have made some research—this is the first occasion during that period on which these tests have been debated in the
1426
House, either on the Adjournment or through other procedural machinery, a fact which, I suggest, goes to show that they are, on the whole, a satisfactory instrument for road safety which, after all, is their primary object. The whole essence of the driving test is to have people on the roads who drive safely, and as such, I suggest, they are generally accepted by public opinion.
In view, however, of certain allegations made by the Vicar of St. Mary's, Leeds, the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett. who complained recently that the driving test was a "racket." and whose views were repeated here at Question time on 16th March by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. I think it as well to have this question ventilated so that a body of men and women who carry on a difficult and often thankless task with integrity and tact can be cleared of the wholly unjustifiable criticism that they are engaged in a "racket."
It is this of which the Vicar of St. Mary's, Leeds, complained. He stated in his letter to the hon. Gentleman, which was given wide publicity in a number of the national daily papers, that—and here I quote the letter and leave it to hon. Members to draw their own conclusions as to what it is intended to convey:
"After four years spent as a resident full-time chaplain to H.M. Prisons, Wandsworth and Armley, I think I can spot a racket when I see one. Whoever invented the three-card trick was a babe in arms compared with the person who laid down the conditions of the driving test"
What can that convey other than the most wounding allegation of corrupt conduct? When I saw the publicity which this unjustified statement commanded, I immediately arranged to send one of the senior officers from the headquarters of the Ministry of Transport, together with the chief driving examiner, to Leeds, when the matter was discussed most fully with the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett, who then withdrew unreservedly his remarks about corruption. He said in the discussion that he would like to make it clear that he had never alleged that there was graft in connection with driving tests or that driving examiners were acting improperly in their relations with driving schools. He maintained that his criticism was in connection with his own case, in which he claimed that he had twice been unfairly failed.

1427
Frankly, I find these two statements difficult to reconcile. I think that the right thing to do, however, is to accept the withdrawal while, at the same time, expressing my astonishment, because I cannot do otherwise, that a clerk in holy orders of the Church of England should have made such grave and grievous allegations merely because he felt that he ought to have been classed as a competent driver.
The hon. Member referred to a Mr. Maurey who was quoted by the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett in a letter of great length which, owing to the lateness of the hour, I will not quote now but which is familiar to the hon. Member and myself. During the visit of our official to Leeds Mr. Maurey described the allegations made as ridiculous and added that he had no complaints whatever about the fairness of the examiner. He also denied that Mr. Fawcett had had a course of lessons at his school. On the contrary, Mr. Fawcett had had only two lessons and had exhibited during them faults which, apparently, he reproduced in some degree during his driving test.
The direct allegation against Mr. Maurey was not dealt with at the conference at Leeds; I admit that at once. But we have since spoken to him on the telephone and he categorically denies that any such conversations as described by Mr. Fawcett ever took place. I think, therefore, that we can leave the reverend gentleman who skedaddled from the stricken field at the first whiff of grape-shot to the onerous task of reconciling his conduct with his conscience on the eve of the Easter festival. I am satisfied that there is no support for the suggestion that the driving examiners are corrupt.
Mr. Pannell: If I may intervene, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least separate me from my constituent in this regard. I think that I have been quite above board in my statement and I made it perfectly plain during my speech—and I sharply pulled up my speech in referring to what happened—that I made no allegation of corruption.
Mr. Braithwaite: Nor did I say so.I was dealing with Mr. Fawcett. I will break off as abruptly as the hon. Member did and get on with another matter.
1428
Another supplementary question was asked on 16th March by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), who occupies an important official position on the benches opposite as a representative of the usual channels. He asked me whether I was aware that in Leeds, Newcastle and other areas there was a fairly general opinion that
"there seems to be something 'phoney' about it."
He added:
"Will he have a look at the percentage of failures? …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1822.]
I wrote to the hon. Member saying that I should be quoting this and, with his usual courtesy, he rang me up to say that he could not be here today owing to his having an engagement in his constituency. But he gave me leave to say that he never for one moment suggested or intended to suggest that the word "phoney" implied that there was something suspicious and not above board with regard to the conduct of driving examiners. He merely thought it odd that so many people faded at the first attempt. I will deal with that point later in my remarks.
These ladies and gentlemen examiners are permanent, pensionable civil servants, recruited after open examination, with special qualifications as to driving ability and experience in driving. Their work is closely watched by supervising and senior examiners. We are, therefore, in a good position to detect at an early stage whether there happens to be any danger of any examiner getting into trouble.
I have been into this matter most carefully. I was greatly disturbed by the whole incident, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West would have been if he had been in my position. I can say with conviction that there is no more upright body of men and women in this country dealing with a difficult task than our driving examiners, and, like their colleagues in the public service, they are, have been, and will continue to be honest and fearless in their work.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West will not be surprised to learn that I have heard from the trade union which looks after these ladies and gentlemen. It is not impossible that he may have had a

1429
communication from Mr. C. E. Redhead, General Secretary of the Society of Civil Servants. This is what Mr. Redhead said in his letter to me:
"As the representative staff organisation of Driving and Traffic Examiners of the Ministry of Transport, this Society has been seriously perturbed of late concerning a number of recent references to members of the grade in the House of Commons and the resultant Press publicity. I refer in particular to the Parliamentary Questions of Mr. Norman Dodds, M.P.. on 15th December and 26th January, and of Mr. T. C. Pannell, M.P., on the 16th instant and the subsequent exchanges in the House.
I feel it my duty to draw your attention to the fact that there is in consequence widespread indignation and dissatisfaction among the officers concerned, who, as you will appreciate, have no means of publicly correcting any misapprehensions that this recent publicity may have aroused.
There remains a strong feeling of resentment and frustration and the uneasy feeling that public confidence may be undermined to a degree that is not only unfair to the officers concerned, but which can be an administrative embarrassment."
I now turn to the more important part of this debate which concerns the driving test itself. I propose, in the first instance, to explain how these tests are organised and the way in which they are supervised, as I think that this will clear up a number of doubts which exist in the minds of hon. Members and which have been raised. I also propose, at the end of my remarks, to refer to a few complaints about the driving test and this may perhaps deal with other points that are in the minds of hon. Members.
The prospective candidate for a driving test is told in very general and simple terms of what it consists when he first applies for a provisional licence. He is sent a form, D.L. 68, a copy of which I have in my possession, which should be a useful introduction to the test. When he has had sufficient training for the test he applies for one at the local office of the Ministry of Transport traffic areas.
Great Britain is divided for driving test purposes into 11 such areas in which there are 17 supervising examiners, 71 senior examiners and 381 examiners. The men and women work at 130 regular test centres and, from time to time, at 175 occasional centres. They work under carefully drawn instructions and the arrangements for the test are such that no candidate ever knows beforehand which examiner is to take the test.
1430
I will now read extracts from the instructions, which, I think, show the essentially practical and sensible approach which we require the examiners to adopt. The instructions state:
"In applying the test examiners should remember that in most cases candidates will have had only a limited experience of driving and most of them will not have driven without either a 'nurse' or an instructor. It would, therefore, be unreasonable to expect the degree of skill and road-sense which might be displayed by a driver with years of experience. It must also be remembered that many candidates will display a degree of nervousness when driving under the eye of an official examiner from which they might be free when driving alone or with friends. …
The main object of the test is to ensure that the candidate is well grounded in the basic principles of safe driving, and is sufficiently practised in them to be able to show, at the time of the test, that he is a competent driver and is not a source of danger to himself or to other road users, and is likely to become a fully qualified driver with more experience. The standard of driving of a candidate who is given a certificate of competence should be such that the examiner would be willing to accompany him, as a passenger in the back seat, on an ordinary journey.…"
Hon. Members will have noted the stress which the instructions lay on competence to drive safely. I should also mention that in another part of the instructions it is stated that:
"… a candidate who shows a lack of courtesy or consideration for other road users should not be regarded as a competent driver."
This is an important matter which candidates often overlook.
It is often said by foreigners that there is in this country a much higher standard of courtesy and consideration for other road users than elsewhere. If this is true it is no doubt due partly, at least, to the emphasis we place on this point in the driving test.
Another important point in the instructions is that all routes used for test must be carefully chosen to avoid serious inequality of conditions as between one candidate and another. Every hon. Member knows that with so many examiners and so many driving test centres the problem of maintaining a uniform standard throughout the country is a serious one. It is part of the job of senior examiners and the full-time job of the supervising examiners and the chief driving examiner himself to maintain, as far as possible, a standard test and uniform standard of

1431
competence for the grant of pass certificates, and there are careful instructions to that end which I should have quoted had I had time.
I am told that supervising examiners probably accompany examiners on 700 tests every year, not specially chosen in any way, and spread over the whole of the staff in each area. The method used is for the supervising examiner to mark the candidate's faults simultaneously with the examiner and, after the test is over, to compare notes with the examiner. The chief examiner has the onerous task of co-ordinating the standards throughout Great Britain and spends a great deal of his time travelling around from one centre to another with that object. By seeing individual examiners conducting tests in all sorts of conditions, he is able to determine whether the tests are being conducted both in the letter and the spirit of the instructions.
Uniformity in method does not mean that every area should show the same percentages of passes and failures. In any form of examination one finds differences in the personal characteristics, aptitudes and perhaps foibles of those who mark our papers or put us through our tests. However, I would like to deal with the suggestion made so widely that everybody is failed the first time on principle. Knowing that this debate was pending I had a test check made in one area for the month of February, before the Question was put down and before this matter received publicity. In that area the figures show that 55 per cent. of those who passed did so at their first attempt. I think the hon. Gentleman said that 40 per cent. failed or, in this case 45—
Mr. Pannell: A national figure.
Mr. Braithwaite: These are for a certain area taken in February. Candidates who fail receive a statement of failure, on the back of which the examiner marks the points to which the candidate should give particular attention before he takes the next test. The examiner is instructed not to enter into a discussion with the candidate who has just failed about his driving performance, as this may lead to a good deal of difficulty on both sides. The wisdom of this is shown by our experience with
1432
Mr. Fawcett. Experience has shown that candidates who have failed are seldom in a frame of mind, at that time anyhow, to accept advice from the examiner who is responsible for that failure. The yellow ticket, as it is often called, is intended to assist candidates to improve their driving before coming up again, which they cannot do until a month has elapsed from the date of their failure.
As 'regards one criticism, which Mr. Fawcett seemed to have in mind when he wrote to the hon. Member for Leeds, West and which has been suggested again this afternoon, namely, that a candidate does not pass unless he goes to a driving school. Neither Mr. Fawcett nor the hon. Member has produced a thread of evidence to substantiate any suggestion that driving schools have special influence which they can bring to bear—I think it was called a "hook-up" this afternoon. Nevertheless, if a candidate goes to a good driving school, he is likely to be taught to drive in the right way and to avoid common pitfalls, and is, therefore, a more competent driver. On the other hand, we know of driving schools which are not good and their results in the test are obviously not so favourable.
There is a second common criticism to the effect that there are two other reasons why candidates fail the first time. The first is because the examiner wants to keep his job and will be regarded as incompetent unless he fails a considerable proportion of the candidates The second is far more interesting—indeed, I see my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the bench beside me— that they are failed in order to stimulate the Revenue because there is a 10s. fee for taking the test.
Mr. Pannell Mr. Pannell indicated dissent.
Mr. Braithwaite: These things are said and I am here to refute them. Both of those criticisms are blatantly and palpably absurd, precisely because the examiner is a permanent and established civil servant, whose position does not and cannot depend upon the number of candidates coming forward because he has other duties to perform. Secondly, let me disclose the horrid fact to the House that each test now costs appreciably more than the fee of 10s., which is the maximum at present authorised under the Road Traffic Acts.

1433
The Government are, therefore, making a loss on each test and it would be in their financial interest to reduce the number of tests rather than to increase them. Those who make that complaint are putting ideas into the head of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, not to mention the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at an extremely vulnerable period of the year.
I think I am right in saying that a large number of the complaints, when boiled down to essentials, amount to little more than an indignant assertion that the candidate knows he is a good driver and that the decision that he has failed can, therefore, be attributed to only one of three things: the incompetence of the examiner, the prejudice of the examiner or even the corrupt character of the examiner. This attitude is engendered by the too commonly held belief that good driving is an accomplishment which can readily be picked up given only average intelligence and a modicum of practice.
The fact is that good driving is an art involving a combination of ability to handle the vehicle, knowledge of the correct procedure to follow when manoeuvring in a wide variety of road and traffic situations, and the ability to put into practice that knowledge and the precepts of the Highway Code. The learner who sets out to practise driving and undergo the test without first taking steps to ensure that he is working on the right principles of safe driving is reasonably sure to fail.
Having now picked up 10 minutes of the late starting period, let me say, finally that I do not want to give the House the impression that we have a lot of complaints about the driving test, which would appear to be the case after listening to the hon. Member for Leeds, West. We received less than one in 1,000 for the tests we arrange, which is again a tribute to the way in which they are conducted. Moreover, the numbers of complaints are diminishing.
In view of the wide publicity this subject has had during the past 10 days, owing to the efforts largely of the reverend gentleman in Leeds and those who have associated themselves with him, one would expect a large number of disappointed candidates to have written to the Ministry with complaints about the conduct of tests, whether justified or not. Hon. Members will be interested and comforted to know that out of between
1434
five million and six million drivers in this country we at the Ministry have received only 30 letters of complaint during the past 10 days. Of those, one-third were anonymous and hon. Members know exactly what to do with them.
These facts speak for themselves. The House will wish me to pay a tribute to the driving examiners whose work in difficult circumstances calls for tact, integrity and devotion to duty which we have learned to expect and receive from our public servants. I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Leeds, West for raising this matter, because it has given me an opportunity to make a number of points which I am sure will be of interest to hon. Members and to members of the public generally, not least to the driving examiners who have felt themselves so unfairly criticised.
We are, of course, prepared to investigate the mail bag of the hon. Member. It will mean the expenditure of a good deal of time and of the taxpayer's money, and if the other witnesses in his mail bag are of the same calibre as the Reverend Fawcett, I am bound to say that their evidence will be of no particular value. I hope that the Press will have the necessary space to give the same publicity to my remarks as has been given to the allegations.
My right hon. Friend and I are always prepared to receive from hon. Members details of cases where it is thought that their constituents have been unfairly treated in the matter of these driving tests. But this whole matter has proved itself to be entirely without foundation. Not a shred of evidence has been produced either by Mr. Fawcett, in his correspondence, or by the hon. Member today—
Mr. Pannell: That is absolute rubbish. The hon. Gentleman's speech was prepared for him before he had heard my evidence.
Mr. Braithwaite: In conclusion, I cannot do better than quote the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend in reply to a Question which was put to him by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus). This was the Question to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West took so much exception, although it was tabled before he had got his allocation for the Adjournment.
Mr. Pannell: At least I wrote my own speech.
Mr. Braithwaite: My right hon. Friend said:
"I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my complete confidence in the integrity of the Ministry's staff of driving examiners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1953; Vol. 513 c. 140.]

INCOME TAX REFORM
3.11 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Crosland: The matter to which I want to draw the attention of the House may seem rather more abstruse and of less human interest than the sad experience of Mr. Fawcett, but it is nevertheless a matter of great importance, which the House should discuss.
It will be remembered that in January, 1951, my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the present system of taxation of profits and income, including its incidence and effects. Last summer the Chairman of the Royal Commission sought a ruling from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the terms of reference should or should not be interpreted as permitting a discussion of:
"the type of expenditure tax which has been advocated by the late Professor Irving Fisher, the American economist, namely, a graduated tax under which the measure of a person's liability is determined, not by his income as such, but by the amount of personal expenditure which he meets out of his resources of all kinds, including capital as well as income."
In October last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied negatively. He said that this matter could not be considered as falling within the terms of reference. The purpose of this debate is to discuss the Chancellor's ruling and urge him to change it.
At this point I should like to describe the nature of the proposals which were made by the late Professor Irving Fisher and other people, in respect of which the Chairman of the Royal Commission was asking for a ruling. Put very briefly, the proposals are that instead of taxing the whole of a person's income—as income is now defined—regardless of the use to which that income is put, we should tax only that part of the income which is
1436
spent, so that that part which is saved is not taxed. In addition, we should tax that part of a person's expenditure which is met out of his capital and which is not at the moment subject to tax.
In other words, put very crudely, it would exempt current savings from tax while at the same time taxing current dis-saving. In effect, the tax would become one on a person's total annual expenditure or, in the phraseology of the late Professor Irving Fisher, it would be "a tax on net cash yield income." This involves a change in the definition of the word "income," but that definition has frequently been changed for tax purposes, and there has always been a great deal of argument as to what was the correct definition for tax purposes. The idea of changing the definition of either "income" or "profits" for taxation purposes is certainly far from being an unknown one.
After all, many hon. Members opposite and also leaders in the business world have recently been urging the Chancellor to change the definition of the term "taxable profits" for the purpose of having a replacement cost basis for depreciation instead of an historical cost basis. I mention that merely to show that there is nothing particularly novel about the idea of altering the definition of either "income" or "profits" for taxation purposes.
It will be at once clear to hon. Members that any change such as this, which would exempt current savings from tax but at the same time bring current dis-saving under taxation, would give an enormous incentive to save and provide a very strong disincentive against dis-saving.
Having given that brief summary of the point at issue, before deploying my main argument against the Chancellor's ruling I want to make two preliminary points. First, this is not, or should not be, a party matter. There is not the slightest reason to believe that all hon. Members on this side of the House would support a change in the taxation system such as that proposed by Professor Fisher—nor is there any reason to believe that hon. Members opposite would oppose it. Indeed, to judge by the insistence of hon. Members opposite on the need for more personal savings and more incentives to personal saving

1437
one could imagine that many of them might support such a reform.
The fact is that nobody has any idea how the support would be distributed among the Members of the different parties. It is not a party issue and there is no suggestion that the Chancellor was actuated by any party or political motive when he gave his ruling. My own belief is that he gave it under a misunderstanding, and either through insufficient time or inadequate advice he failed to grasp the exact nature of the issues involved.
My second preliminary point—although it is hardly necessary to stress it—is the extreme importance of this issue. When my right hon. Friend set up this Royal Commission he presumably did so because he was concerned about the effects of taxation on incentives of one kind and another, and I imagine that in his mind at that time—as in the minds of most people who think about the whole tax question—the dominant worry was the possibility that our present levels of taxation, or even lower levels, might have a serious effect on the incentive to save.
Most people would think that this was the most important single question which the Commission could discuss—how, within a rather high level of taxation such as is necessary by reason of the social services and the concept of a welfare State, we can retain sufficient inducements to save. I do not need to spend any further time in emphasising just how important the whole question of savings is under a weight of taxation which, whichever party is in power, is bound to remain far higher than before the war.
In the light of these considerations, why did the Chancellor decline to allow the Commission to discuss this very important proposed reform, which at first sight promises such beneficial results in terms of the incentive to save? In a reply to my right hon. Friend on 17th March the Chancellor gave two reasons for his decision. The first was that this proposal is equivalent to a tax on expenditure— which is quite correct—and therefore it does not come into the scope of an inquiry into the taxation of income and profits. His second point was that it was impossible to consider this tax without also inquiring into the whole system of indirect taxation, because a tax of this sort came into the field of indirect taxation
1438
and it could not be considered without the consideration of the rest of that field.
I want to deal briefly with those two points in reverse order. The first argument is that we cannot consider a proposed reform of this nature without considering the whole field of indirect taxation. Is there any reason for believing that this is true? What is the difference in principle between direct and indirect taxation? I am not aware that there is the slightest argument as to what is that difference in principle. I want to quote from a standard and well-known text book on taxation which sums the matter up in a way which I think would be agreeable to everybody—Mrs. Hicks, on "Public Finance." Mrs. Hicks defines direct taxation as including.
"… taxes for which the liability varies with the circumstances of the taxpayer"
and indirect taxation she defines as:
"Those taxes whose liability depends on the amount or value of a particular product or service purchased."
That is a perfectly clear distinction, agreeable both to common sense and a normal usage.
If one accepts those definitions, it cannot be considered that the sort of reform which has been suggested falls into the category of indirect taxation. If we modify Income Tax in the way proposed, so as to reduce the liability to tax to the extent that people are currently saving and to increase the liability to tax to the extent that people are currently dis-saving, it is quite clear that the tax will still involve a liability which varies according to the circumstances of the individual concerned. In other words, it is a direct tax. It is equally clear that it will not involve any liability which varies with the price or amount of any product or service consumed.
It is clear, therefore, that it does not fall into the category of indirect taxation. I do not think there can be any possibility of argument about it; the definitions are precise, and it is clear into which of the two categories this proposal falls. It falls very clearly into the category of direct taxation, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allowed himself to be misled by the phrase "expenditure taxation" into thinking that what is proposed is a general tax on all commodities —and that, of course, is not what is proposed in the slightest degree.

1439
So much for the argument that this is merely a matter of indirect taxation. The other argument which the Chancellor used in reply to my right hon. Friend—and it was couched in rather vague and general terms—was that this proposal does not come within the scope of an inquiry into taxation on income and profits. This was rather a surprising argument to fall from the lips of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who, when he was at Cambridge, was a historian.
Mr. Hugh Dalton: No; modern languages.
Mr. Crosland: My right hon. Friend, I fear, is misinformed. I looked this up, and the Chancellor took modern languages in Part I and modern history in Part II. His historical knowledge does not seem to have helped him in considering this point because the fact is that suggestions along these lines have formed a part, historically, of every discussion on Income Tax and Profits Tax which has ever taken place in this country.
The "Manchester Guardian," in a leading article this morning, has been digging out a number of precedents into which I have already looked. If we go back to the first Government inquiry in this country into the system of income taxation, the Hubbard Committee of 1861, we shall see that a large part of the discussions of the Committee were taken up in dealing with the proposal of John Stuart Mill —very respectable antecedents after ail-that they should do precisely what is now suggested and exempt current savings from taxation. It was only the sinister influence of Mr. Gladstone's hirelings on that Committee which secured the defeat of this progressive suggestion.
Alfred Marshall wrote a very well-known article urging this reform in Income Tax while Keynes, in his evidence to the Colwyn Committee on taxation, described this as an ideal form of direct taxation. Professor Pigou has discussed this in his writings over and over again and Irving Fisher, whose name has already been mentioned, wrote innumerable books and articles about the subject in the course of a fairly long life-time.
I mention those precedents merely to show that this kind of reform has always played an important part in any debates
1440
and discussion on the principle of income and profits taxation. The reason why previous individuals and committees have turned the scheme down has almost entirely been on grounds of administrative practicability. I think that is a fair comment. That may or may not be an important argument, but it is not the argument which has been used against allowing the Royal Commission to discuss the matter. The whole question of administrative practicability is something which ought to be considered again, for it has not been considered for 30 years, since the Colwyn Committee.
If the Royal Commission do not discuss this method of reform, theirs will be unique amongst all discussions on Income Tax for 100 years past. Moreover, such proposals for reform have not only historically formed a very important part of all debates on the matter, but they are also being discussed a great deal at the moment wherever people are thinking or writing about the present weight of income and profits taxation.
I have three examples, chosen at random, of recent discussions of a reform along these lines. In the course of a debate in the columns of the "Economist," between my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and Lord Brand—a well matched pair of extremists—a very interesting and authoritative anonymous letter was written which raised precisely this scheme of Irving Fisher's. Next, the third of the three articles recently published by "The Times" and written by Professors Edwards and Paish, also referred to the possibility of exempting savings from Income Tax. Lastly, the leader in today's "Manchester Guardian" shows that an increasing degree of interest is being aroused by this proposal.
But such a reform not only occurs in recent discussions on this subject but is actually embodied in the present Income Tax practice of at least one important country—Germany.
Mr. Dalton: Western Germany.
Mr. Crosland: The taxpayer in Western Germany can, if he so chooses, allot a part of his income to a special bank account, and, provided that the money remains frozen in the bank account for three years, one-half of that part of his income becomes exempt from Income

1441
Tax. This is a limited application of precisely the proposal which is under discussion—namely, the exemption of savings from Income Tax.
Surely, therefore, when a reform along these lines is already embodied in the tax practice of one other important country, and when it has played a large part in both present and previous discussions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot possibly maintain that it does not fall within the scope of an inquiry into taxation of income and profits. I can only believe, quite seriously, that the precedents, the current discussion and the current practice were not brought to his attention by his officials when he gave his ruling.
I can go further still and say that such a reform would in fact not be a revolutionary departure or a complete departure even from the existing basis of the British income and profits taxation system. It has never been true in this country that Income Tax fell equally on all income irrespective of the use to which the income was put. That has never been the case. A great number of exemptions from Income Tax are already made, according to the use to which the income is put, and the most significant aspect of our present Income Tax system from this point of view is that income is already relieved from the full weight of taxation for one form of savings—namely, the premium on insurance payments. That is a modification precisely along the lines suggested in this scheme.
A similar position occurs with profits taxation. The profits taxation system in this country already distinguishes between profits according to the use which is made of them. There is a distinction between distributed and undistributed profits. Surely it is fair to say that this distinction between distributed and undistributed profits, one bearing a heavier weight of taxation than the other, is a discrimination in favour of profits which are saved against profits which are spent. It cannot be said to be an absolutely novel principle, therefore, to suggest that this discrimination should also be applied to Income Tax.
I should have thought that in the light of this argument the case for permitting the Royal Commission to discuss the matter was overwhelming. There is ample historical precedent for treating this as part of the whole theory of income and profits taxation. There is a great
1442
deal of discussion taking place now on the subject in relation to Income Tax. The German Government have already adopted a modified example of this principle. Our own income and profits taxation laws even now include some concessions to this principle.
I have no idea until the Royal Commission has examined and reported whether or not it would be a desirable reform. That is not what we are debating today. We are only saying that it appears to be a matter of sufficient importance for the Royal Commission to discuss. Of course, it is a matter of far greater importance today than it was when those previous discussions and debates took place, because the weight of taxation is very much heavier today, and the need for savings is very much greater today than it ever was before, so it is infinitely more important to discuss this subject now than it was 30, 50, 100 years ago.
As the "Manchester Guardian" pointed out this morning, we have a Royal Commission only once about every 30 years, and it would surely be a tragedy if a subject which everybody agrees to be of central importance to the future of our national economy were not to be discussed in the slightest degree by the Royal Commission when we shall not have another Commission of this kind for probably another 20 or 30 years. The value of their report would really be halved if they were not permitted to discuss this subject, and I do beg the Financial Secretary to carry some of these arguments, and others that will be adduced, back to the Chancellor, and to urge him to reconsider this decision.
3.31 p.m.
Mr. Austen Albu: I should like briefly to support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) to the Financial Secretary and to the Chancellor to reverse the decision in this case. I have read a great deal of the published evidence that has been put to the Royal Commission, and I had the very exhausting experience of giving evidence myself for some two and a half hours. It is pretty clear, I think, that the great problem with which they are faced is this of dealing with taxation, particularly of company profits, in such a way as to enable savings to be created in the community for investment

1443
without at the same time reversing the achievement of the greater equality in the distribution of the national income.
The Commission are able, owing to the terms of reference given them when my right hon. Friend was Chancellor, to consider such matters as a capital gains tax, which they may have to consider if they have to make other concessions particularly to companies, but it may well be that that is a far more clumsy way of dealing with this problem in a socially equitable way than some sort of tax such as that my hon. Friend has been describing. I cannot pretend that I have the knowledge he has of the actual details of the tax. I know some of them.
Let me put this point to the Financial Secretary. One of the great difficulties we have been faced with in the years since the war, in a time of full employment and sometimes of some inflationary pressure, when we have had continuously to ask the trade unions to adopt very considerable restraint in regard to wage claims, has been the obvious retort that, however much dividends may have been limited, there has been a considerable degree of very conspicuous consumption. Try as we may, when speaking to trade unionists of these matters we cannot persuade them that there is not a very much higher degree of expenditure in this country than the figures of the actual distribution of the national income as officially printed and published show. There does seem to be a very good case for the examination of a method of taxing which is a taxing of the demands made by individuals on the product of the community, rather than entirely of their incomes.
I put that to the Financial Secretary because these matters must be very much in his mind, as they are in ours, at the present time. I suggest that there is a good case very fully put forward by my hon. Friend for reversing this decision, and for our having a report which will take into consideration the present situation in regard to taxation and income distribution, and the other problems with which we are faced.
3.35 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) has explained, in his usual lucid and able manner, the reasons why we are raising
1444
this subject today. He deployed with very great skill all the reasons and all the arguments in favour of allowing the Royal Commission to consider what has been termed an expenditure tax, and I want only very briefly to support what he has said.
We are raising this now, perhaps I may say in passing, rather than leaving it to the Budget debates, partly because we do not want it considered in the heat of party controversy, which tends to surround Budget debates, and partly because we think that this is something that should be considered on its own, as a long-term matter, quite apart from any immediate financial issues that may arise.
I think we are all agreed—at least, I would hope so—that the relationship of Income Tax to saving is a matter of the very greatest importance. I should like the Financial Secretary, if he will be so kind, as to listen to my questions on this matter. I want to know whether he agrees, as I am sure he does, that the relationship of saving to Income Tax is of the greatest importance, and that there is an obvious danger that any attempt to extract more money by increasing Income Tax is liable to be partially at least frustrated by reason of a decline in savings. To refresh his memory I would remark that the Conservative Party, when they were in Opposition, put that argument very frequently from the benches on this side of the House. Then I should like to ask him, if he agrees with that, whether he would also agree, as presumably he would, that the Royal Commission should consider the relationship of taxation and savings.
Next, I should like to ask what his attitude is to the problem of dis-saving, because it surely is perfectly clear that we cannot really consider the one without the other. If we are to consider proposals for encouraging savings by tax reliefs of one kind or another, unless we at the same time do something to prevent dis-saving, or to discourage dis-saving, there is an obvious danger that the taxpayer will get the benefit of the reliefs given to him for increasing saving by simply drawing on his capital. In other words, he maintains his standard of living by drawing on his capital and proceeds then to save and show the results of saving to the Income Tax authorities and get relief from taxation accordingly.

1445
I therefore submit that we cannot really possibly separate these two things.
The next point I would put to the Financial Secretary is that the problem of dis-saving is itself, in any case, a rather serious one. There is, with the present rate of taxation, a very great temptation to a man with a substantial amount of capital, to maintain a high standard of living, perhaps a higher standard of living than the country can really afford, by drawing on his capital.
Then I should like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman would not agree with what my hon. Friend suggested, that the present arrangements under which insurance premiums, for instance, obtain substantial reliefs in Income Tax, are a matter which the Royal Commission should surely investigate. How can it be beyond their terms of reference to consider further moves in that direction? If he agrees with these propositions how can it possibly be explained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ruled that in effect a change in the system of taxation under which savings were exempted from taxation and dis-savings were included as part of income was not to be discussed?
I confess that I find it extremely hard to think of any plausible answer whatever to this proposal. I have looked at the original terms of reference which we laid down and at the revised terms of reference which the present Government introduced. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to these. The terms of reference said Commissioners shall:
"inquire into the present system of taxation of profits and income, including its incidence and effects."
Presumably, the effect on savings was one of them. They said:
"to consider whether, for the purposes of the national economy, the present system is the best way of raising the required revenue from the taxation of profits and income."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 183.]
Obviously, the question of whether there is not too serious an effect on savings should come into that.
Finally:
"… to make recommendations bearing in mind that in the present financial situation it may be necessary to maintain the revenue from profits and income…."
That would involve considering any schemes or suggestions put forward which
1446
in the views of, at any rate, some persons and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, of some extremely eminent persons, which would be of considerable assistance to the national economy.
We put this forward in no party spirit. I confess that I have been very disturbed by what has happened, and I must tell the House that if I had been in the present Chancellor's position when this question came from the Royal Commission, I have not the slightest doubt that I should have ruled that it was within their terms of reference, as I had previously ruled that the question of a capital gains tax was within the terms of reference. It may be argued by the Financial Secretary that, on a narrow definition of income, this sort of thing cannot be considered—even that, I think, is open to some dispute in the light of the arguments put forward—but, as my hon. Friend has said, the plain fact is that every Royal Commission has considered as one of its major problems whether the present legal definitions of income are appropriate or not. Once that is conceded, it seems to me that really it would be absolutely appropriate and right for the Royal Commission to look into this matter.
I therefore urge the Financial Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend to think the matter over again. Could he, in particular, at least give us this assurance—I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have no doubt that there may have been some misunderstanding on the terminology— that it is no part—I particularly want an answer to this—of the Chancellor's intention that the Royal Commission should not consider ways and means of stimulating saving and discouraging dis-saving by reforms in the Income Tax. I particularly ask him to reply on that point, because that may perhaps provide a way out of the rather unfortunate situation into which the affairs of the Royal Commission seem to be in danger of drifting.
3.42 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr, John Boyd-Carpenter): As I understand it, the House is this afternoon not seeking to discuss the merits or the de-merits of the very ingenious set of proposals which are associated with the name of the late Professor Irving

1447
Fisher. We are on the much narrower point as to whether the elucidation of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission which my right hon. Friend gave to the Chairman of the Royal Commission was, or amounted to, a proper and accurate interpretation of those terms of reference. We are really on what lawyers would call "a point of construction."
There has been no suggestion from the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) or his two hon. Friends that the terms of reference themselves required amendment or should be amended. They directed their argument to what seems to me to be the much narrower point as to whether consideration of this set of proposals did or did not come within a sensible interpretation of the terms of reference. I think it is desirable, if we are to consider this matter on its merits, that I should make quite clear the way in which the terms of reference were laid down and have developed.
Perhaps I might say in passing that I was very glad that both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) disclaimed any desire to make any party issue out of this matter. It seemed to me that when the matter was earlier raised in the House one or two hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), were somewhat departing from that line. I was the more glad, therefore, that this afternoon both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South threw that line overboard and put the matter forward as a matter to be considered solely on its merits. I will certainly endeavour to follow that admirable example.
The Royal Commission, as hon. Members will be aware, was set up by, and with terms of reference settled by, the late Administration. The terms of reference were announced in a written reply by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) on 14th December, 1950. I will read them, because, though the right hon. Gentleman quoted them, he quoted them only in part, and I think it is desirable, if we are to consider what they mean, that the House should have the whole of
1448
them in front of them. The terms of reference were:
"To inquire into the present system of taxation of profits and income, including its incidence and effects…."
These are the words the right hon. Gentleman did not quote:
"…with particular reference to the taxation of business profits and the taxation of salaries and wages to consider whether for the purposes of the national economy the present system is the best way of raising the required revenue from the taxation of profits and income, due regard being paid to the points of view of the taxpayer and of the Exchequer: to consider the present system of personal allowances, reliefs and rates of tax as a means of distributing the tax burden fairly among the individual members of the community: and to make recommendations consistent with maintaining the same total yield of the existing duties in relation to the national income."
Just to complete the picture, at the time when the then chairman, Lord Justice—now Lord—Cohen, resigned the chairmanship on his appointment as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, the ending of the terms of reference was modified in a way which does not, I think, affect our present discussion but which, for the purposes of completeness, I should like to mention. The closing half sentence was taken out and replaced by the words:
"To make recommendations bearing in mind that in the present financial situation it may be necessary to maintain the revenue from profits and income: and, in so far as they make recommendations which would on balance entail a substantial loss of revenue, to indicate an order of priority in which such recommendations should be taken into consideration."
Finally, to complete the picture, at a fairly early stage of the Royal Commission's proceedings they had apparently some doubt as to the meaning of their terms of reference. They referred, as has been mentioned, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South, who told the House, in reply to a Question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), on 6th February, 1951:
"The Royal Commission have been informed, in reply to an inquiry received from them, that their present terms of reference entitle them to consider the question of charging to Income Tax or Profits Tax any profit ranking as a capital profit under the existing law which might reasonably be brought within the scope of those taxes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1529–30.]
Two small points arise from that First, the right hon. Gentleman con-

1449
sidered it proper—if I may say so, rightly considered it proper—to give the Royal Commission guidance as to the interpretation of their terms of reference. Secondly, he did not then seek to extend the meaning of the terms of reference beyond the original conception of taxation of profits or income. What he made clear was that the inquiry need not be limited to the sort of profit which had hitherto been regarded as a revenue profit but could properly include capital profits.
Mr. Gaitskell: In other words, a redefinition of profits and income was involved?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A re-definition of profits and income was involved, and therefore we can take it at this stage that the right hon. Gentleman thought it proper by inquiry to give them the guidance as to what he understood their terms of reference to include.
I should like now to follow up the suggestion by both the right hon. Gentleman—no doubt in an inadvertent turn of phrase—and his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South that my right hon. Friend was not allowing the Royal Commission to discuss these proposals. The facts of the matter have, of course, appeared in the first Report of the Commission. The Commission, apparently having doubt as to the interpretation of their terms of reference, asked my right hon. Friend as the Minister departmentally concerned for guidance on their interpretation. I do not think it is quite fair to use—it was perhaps inevitably telescoped into other things and I do not make great complaint about it—the phrase "was not allowed to discuss." What my right hon. Friend did was what the right hon. Gentleman did before, when he gave his interpretation as to the meaning of certain words as he understood them when asked by the chairman.
Mr. Gaitskell: This is a very important point. Am I to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have no objection whatever if the Royal Commission decided nevertheless to consider this expenditure tax and discuss it?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is quite a different question.
Mr. Gaitskell: Oh, no.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Oh, yes, it is, and it is, of course, straying, as the right hon. Gentleman quite deliberately did, from the very argument which has been raised here. That argument was not whether these were good proposals or not or that it was good for anybody to discuss them. The argument raised was that my right hon. Friend's interpretation of the terms of reference themselves was wrong. Let us get this quite clear. The material parts of the terms of reference were drafted under the late Administration, and I have no doubt at all that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South had some considerable share in settling them. I must not be led into comments on what might or might not in other circumstances be a good or bad thing. We have been here challenged on my right hon. Friend's interpretation of the terms of reference, which the right hon. Gentleman himself had some responsibility for settling.
I particularly do not want to enter into any discussion on the merits or demerits of Irving Fisher proposals, not the least because to do so would appear to prejudice any consideration of them which may at any time have to be made. It is not, of course, material to this argument. It may well be that these proposals have conspicuous merits. But that is quite irrelevant to the present issue. The point we are concerned with is the terms of reference given to this Royal Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have tried to establish the argument that income could be redefined so as to mean expenditure. That is a perfectly fair paraphrase of the argument advanced. It is a proposition which, I think, has only got to be stated for its invalidity to be seen.
Mr. Dalton: No.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Income and expenditure are, as some hon. Members have discovered in their own personal experience, very different considerations from each other. To argue that a tax which is described by its authors and supporters as a tax on expenditure can be brought within the definition of a tax on income simply by saying that for this purpose income can be construed to mean expenditure is, I think, an argument that will not wash.
Mr. Crosland: The Financial Secretary is not dealing now very seriously with the argument. It is frivolous to dismiss the whole of our case as resting on an odd-sounding definition of income as being the same as expenditure. He must know there is a great deal of argument from a tax point of view as to a sensible definition of income. Irving Fisher, after all, did not define these proposals as a tax on expenditure but as a tax on "net cash yield income." These proposals have always been treated as a form of Income Tax, and cannot be swept away with a lot of very amusing but not very serious juggling about with income and expenditure.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman can contain his impatience, I think I shall satisfy him on that aspect. I gather that I start with his assent to the proposition that merely to define income as meaning expenditure is not an intellectually respectable way of bringing these proposals within the terms of reference which his right hon. Friend gave to the Royal Commission.
I will concede for the purposes of argument that there is within the body of these proposals a part which relates to exemption, not from Income Tax but from Surtax, of savings, which are matters material to the taxation of incomes. I concede that at once. We are being asked, not to rule that particular and arbitrarily selected parts of the Irving Fisher proposals are within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, but to say that the whole body of those proposals comes within the terms of reference,
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman again here. The report does not say there was any suggestion that it was precisely this tax. The words in the report are:
"The second ruling concerned the type of expenditure tax which has been advocated by the late Professor Irving Fisher, the American economist … namely, a graduated tax."
It is the type of expenditure tax to which reference is made.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman need not argue about the exact tax, but he must, for the sake of his argument, deal with the general body of the proposals and not with an
1452
arbitrarily selected part of them. For the purpose of his argument he has, quite legitimately, selected those parts which relate to savings, no doubt for very obvious reasons. He did so no doubt because they have a greater appeal.
It is an essential part of these proposals to include in the liability for taxation on expenditure, expenditure financed out of, for example, bequests and gifts. The right hon. Gentleman really cannot argue that these proposals, taken as a whole, are within the terms of reference of a Royal Commission inquiring into taxation on profits and income unless he says that a tax on expenditure from bequests and gifts also comes, as a matter of ordinary definition, within the definition of a tax on profits and income. It seems to me that whatever we may say about a proposal to exempt savings or—and this is going still further—whatever we may say about taxation on expenditure, it is straining the English language beyond the limits of its not inconsiderable elasticity to say that if the right hon. Gentleman receives a bequest and spends it on the purchase of a television set the tax falling on that expenditure is a tax upon income.
Mr. Gaitskell: On expenditure.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It seems a complete misnomer to suggest that on a specific capital sum bequeathed to the right hon. Gentleman by some benevolent admirer—I hasten to express the hope that this is not merely a theoretical possibility —can attract Income Tax when it is spent. That it should be taxed may be a good or a bad thing, but such taxation is quite clearly not upon income or profits.
Mr. Albu Mr. Albu rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No. I have given way already quite a lot. What I have said applies with redoubled force to imposing taxation in respect of gifts. Suppose some one gave to the right hon. Gentleman a sum of money at Christmas to buy a bottle of lemonade and the right hon. Gentleman, in loyal fulfilment of the gift's purpose, went out and bought it. It is quite beyond the limit to say that any taxation of the expenditure on that gift which comes—rightly or wrongly, I am not arguing that point—under expenditure taxation has any relevance to taxa-

1453
tion on income or profit. That, I think, is the essence of the difficulty.
These ingenious proposals contain a number of conceptions and ideas which, without undue pressure upon the terms of reference, might well come within them. They also contain elements—on my view, I should say essential elements of the proposals, without which the proposals would seem to be wholly incomplete—which, such as the examples I have quoted, seem to us to be quite outside any question of taxation of income or of profits.
That is why it seemed to my right hon. Friend, when this matter was referred to him as a matter of doubt upon the construction of the terms of reference, quite inevitable that he should have to say to the Royal Commission that proposals for an expenditure tax, some items of which have, quite clearly, no relevance to taxation of incomes and profits, could not be held to be within those terms of reference. That is the matter as I understand it on the narrow point.
I should like, if I may, to trespass further on the time of the House very shortly in order that I should not seem discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on the broader issues which they were good enough to raise. I say at once that my right hon. Friend's view, for the reasons which I have given, that on a proper construction of the terms of reference this body of proposals or anything like them was not within those terms of reference, does not mean that he takes any detached view, or feels that the Commission should take any detached view, on the inter-related questions of taxation of income and profits on the one hand, and of savings and dissavings on the other hand.
I give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance without any hesitation because, as he knows, my right hon. Friend has on a number of occasions in public stressed, as did the right hon. Gentleman himself today, the very great importance in our present position of encouraging and stimulating savings. And it is, of course, clear that an analysis of our system of direct taxation, particularly at a time when it is at such high levels, obviously would be incomplete and unreal if the repercussions of the system upon savings were excluded. I have no difficulty in reassuring the right hon. Gentleman on that point. Indeed, I
1454
should only weary the House by repeating the obvious if I said that my right hon. Friend is immensely concerned that a proper level of savings should be maintained and encouraged from the point of view of the very broadest national interest. My right hon. Friend has himself made that point far more eloquently than I could do and I need only refer the House to what he has said.
There is one other practical point The Royal Commission was appointed as long ago as 2nd January, 1951. It has now been at work for a considerable time and, as hon. Members are aware, has produced its first report, mainly dealing with certain aspects of taxation on overseas enterprise. Hon. Members will appreciate that the question of the system of taxation upon profits and income is, obviously, of the very greatest significance for a country which is fighting for its economic life, and which is doing so at a time when it has to sustain the massive burden of a great defence programme. As the right hon. Gentleman or one of his hon. Friends said, when taxation is at present levels, that the system should be sound becomes proportionately the more important as the burdens themselves become the heavier.
I therefore suggest that unless there were some compelling reason to amend the terms of reference at this stage, there is a very strong weight of considerations which go in favour of our not doing so. We do not wish, if we can avoid it, to delay the consideration by the Royal Commission of the major matters remitted to it and the receipt from it of its report. I am sure that all hon. Members are anxious that while work of this seriousness and importance calls for hard thought and serious work, nothing that we do should operate in any way to delay the bringing forward of the Royal Commission's report or reports. It was no doubt that reason therefore which impelled hon. Members opposite to found their argument on the narrow point of interpretation rather than, as I thought they might, on the probable suggestion that new terms of reference might be devised and transmitted to the Commission.
I think I can speak for all hon. Members when I say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe, and his most eminent colleagues for the tremen-

1455
dously valuable public work they are engaged in doing. I know we are extremely anxious that they should be able to carry on that work with the greatest possible expedition and speed. It will be a matter of great satisfaction to my right hon. Friend and all hon. Members when that Report becomes available and we are able to see what the result of this expert analysis of our system of taxation of profits and income has produced.
I am sure the right hon. Member will appreciate that the fact that we do not think these matters come within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission does not by any manner of means exclude their consideration in other ways by other people at other times. My right hon. Friend, as I think hon. Members will admit, has a very open mind and I should not like to seem, by saying what I have said on the narrow point, to imply any disrespect for the late Professor Irving Fisher and those perfectly sincere and honourable people who share his views. What I have said relates solely to the terms of reference of the Commission and if the right hon. Member, or those associated with him, have any proposals or suggestions to make on any part of our complex system of national taxation, I am sure he does not need telling that my right hon. Friend is always very glad to hear the views of right hon. or hon. Members.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am slightly reassured by some of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman towards the end of his speech, but may I ask him this? Do I understand him to say that, so far as the Chancellor is concerned, he would regard it as perfectly appropriate for the Commission, within their existing terms of reference, to consider the relationship of taxation to saving and dis-saving and to make recommendations for encouraging saving and discouraging dis-saving?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think I can say that my right hon. Friend would clearly take the view that in doing what the terms of reference tell the Royal Commission to do, questions of saving and dis-saving must inevitably arise on a proper construction of the terms of reference. That does not mean that every proposal which could have such an effect—such, for example, as those we have been discussing —is necessarily within the terms of reference. But my right hon. Friend could
1456
not rule that questions of saving and dis-saving are divorced from questions of taxation on income and profits.
Mr. Gaitskell: Therefore, recommendations on these matters can be made.

SPONSORED TELEVISION
4.9 p.m.
Mr. John Rodgers: It is nearly a year since the Government announced their intention of ending the B.B.C. monopoly and allowing an experiment in commercial television. It is 10 months since they published their White Paper giving their exact proposals. Those proposals were approved by the House but since then the public at large have known practically nothing about what has happened in that field, and very little progress seems to have been made so far. In every debate on this subject the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who I regret is not in his place, has maintained that the demand for commercial television comes only from advertising agencies and big business. That is something with which I wish to deal later.
Let me say at the outset that I am, and have been for many years, a director of an advertising agency whose associated companies are among the biggest producers of commercial radio and sponsored television, not only in the United States of America and other countries, but in each of our Dominions. Lest I should be accused of "private log-rolling," to use the characteristically charitable phrase of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), who I also regret is not present, let me say that for the last six years I have been a member of the B.B.C. General Advisory Council. To a certain extent, therefore, I may claim to have a foot in both camps.
Be that as it may, I ask the House to believe that my advocacy of commercial television has nothing to do with my own commercial interests. I feel as deeply and passionately on the subject of breaking the B.B.C. monopoly as does the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on the other side, and I ask him to believe that. Indeed, my own narrow commercial interests would best be served by leaving things as they are, but I believe that in the public interest the television

1457
service should be extended as quickly as possible. I think that television will soon supplant sound radio for all general purposes, in very much the same way as the talking film supplanted the silent film. I have, therefore, great sympathy with those sections of the British community who, under the present set-up, will not be able to witness the Coronation ceremony.
A White Paper issued some 10 months ago contained, broadly speaking, four points. The first was that the Government recognised that the monopoly of the B.B.C.
"has done much to establish the excellent and reputable broadcasting service for which this country is renowned."
The White Paper stated that the B.B.C. services must remain intact. In all the debates we have had on this subject, it might have been assumed from the speeches of hon. Members opposite that we were proposing to abolish the B.B.C. and supplant it by commercial television. That is not and has never been the intention of the Government. They intend that the B.B.C. shall remain exactly as it is, with its revenue unimpaired, but parallel to it there shall be some competion in the form of sponsored or commercial television.
The second point made in the White Paper was that the Government have come to the conclusion that
"in the expanding field of television provision should be made to permit some element of competition"
when calls on capital equipment make that feasible. Thirdly, the White Paper said that a controlling body would have to be established to safeguard the public against abuses, to lay down the terms on which those independent stations might operate, and generally to oversee the programmes. Fourthly, the Government stated that they would rely on the Television Advisory Committee for all technical matters. For example, the Committee would advise on what wavelengths would be available, how many independent stations could operate, and so on. Were the Government this afternoon to announce new frequencies and how many stations would be licensed, no new sets capable of receiving those programmes could be available in this country before 1954 at the earliest. Therefore, my first point is that it is absolutely vital for industry to have this information now in
1458
order that they may develop new sets, and so that adaptors may be made available next year.
When will this Television Advisory Committee report? Will it be next week, next month or next year? We know that under the Socialist Government the Committee were zealous enough in the discharge of their duties to meet three times in three years. I hope we shall not emulate that record, but that the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to tell us they have met frequently, and are in a position to report.
In introducing the White Paper, the Assistant Postmaster-General gave an assurance that, while the Government wanted to go ahead with these alternative methods of television, the B.B.C. would have priority in building their own five T.V. stations which would give something like 90 per cent. coverage. I think I am interpreting the sense of the debate correctly when I say that did not mean that the Government gave any assurance that the B.B.C. would complete all its stations and all its development plans, including those for the development of very high frequency. I should like to quote from what the hon. Gentleman said on 11th June. He said:
"The Government are in earnest, not only over breaking the B.B.C. monopoly, but also in permitting sponsored television. They have decided that the B.B.C. shall be allowed to have priority over the completion of the programmes that were held up because of the capital cuts. But that does not mean that, when adequate resources of money and materials are available, competitive television must wait until the B.B.C. extension is complete in all respects. It does not mean that the B.B.C. will have to put the last coat of varnish on any building that they may put up before competitive television can be started. In fact, it is the hope of the Government that it will be possible before long that this experiment can actually be started and that the controlling body should be set up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 328.]
My second question to the Assistant Postmaster-General, arising from his own speech, is: when will the B.B.C. have allotted to them the necessary resources? Are we to wait until the five stations are completed? Are we to wait until they are started or merely until the money has been granted? Or are we to wait until the whole of their V.H.F. plans have been developed? The B.B.C. themselves are responsible for a great deal of

1459
the failure to develop television. The amount of capital resources they have expended on the Third Programme, which caters for 1 per cent. of the populace—and in that figure I am generous— could equally well have been devoted to the development of television if the B.B.C. had desired.
Many believe that this capital cost argument is being used to delay progress, and that the B.B.C. is being unnecessarily liberal in its plans and programmes. But even if the capital investment argument were truly valid, which I do not accept, why on earth have the Post Office allowed a 10-month delay in appointing the controlling body they themselves recommended? This is the body which must consider and lay down the conditions under which the licences to operate these independent T.V. stations will be granted. It is the body to consider representations made from any quarter, and must so arrange its plans that they can be debated in this House before they are finally approved. The Post Office have shown excessive dilatoriness in appointing the controlling body.
My third question is whether the Assistant Postmaster-General can give an assurance that the controlling body will be set up forthwith. While the bureaucrats have dawdled, delayed and dallied, private enterprise has been, as I believe it always is, zealous in its duty. Private enterprise has approved a "Code of the Air," a copy of which has been forwarded to the Postmaster-General. According to Labour Party propaganda and the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South, the proposals of the Government are a menace to all our home standards and to the impressionable minds of our children. I do not know whether this is a Parliamentary expression, but I say that is utter poppycock. I have no hesitation in stating that this "Code of the Air," which has been prepared by the Incorporated Institute of Practitioners in Advertising and the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, lays down proposed standards far higher than those which would be accepted by most newspapers or music-halls and considerably higher than the standards which the B.B.C. set themselves.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Why does the B.B.C. not require a controlling body?
Mr. Rodgers: It has a Board of Governors subject to Parliamentary control. The advertising industry has already set itself exceptionally high standards in its work in the Press and on the hoardings —standards which are maintained by voluntary co-operation, and which are unsurpassed anywhere in the world. Yet the Labour Party are extremely distressed —and I accept that they have some fears for which there may be grounds—about ending this monopoly. They have distributed talking points and leaflets with headlines such as "Not Fit for Children." All this suggests that independent television operators would put out programmes that would offend public taste and do damage. I only hope that the sponsors of this very liberal and very high-principled "Code of the Air "will publish it so that we can all read and study it. I think that if hon. Members opposite study the specific regulations regarding broadcasts to children they will find that their arguments are tendentious nonsense.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite really think that advertisers would go out of their way to put on programmes that would deliberately offend public taste, they are not only remarkably credulous but also display crass ignorance. The desire of all those who would operate independent television stations would be to attract an audience and provide first-class entertainment and vital and stimulating programmes. The same sort of people who run our newspapers and work in the B.B.C. today will be the people who will take part in these independent television operations. I do not see why we should assume that when people from the B.B.C.—and I mention the name of Mr. Norman Collins in this connection, because he was good enough to be head of television programmes—work on independent stations they will debase their high standards. Of course, not. It is no use quoting United States experience, because we all know that the United States did not start quite as well as we did, and they have no parallel B.B.C. or public corporation to operate and set a very high standard, which undoubtedly the B.B.C. have done.
My third reason for urging the Assistant Postmaster-General to go ahead with his

1461
plans is that I believe that the public have already shown that they want commercial television in addition to the B.B.C. programmes. Various newspapers have carried out public opinion tests on this question—"The Economist," the "News Chronicle" and the "Daily Mirror," all of varying political persuasions—and each one shows a majority of people in favour of competition with the B.B.C. and alternative programmes to those of the B.B.C.
I ask my friends in the Press who, I know, have tended to back up the arguments of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East to remember that all the arguments used by the Labour Party in defence of the B.B.C. monopoly could equally be used—and, indeed, have been used—in favour of the freedom of the Press. It took centuries of hard struggle to arrive at such freedom of the Press as we now enjoy, and I myself believe that the freedom of the air is vital to the continuance of the freedom of the Press itself. I urge hon. Members to remember that, when the B.B.C. itself started, the Press opposed the B.B.C. putting out news bulletins and refused to print B.B.C. programmes because they thought they would lose circulation. Of course, that has not happened, and the circulations of newspapers have tended to increase, as, indeed, have the sales of radio sets.
In case my friends of the Press think that they would lose advertising revenue from the introduction of commercial television, let me quote some figures of the experience in America. I have here the figures of the national advertising expenditure in newspapers and magazines and on television and radio for four years. In 1942, newspaper revenue from advertising was 152 million dollars, which, incidentally, excludes 2,000 million dollars of local advertising; the magazine advertising revenue was 153 million dollars; there was no television, but competitive radio advertising amounted to 185 million dollars. In 1945, newspaper advertising revenue was 240 million dollars, magazine revenue was 290 million dollars, and radio advertising revenue was also 290 million dollars. In 1949, 445 million dollars was spent on advertising in the Press, 430 million dollars in the magazines, and 395 million dollars in radio. In 1951, the last available year, the newspapers had an all-time high in-
1462
come of 513 million dollars from advertising, the magazines 480 million dollars —also an all-time high income—sponsored television, 128 million dollars and radio 375 million dollars.
I understand—although I am not going to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General for confirmation of this—that all newspapers, with the obvious exception of "The Times," have applied to operate commercial stations should the Government decide to go ahead with their plans, as I hope they will.
I wish to query one thing, and it is a very serious point. I hope the Government will not be backward in coming forward, if I may use that phrase, because of the efforts of the B.B.C. itself. It is obvious to listeners and viewers, of whom I count myself one, that in the last few days the programmes in the B.B.C. have been specially selected to present commercial radio in a very unfavourable light. This has extended to school broadcasts, to "Any Questions"—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I am not quite certain whether the Postmaster-General has any jurisdiction over the programmes of the B.B.C.
Mr. Rodgers: I submit that he is responsible for the general over-all policy of the B.B.C.
The second point about the B.B.C. is that in the last few days there has been an announcement by the B.B.C. Staff Association to the effect that they are meeting to discuss measures to be adopted for opposing commercial radio. This raises an important constitutional issue. If Parliament has decided on giving independent television a chance, by what constitutional right does a State monopoly and its servants set out to oppose and flout the will of Parliament? I would welcome the Assistant Postmaster-General's views on that.
Finally, I will sum up the reasons why the Labour Party oppose the introduction of independent television stations. I believe that all monopolies are dangerous. They like them. I also believe that any monopoly over the things that influence the mind is doubly dangerous. The party opposite do not believe in trusting the people. We believe that the people should be allowed freedom to choose their programmes and the form of entertainment they want. To the gentleman

1463
in Whitehall who knows best they now add the gentleman in Portland Place who apparently know best on this issue. They so misunderstand the economics of advertising that they believe the public will pay more if there are sponsored programmes. That is economic lunacy and nonsense, because the use of effective advertising allows goods to be sold cheaper to the public. Through effective mass selling the public are able to enjoy the fruits of mass production.
The party opposite say that we have no mandate for it. That is nonsense. We believe in freedom and in trusting the people, and we made a point of that at the last Election. I hope the Government will not be deterred from going ahead bravely with their plans. If we are wrong, the public will soon tell us once they have experienced commercial television. But I believe the public will find it a blessing and a boon, and that the alternative programmes can only come from some form of independent commercial television. Despite the gross misrepresentation by the party opposite, the majority of people want these alternative programmes to supplement the very scanty fare now offered by the B.B.C. I hope we shall go ahead with our plans, and that we shall be fortified in doing so by the words of an ex-Director-General of the B.B.C, Sir Frederic Ogilvie, who said:
"The B.B.C. itself, good as it is, would gain vastly by the abolition of monopoly and the introduction of competition. The dangers of monopoly have long been recognised in the film industry, the Press and the theatre and active steps taken to prevent it. In tolerating a monopoly of broadcasting we are alone among the democratic countries of the world."
I believe we have taken the first step in freeing the air. Therefore, I urge the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Government to go ahead without further delay with implementing their proposals for partially freeing the air and providing a better service for the British public.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) began by stating that there had been delay in the Government's plan for introducing commercially sponsored television. There has been no "delay" at all. The Government are
1464
pledged not to bring in commercial television for several years. To clear the matter up I should like to read into the record the pledges given by Government spokesmen.
The Lord Chancellor said, on 26th May, 1952:
"…it cannot but be several years before any licences can be granted…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th May, 1952; Vol. 176, c. 1441.]
On 11th June, the Home Secretary said:
"We intend that the B.B.C. shall be allotted the resources to complete its programme of lower-power television stations and to make reasonable progress with the introduction of high frequency sound broadcasting before any competitor is admitted to a share of the national resources."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June. 1952; Vol. 502, c. 218.]
The Assistant Postmaster-General said, on 30th May, 1952:
"The limited experiment which the Government has now approved is probably as far as most people want to go at this stage. It will be limited to television only and will not be allowed to start until the B.B.C. have finished their own development plans which were held up by the last Government."
Therefore there has been no "delay."
Mr. Richard Fort Mr. Richard Fort (Clitheroe) rose—
Mr. Mayhew: No, I cannot give way.
Mr. Fort: I see that the hon. Member cannot stand controversy. He cannot take it.
Mr. Mayhew: The Assistant Postmaster-General has asked me to limit my remarks to give him an opportunity to reply, and I do not intend to give way.
I suggest that there has been no delay and that the Government are pledged not to introduce sponsored television for several years at least. I think that the Government are wise in their own interest not to hurry too much, and that the Assistant Postmaster-General is beginning to understand the practical difficulties and the weight of opposition which will be aroused if and when he starts this scheme.
We all know of the extraordinary lack of support for these proposals in all responsible sections of opinion in this country. Royal Commission after Royal Commission have reported on this subject and have turned down the views of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. The churches, the trade unions and the Press are against it.
Mr. Anthony Fell: The hon. Member is making a deliberately untrue statement.
Mr. Mayhew: It is true that some of the Press have applied for licences. But how many of them in fact want commercial television and how many have been drawn in simply because they feel they cannot afford to be left behind? Noble Lords in another place, including the most distinguished Conservative peers Lord Halifax, Lord Hailsham and Lord Waverley, are all against it. This House is against it. The large majority of hon. Members are firmly against it. I recall particularly the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) speaking most openly and persuasively against it.
The Church of England Newspaper states the position in this House correctly, as follows:
"Certain vociferous Members want recognition for the principle of sponsoring, and to hold them firm the Government is throwing them this sop. Otherwise there is no doubt that the proposal would be driven out with ignominy. But the Whips were on, and the minority won."
That newspaper is absolutely correct.
What about the Government themselves? It is an open secret that the Cabinet itself is divided on this issue. The Assistant Postmaster-General would be very wise to fulfil his pledges not to introduce commercially sponsored television for many years to come. But possibly the Minister will argue that the business world is on his side. I do not believe it at all. From my observations, the great majority of public-spirited business men in this country are dead opposed to commercial television. Most of them dislike it on principle and they would not touch it, even if it paid them to do so. Many of them, however, realise that television advertisement is far too costly for them.
I saw an estimate, which I think is an under-estimate, made by a champion of commercial television, Mr. Macmillan, in "World's Press News." He is a director of Feature Programmes Limited. His estimate for a half-hour play was £2,200. One and a half minutes of advertising— let us say—£2,200. How many businessmen in the country can afford that kind of cost? Those who do not dislike it on principle, as a majority of public-spirited businessmen do—[HON. MEMBERS:
1466
"Nonsense."]—oppose it because they know it will give a powerful weapon to the big commercial companies against the small businessman.
Who, then, is in favour of this? A handful of the less responsible Conservative Members of Parliament, backed by one of the most powerful vested interests which this country has ever known. Some of the individuals concerned are known, others prefer to remain in the background. It is possible to forgive these businessmen who are pushing it; no doubt, by their lights, they are doing their duty by their shareholders. It is not possible to forgive the Government for not resisting this pressure in the public interest. That is one of the things which disturbs this House considerably.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that the Minister has been extremely uncommunicative in the past few months. He will not tell us the names of those who have applied for licences. he has not told us about his plans and the difficulties into which he is getting. What he has stressed in his answers to Questions, and what the hon. Member stressed, was the "controlling body."
The first thing I want to say about the controlling body is what an ironic thing it is that those who tell us so often that the commercial advertisers will, in their own interests, not offend public taste or will not give the highest class of programme, need a kind of cultural Gestapo to keep those advertisers in order. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks proudly insisted that his was about the most rigorous code, the most restrictive and tyrannous imposition that man could devise—
Mr. Rodgers: Not tyrannous.
Mr. Mayhew: What kind of public-spirited broadcasters are these? The B.B.C. Governors do not need a controlling body to keep them in order. They are chosen because they are men who can be trusted by the public. They are chosen because the public knows that they will give broadcasts in the interests of the listeners and not for any ulterior motive
This emphasis on the "controlling body." moreover, shows that the Minister misunderstands the danger of commercial television. It is not the censorable things, it is not the obscenity, it is not the horror. which are the main dangers of commercial television. If one manages somehow

1467
to establish a rigorous censorship one can prevent obscenity on the screen. The real danger is the effect of the unending banality of commercial programmes day after day, night after night, especially on children—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] —and the irreconcilable conflict between good viewing and good advertising.
Let me give a few instances of this conflict. The hon. Member, in his naive way, said that it was in the interests of the advertiser to give a good programme, which shows that he knows nothing whatever about television—although I do not want to be personal. At every stage the interests of the viewer and the interests of the advertiser conflict—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Take the most obvious one. The viewer wants the advertisement to be as small as possible and as inconspicuous as possible. The sponsor wants them to be as long as possible and as conspicuous as possible. The viewer wants a programme to be a British type—
Mr. Rodgers Mr. Rodgers rose—
Mr. Mayhew: The viewer wants the programmes to be in British taste and in British style; the sponsor does not want a British-type programme. The sponsor wants a television programme which, when it is recorded, will sell well in the United States of America. That is the first important thing the sponsor wants. I can give an instance of this from a quotation which I have. Last year, the chairman of the Beecham group of companies said:
"Sponsored radio programmes recorded here and shipped round the world could have been heard by huge potential overseas markets. As it is, U.S. operators have seized the opportunity to increase their sales at Britain's expense. It is to counteract this that Beecham's have announced their huge new expenditure on sponsored programmes over Radio Luxembourg."
What is the effect of this? It means that from the point of view of the sponsors the test of a programme becomes whether it will suit the American market when it is recorded. That is another instance of the conflict between the interests of the British viewer and the interests of the sponsor.
Mr. Rodgers Mr. Rodgers rose—
Mr. Mayhew: I cannot give way. The hon. Member asked for instances of this
1468
conflict and I am giving them. I have a list of six. I have not time to give them all, but I shall give as many as I can. The viewer wants good plays; the sponsor wants plays tailored so that the curtain falls every 15 minutes. I quote from the "Advertisers' Weekly." One of their main contributors—a producer of sponsored broadcasts—wrote on this subject as follows:
"Writers of half hour dramas are careful to have a curtain line somewhere round the fifteen minute mark "
There is a tremendous difference between the interests of the sponsor and those of the viewer. Above all. the viewer wants a programme which is tailored to his own tastes and interests, and the sponsor wants one which is tailored to no particular taste and no particular interest, so that, even if nobody keenly enjoys it, nobody feels inclined to switch it off. All along there is this clash between good television and good advertising. I could quote many other instances. Television is bound to be debased when the underlying motive of the programme is not to give pleasure but to sell toothpaste.
To the sponsors the programmes are not ends in themselves but means to an end. This is the lie in the heart of all commercialised programmes. Whether these are high-brow or low-brow, the dividend purpose which motivates them corrupts them in the end.
I would ask the Minister first to state that this Government, who are divided on this issue, and who have no mandate from the electors, and no support from any responsible section of the community, will drop this sordid project once and for a!!. If he will not do that, let him at least reaffirm the pledges which he has given not to introduce it for several years to come.
4.42 p.m.
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) should feel rather flattered by the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who quite sincerely believes that my hon. Friend and one or two others have managed to persuade a very reluctant Government to adopt this policy. I suppose that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East is suggesting

1469
that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues are so weak-minded that they are prepared to give way to the pressure of a small group of people behind them. If the hon. Member believes that he will believe anything.
I find it increasingly difficult to understand the attitude of the Labour Party towards sponsored television. I gather that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East would like to make this an election cry, and go barn-storming up and down the country. I hope he does so, and the sooner he starts the better. Nothing could be of greater advantage to the Conservative Party. For one thing, it will be plain to the general public that it is the Socialists who propose to prevent their enjoying a variety of programes.
There is no reason why the new television sets should not have a device whereby they can be switched from one programme to another. Number one programme could be that of the B.B.C. and Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 could be sponsored television broadcasts. Are the Labour Party prepared, at the next election, to say, "If we get back to power we propose to put a label on stations 2, 3, 4 and 5 so that you shall not hear them, because the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) thinks it improper that you should do so"? If the Labour Party regard that as a good election cry, by all means let them start barn-storming up and down the country. I should be very pleased if they would do so.
Another result of the hon. Member's idea would be to deny to artistes and technicians greater chances of employment. Unemployment exists today among musicians, and I cannot see that any great electoral advantage would be gained by telling these people that they should have no chance of further employment. Perhaps I am an amateur at electioneering; perhaps the hon. Member can see some advantage in saying that, which I cannot see.
Next, the hon. Member sets out as the high priest of monopoly. There are many people in this country, neither Socialist nor Conservative, who hold very strong views on monopolies, and I think they would take a rather poor view if the hon. Member said, "We will decide what you should look at. We do not think you are to be trusted to show your children
1470
what they ought to see." If the hon. Member wants to go up and down the country making speeches, by all means let him do so, and as far as we are concerned, the sooner he starts the better.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks feels that more progress might have been made. Let me re-assure him straight away—and re-assure the hon. Member for Woolwich, East—that the Government are very much in earnest about sponsored television and that they hope to see it in operation at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope I shall persuade by hon. Friend that real progress has been made in the comparatively short time of 10 months.
There are, however, three distinct factors which have to be kept in view. The first is technical—that of providing radio manufacturers with information about the frequency bands. They require that information before they can make the new sets and the adaptors for the old sets. The task of advising the Government on this matter is entrusted to the Television Advisory Committee which has been sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Daniel. The Committee and its technical sub-committee have worked with very great vigour and I have great expectations that their first report will be submitted to my noble Friend either this month or at the beginning of May.
This first report will advise on what frequency bands will be available for the sponsored television stations, and I see no reason why manufacturers should not, at a very early date, have available the necessary information to enable them to undertake the development and design of sets to pick up the new stations. In other words, as I said, I imagine that before very long new television sets will have some sort of device whereby they will be able to pick up not only the present B.B.C. stations, but the sponsored stations as well. The present intention of my noble Friend is that the report of the Television Advisory Committee should be published, and in any case the information contained in it will be made available to the radio industry without delay.
The second factor which must be taken into account—and here I think I answer the second point raised by my hon. Friend —concerns the setting up of the controlling body. The need for such a body was set out in paragraph 9 of Command

1471
Paper 8550, and I need not go over that again; but I must impress upon the House the vast amount of thought and consideration which must be given to the nature of that body and the functions it will be called upon to perform.
In this country, with commercial television we are entering a completely new field. Let me give some idea of the questions which have to be decided. For example, should any action be taken to prevent monopolies or even partial-monopolies being set up? Ought there to be any regulation concerning the number of stations which can be started in any particular area? Should foreign capital be allowed and, if so, on what conditions and with what limitations? For what number of years should a commercial station be licensed? Is it desirable to control the number of hours during which television of any sort should be allowed during the course of a day?
As to the controlling body itself, how should it be composed and what are to be its powers? What is to be the Ministerial responsibility for the decisions of the controlling body? Finally, how are we to create a healthy code of the air? I am very glad that my hon. Friend mentioned what he called the code of the air which the advertisers of this country have in mind. I sincerely hope that it will be published, and that a copy will be sent to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, East. I believe that, if he reads that, many of his misgivings will be allayed. I hope they will be, that is, if he wants them to be. Incidentally, I should be glad to have any suggestions from any part of the House or any quarter outside the House.
The critics have concentrated, like the hon. Gentleman, almost entirely on the possible abuses of commercial television. That is an argument that has never impressed me. In dealing with the British people we are not dealing with a lot of children. We are dealing with an adult race that can very well look after itself. I am quite convinced that any organisation that set out to debase standards would very soon find itself put out of business by public opinion.
I have given that long list of questions to indicate that a lot of thought has to go to the setting up of the controlling body. I am glad to be able to tell the House that a lot of work has already
1472
been done. There has been a working party in the Post Office for some time past, and we have examined all the experience of the United States and the Commonwealth countries that have had sponsored radio or sponsored television in operation for some time.
I would remind the House—and, perhaps, this will satisfy the hon. Member for Woolwich, East on one point—that we are under an obligation to give the House the opportunity of considering the nature of the controlling body and the licence of the first commercial station before it begins to run. I hope I shall reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks when I say, without the slightest hesitation, that by the time that commercial television is in a position to start operations the controlling body will have been constituted. To put it another way, whatever delays there may be in starting the first commercial station they will not be because of the lack of a controlling body.
There is the matter of national economics. I would remind the House that in the original White Paper there was this proviso in relation to commercial television:
"…when the calls on capital resources at present needed for purposes of greater national importance make this feasible."
That must be an overriding consideration, not merely in television but in every phase of our public life—whether we are thinking of new roads or more telephones or the rebuilding of our railway stations. That, of course, is a factor which is not solely within the control of the Postmaster-General.
The late Government took the unpopular step of holding up the building of the five low-power stations for the B.B.C. programme. They did this, quite rightly, because they had to sacrifice non-essentials at a time of rearmament. The Government have been able to relax the ban in two areas, on the North-East Coast and in Northern Ireland. However, as the House is aware, hon. Members from the other three areas and other parts of the country press me every Wednesday about television for their areas, and I have had to say that, while the Government would have liked to have provided it, they have not been able to do so.
I would put this economic argument in all its aspects. Some people may well

1473
have criticised us for the fact that at a time when we were fighting for our very national economic existence we allotted any capital resources at all to television. As we go round the country and see these rather ugly aerials on the chimneypots it is not easy to persuade people from abroad that our economic position is as difficult as we all know it to be. However, the decision to restart and extend television was taken, and I for my part am not going to quarrel with it. Today, over 80 per cent. of the country is within television range, or soon will be—a higher percentage, incidentally, than that in any other country in the world.
I am not going to criticise the attitude and the decision that the late Government took. They presumably felt that they wanted to provide people with incentives to increase production. They also probably felt that this country could not afford to be left behind in the technical advance in electronics, of which television is one example. It is an industry with great potentialities for export and an industry which, from a defence point of view, is absolutely vital.
I give these arguments because, judging by the many Questions which hon. Members have raised in the House, I do not believe that all the complexities of the economic aspect of television are realised. However, let me reiterate that in the finality it is the economic argument which must take precedence over all the others—the extent to which the Government feel they are justified in allowing national resources to be devoted not merely to the completion of the B.B.C. programme, but also to the new television stations and the sale of the sets and the adaptors which will be needed.
I have dealt with this matter at some length, because I hoped to persuade my hon. Friend of three things. The first is that, on the technical side, the information which our radio industry needs will soon be provided. Secondly, so far as the controlling body is concerned, a vast amount of work has already been done and the introduction of commercial television will not be held up because of the lack of any controlling body to supervise it. Thirdly—and most important— in the finality, whether it be the extension of the B.B.C. or the commercial stations,
1474
this must depend, as everything else must depend today, on the economic resources which this or any other Government can afford to devote to it.
I hope that my hon. Friend has no doubts whatsoever about the Government's belief in this policy and their determination to introduce it at the earliest possible moment. They stand by the White Paper in all its aspects. The reasons why the Government have taken this attitude have been explained to the House on several occasions and all I need to do is to summarise them once more. The Government are convinced that it is only by introducing an element of competition that the public will get the best advantage from television; and, after all, we should remember that it is the interests of the public and not a doctrinaire theory which should guide our policy in this matter.
We are convinced that there will be greater opportunities for both artistes and technicians if there are alternative employers to whom they can offer their services. I believe that from the B.B.C. point of view itself competition will prove to be a good thing. In the last few weeks hon. Members opposite have put questions to me suggesting that artistes and technicians might offer their services to other employers and that the B.B.C. might lose them. If this should happen, and well it may, the B.B.C. are certainly not grumbling about it. They appear to me to be taking a most sensible and robust attitude, in fact, the very attitude which I should expect them to adopt, and that is that, in all walks of life, the public is best served if there is an element of competition and some incentive to greater endeavour.
I hope I have answered the points raised by my hon. Friend. I hope, too, that I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East. I know I have not satisfied him; I do not think I ever shall. I do not know that I even want to try. However, he is, after all, a great artiste on television and perhaps he may find that not only is there scope for him on the B.B.C. but we may also have the pleasure of seeing him performing with his great skill and adroitness on commercial stations at a very early date.
4.59 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: The whole House will regard the statement by the Assistant Postmaster-General as most unsatisfactory. It is a complete betrayal of the interests of the nation. He has sacrificed the true interests and welfare of the country to a few commercial concerns who are interested in commercial broadcasting: indeed, he has gone back on the promises made in the White Paper.
1476
The Government are pledged not to introduce commercial television for a great many years. They are pledged not to appoint this controlling body until Parliament has had an opportunity of approving the terms and conditions on which the first licence is to be granted—
It being Five o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put till Tuesday, 14th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  N.E. Scotland (Development)
  N.E. Scotland (Development)
  French Hornbeam (Import Licences)
  French Hornbeam (Import Licences)
  Umbrellas
  Umbrellas
  Price Regulation Committees
  Price Regulation Committees
  Imports from Commonwealth
  Imports from Commonwealth
  Pitwood
  Pitwood
  Cast-iron Enamelled Baths
  Cast-iron Enamelled Baths
  U.S.A. ECONOMIC AID (COUNTERPART FUNDS)
  U.S.A. ECONOMIC AID (COUNTERPART FUNDS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pensions (Increase) Act
  Pensions (Increase) Act
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  American Comics (Dollars)
  American Comics (Dollars)
  Canada (U.K. Investments)
  Canada (U.K. Investments)
  Companies (Taxation)
  Companies (Taxation)
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  Charities (Covenants)
  Charities (Covenants)
  Civil Service Pensions
  Civil Service Pensions
  HIGH SHERIFFS (APPOINTMENT)
  HIGH SHERIFFS (APPOINTMENT)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SICK PAY SCHEME)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SICK PAY SCHEME)
AGRICULTURE
  Allotments, Wanstead Flats
  Allotments, Wanstead Flats
  Grey Squirrels (Destruction)
  Grey Squirrels (Destruction)
  Sea Defences
  Sea Defences
  Ditch Clearance (Grant)
  Ditch Clearance (Grant)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Shop Exhibition, Salford
  Shop Exhibition, Salford
  Flood Victims (Clothing)
  Flood Victims (Clothing)
  Civil Defence Exercise, Dalston
  Civil Defence Exercise, Dalston
  Hackney Carriage Law (Inquiry)
  Hackney Carriage Law (Inquiry)
  Sea Defences (Departmental Committee)
  Sea Defences (Departmental Committee)
  Care of Children (Training Courses)
  Care of Children (Training Courses)
  School Crossing Patrols
  School Crossing Patrols
  Magistrates' Courts (Cases)
  Magistrates' Courts (Cases)
EMPLOYMENT
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Staffordshire and Cheshire
  Staffordshire and Cheshire
  Wage Rates
  Wage Rates
  Dispute, Austin Motor Company (Inquiry)
  Dispute, Austin Motor Company (Inquiry)
  Agricultural Workers (Call-up)
  Agricultural Workers (Call-up)
  ORAL HYGIENISTS (TRAINING SCHOOL)
  ORAL HYGIENISTS (TRAINING SCHOOL)
  HOSPITALS (SALARY AWARDS)
  HOSPITALS (SALARY AWARDS)
  SMALLPOX OUTBREAK, TODMORDEN
  SMALLPOX OUTBREAK, TODMORDEN
  DRUGS, DRESSINGS AND APPLIANCES (PRIVATE PATIENTS)
  DRUGS, DRESSINGS AND APPLIANCES (PRIVATE PATIENTS)
EDUCATION
  School Inspectors
  School Inspectors
  Independent Public Schools (Fleming Report)
  Independent Public Schools (Fleming Report)
  Building Work
  Building Work
  HOUSING. ROMFORD
  HOUSING. ROMFORD
  SINGAPORE (TRADE UNION DISPUTE)
  SINGAPORE (TRADE UNION DISPUTE)
GOLD COAST
  Agricultural Loans Board
  Agricultural Loans Board
  Cocoa Marketing Board
  Cocoa Marketing Board
  TANGANYIKA (MOSHI COFFEE BOARD)
  TANGANYIKA (MOSHI COFFEE BOARD)
  BRITISH ARMY (LOCAL OVERSEAS ALLOWANCE)
  BRITISH ARMY (LOCAL OVERSEAS ALLOWANCE)
  KOREA (ARMISTICE NEGOTIATIONS)
  KOREA (ARMISTICE NEGOTIATIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS (SECRETARY-GENERAL)
  UNITED NATIONS (SECRETARY-GENERAL)
  ROYAL SCOTS FUSILIERS (SOVIET ZONE)
  ROYAL SCOTS FUSILIERS (SOVIET ZONE)
  CAIRO (MR. ARTHUR KELLAS)
  CAIRO (MR. ARTHUR KELLAS)
  R.A.F. STATION, OUSTON
  R.A.F. STATION, OUSTON
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Milk Consumption
  Milk Consumption
  Vegetables (Pressure Cooking)
  Vegetables (Pressure Cooking)
COAL
  Output
  Output
  North Staffordshire (Opencast Mining)
  North Staffordshire (Opencast Mining)
  NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITIES OF SCOTLAND
  NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITIES OF SCOTLAND
ROADS
  Horse Box Trailers (Speed Limit)
  Horse Box Trailers (Speed Limit)
  Pilley Bridge, Cheltenham (Reconstruction)
  Pilley Bridge, Cheltenham (Reconstruction)
  CORONATION STANDS (TICKETS)
  CORONATION STANDS (TICKETS)
  HELICOPTER STATION LONDON
  HELICOPTER STATION LONDON
Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
11.8 a.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Noel-Buxton, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Papers relating to Federation in Central Africa.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think your Lordships would wish to know that I have had a telegram from the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, to say that he is very sorry he will not be here to-day, owing to the sickness of his wife.
I believe that, so far, every speaker in this debate has tried to express his own considered opinion on this issue, whether it agrees or disagrees with the policy of the Party to which he belongs. This has been a matter of conscience for us all, on both sides of the House; and we have weighed our views with care, and with a real sense of responsibility for what we are saying. Like many other noble Lords, I have endeavoured to assess this federal scheme from the standpoint of Colonial policy and from the point of view of its impact on all the races in these three Territories who have made their homes there. This I have done ever since this matter was first discussed in Parliament. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that in the debate that took place here last July I suggested the withdrawal of the proposals contained in the White Paper published after the first London Conference. My reason for that was that at the time I felt that the scheme would be unworkable on account of African opposition.
574
Since then, two important changes in political opinion have taken place. My own Party, perhaps, fortunately, less rash than I was in committing themselves in this issue, and of course representing a very large section of public opinion in this country, have decided to oppose immediate federation. At the same time African opinion in all three Territories has hardened against it. There has been an increase in the number and intensity of the opposition among Africans in Africa to federation. I do not think anyone would claim that all Africans either oppose or even understand the federal scheme. But, on the evidence I have seen, I think it is fair to say that most of the chiefs in the two Northern Territories, as well as other articulate Africans, are now definitely opposed to it.
Before I make a few comments, and ask the Government some questions, about specific provisions in the scheme, I should like to state my position, quite broadly, about this issue of immediate federation in Central Africa. I believe that anyone who has followed the history of the Commonwealth realises that the direction of progress is towards closer association between Territories which are too weak and small for self-government if they stand alone. I think that that view is shared on both sides of the House. Most of our sister nations in the Commonwealth have achieved self-governing status through federation. At the present time, the West Indies are on the same road. These three Central African Territories, of which none is capable of becoming a self-contained sovereign State, should also clearly aim at federation as their ultimate objective. But the view we on this side of the House hold is that union should come about by consent, and not by coercion, even if that means delay. We do not want to see federation dropped or forgotten, but we should like it postponed until it is more generally acceptable to the African population in those Territories.
There is a certain contradiction, I feel, in Government policy. Can the Government explain why federation in Central Africa should be imposed, while federation in the West Indies will depend on consent? In the West Indies, I am glad to observe, the present Government are continuing the policy carried out by

575
every Government since the war. The establishment of a federal system there will be conditional on the willingness of the majority of the inhabitants of each Territory to enter it. Unlike Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, any Territory which does not like it can stand out and refuse to join. The Government are not forcing British Honduras or British Guiana into a West Indian Federation. Why should Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland be treated differently? Government servants in the West Indies, from Governors to district officers, have been told to explain federation, but have been forbidden to take sides on a matter that is one for local decision.
In the two Northern Territories the Colonial Service has already lost the good will of the African population, because it has had to champion federation. I feel that this is extremely unfortunate, because it is the first duty of a district officer in the Colonial Service to win the confidence and trust, and if possible the affection and respect, of the people among whom he works. If he is unable to do that, then his power for good is very much reduced. I believe that one of the results of forcing this political change upon Africans has been to lessen the efficiency of the Colonial Service in the field to help forward people for whom it is responsible. I cannot help wondering why, in Central Africa, it appears that European opinion only is taken into account, while in the West Indies, which is also an area inhabited by several races, the views of every race have been carefully weighed.
I feel that your Lordships will agree that the view we hold, that the success of federation will depend, in the long run, on the willingness of the African population to work it, is not a view invented by political opponents of the present federal scheme. Your Lordships will not have forgotten that African opposition to the amalgamation of these Territories in 1939—which was one of the problems the Bledisloe Commission were asked to examine—was one of the main reasons why the Bledisloe Commission reported against that proposal. The Africans are just as afraid of federation to-day as they were of amalgamation before the war; and their hostility arises, as it did at that
576
time, from a similar fear of what will happen if they lose the protection of the British Crown and are placed under the control of the European settlers.
I should like to read to your Lordships a short passage from the Bledisloe Report, which might have been written yesterday, if the word "federation" were substituted for the word "amalgamation" in its context. The Report says:
"If so large a proportion of the population of the combined Territory were brought unwillingly under a unified Government, it would prejudice the approval of co-operation in ordered development under such a Government. We do not mean to suggest that amalgamation must necessarily be postponed until such time as a positive demand for it arises amongst the natives of all the Territories, but we are agreed in doubting the practical wisdom of such a step, until, through longer acquaintance with the issues involved, the fears and suspicions at present prevalent amongst the natives have been substantially removed, and they are themselves in a better position to form a considered judgment on those issues."
We are asking the Government to follow the advice given in the Report of the Bledisloe Commission in 1939. This view was endorsed by the officials of the three Territories which reported to the Government as long ago as June, 1951. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote a sentence from the officials' Report. They say:
"We have constantly borne in mind that whatever is proposed must be designed not only to promote the well-being of the Territories and their inhabitants, but must also be acceptable to the inhabitants"—
those are the words I should like to underline—
"and to the governments and legislatures concerned."
It has been said that the fear and suspicion of the Africans is largely due to prejudice and misrepresentation; and no doubt that is often the case. But surely that is all the more reason for allowing the advantages of federation to percolate gradually into the African mind. What we must remember is that it is not the reasons for opposition, which may be good or bad, that matter; it is the fact of opposition—not, may I add, that grounds for reasonable doubt about the scheme are lacking. I cannot believe that any impartial observer of the federal scheme would say that, on the face of it, it shows a desire for equal partnership between the races and Territories of

577
Central Africa. It places an enormous preponderance of power in the hands of one race of one Territory. I do not know of any federal constitution in the world which subordinates the federal units to one another in the way the two Northern Territories are subordinated to Southern Rhodesia in the present scheme.
It may be argued that this subordination is due to the political backwardness of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. But I remember dealing with a similar problem when Burma became a self-governing country in 1948. It was our responsibility at that time to safeguard the minorities in the new Federal Constitution of Burma. We had to make sure that the Hill States of Upper Burma received a fair share of political power through their representation in their Legislature. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, who no doubt has an equally vivid recollection of the Burma Office, will correct me if my recollection is not accurate. He will agree, I know, that these Hill States were far more backward even than Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and that they had been directly administered by the Governor of Burma ever since Burma ceased to be a Province of India—they did not come under the Burmese Parliament But the Burmese, acting with greater wisdom than we are acting or proposing to act at the moment, realizing that their Federation would not work without the co-operation of their minorities, gave a majority of the seats in the Upper Chamber of their Parliament to these hill peoples. This Burmese Constitution is one of the many cases in which federal constitutions have used a Second Chamber to strike a fair balance between the federation units.
A more topical example, and one that is within the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, is the proposed Federal Constitution for the West Indies. In order to prevent the Federal Parliament there from being dominated by Jamaica and Trinidad, which have a much larger population than the other Territories, it is proposed that there should be a Senate in which each Territory, regardless of its population, will have equal representation. Of course, there is no Second Chamber in the present scheme for Central Africa, in the scheme which we are considering this morning. It is true that the power of the Federal
578
Assembly to amend the Constitution includes a power to set up a Second Chamber. But any amendment of the Constitution will require a two-thirds majority in the Assembly, and the elected members for Southern Rhodesia will therefore always be in a position to prevent the Constitution from being altered in favour of the two Northern Territories. It is most unfortunate and most regrettable that Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will not have much more say, as they would have had in a properly balanced Legislature, in the initiation or rejection of legislation which will affect equally the inhabitants of all three Territories.
It has already been pointed out how little the composition of the Federal Assembly will represent a fair balance between the races. As representation in the new Federal Assembly is going to he based on race rather than population, it is fair to ask why one of the three races in Central Africa, the Asians, is not represented at all. There is representation for Europeans, there is representation for Africans, but no representation has been proposed for the Asian minority in these three Territories. Now there are over 12,000 Asians in these Territories, and their numbers arc rapidly increasing. Most of these people are Indians and Pakistanis, and are in the main people who have made their homes there and work there, like the Africans and the Europeans. They are shopkeepers and salesmen, and much of the retail and wholesale business in towns and villages is in their hands.
Those of your Lordships who know India will agree with me that Indians are keenly aware of political issues and quite competent to express a judgment about them. I should like to point out—because it has not been mentioned so far in either House during the debates that have taken place—that this Asian minority has already expressed a view. I should like to know whether this view has been considered by Her Majesty's Government. At a conference in Nyasaland last July, the Asians of the three Territories claimed representation on both the Territorial and Federal Legislatures. They expressed agreement about federation as being desirable in itself, although they wanted it to be with consent and with equal rights for all races. I wonder

579
whether this claim has been considered by Her Majesty's Government. I gave notice that I would ask this question, and I hope the noble Marquess may be in a position to reply when he winds up the debate. I believe that there is a strong case for the allocation of at least one seat in the Federal Assembly to the Asian minority. They can claim this both on account of their numbers and their political capacity. After all, the 4,000 Europeans in Nyasaland will have four elected seats. I think on the present franchise in Nyasaland one can certainly say that at the first election, at any rate, the four elected seats in Nyasaland will go to Europeans. To give another illustration of the practice in another Dependency, so far as representation of a minority is concerned, in Kenya the Arab population of about 24,000—about double the Asian population of Nyasaland—have two seats on the Legislative Council.
I should like to make one comment on the provisions for African representation in the Federal Assembly. The main drawback there, of course, is the rigidity of the Constitution, because this will enable the permanent European majority in the Federal Assembly, if they wish to do so, to prevent any increase in African representation at the centre to correspond with the increasing political experience and competence of the African population. Another unfortunate consequence of this position is that the freezing of the disparity between the races in the Federal Assembly, owing to the difficulty of amending the Constitution so as to give Africans more seats, is bound to cause increasing friction between the Central and Territorial Legislatures. In Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland our traditional policy for the political advancement of Africans will add more and more African members to the Legislative Councils, and later on to the executive councils of those Territories. African advancement will remain the responsibility of the Territorial Legislatures. But as the power of the Africans in the two Northern Territories grows, so also will the danger of a serious collision with the centre. Indeed, unless the present African hostility to federation lessens, it is hard to see how a conflict which would threaten the very existence of the federal state can be avoided.
580
Several speakers yesterday expressed their doubt about the safeguarding of African interests by means of the African Affairs Board. I cannot believe, on the experience we have had in time past, that constitutional safeguards are ever an adequate substitute for representation in Parliament. May I for one moment look at these safeguards? Surely they can work only if there is a genuine intention to work them both here and in Central Africa. That is an assumption which must be made. I am sure that the Government here, whatever Party may be in power, will do their best to work these safeguards in the Federal Constitution. But can we be certain that the European leaders in Central Africa have the same intention? I am sure that your Lordships have read certain disparaging remarks made by Sir Godfrey Huggins and Mr. Welensky about these safeguards. At least that must throw some degree of doubt on the intentions of the leaders of the people who will in fact control the Federal Assembly. We cannot be sure that they will operate this machinery in the same spirit as it will be operated here.
May I ask the Government this question? The noble Viscount said yesterday that we are in a relationship of trusteeship to the three Territories, and this federal scheme is the discharge of the obligations of a trustee. But would an ordinary trustee transfer any of his responsibilities for the protection of a ward to another person if he had the slightest doubt about that person's intentions? I believe, on all the evidence, that we are bound to feel an element of doubt about the intentions in the minds of responsible European leaders in Central Africa. And let us remember this: that in the last resort there is no way at all in which we can enforce any of the provisions of the Constitution of this Federal Government if the Federal Government itself chooses to disregard them. Provisions in a Constitution of this kind are not enforceable in the courts in the way that provisions of domestic law would be enforceable, so that we have to rely on good will and honest intentions.
The second difficulty I see about these safeguards is that the veto of the British Government on federal legislation is obviously inconsistent with self-government status. That was a point made by

581
my noble friend, Lord Noel-Buxton, fairly and justly, I think, in the speech with which he introduced this debate. The preamble to the Federal Scheme states quite rightly that "the attainment of full membership of the Commonwealth is the aim of the Federation." Of course this aim is utterly incompatible with any vestige of control from Whitehall. There will, therefore, be increasing pressure on Her Majesty's Government here to discontinue the authority it exercises through the African Affairs Board. The time may not be far distant when this Board will be regarded as the symbol of interference from Whitehall and the most conspicuous obstacle to self-government. It is hard to see how such a conflict can be resolved without sacrificing our sole means of protecting the interests of the African population.
Another important statement in the preamble is that we shall preserve the Protectorate status of the two Northern Territories "so long as their respective peoples so desire"; and so long as this status continues there can be no self-government. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whose views are to be regarded by the Government here as representing the wishes of the responsible peoples in Central Africa. Will the African representative bodies be consulted? Will their decision be regarded as binding if we ask them whether they want what remains of the protecting powers of the British Crown to be removed? Or will this matter be referred to the Legislative Councils? The Legislative Councils at present in two Northern Territories represent a minority of the population and I cannot believe that this would be a fair or satisfactory way of deciding the question. I hope, at any rate,—though I know Her Majesty's Government cannot go into details now—that we may have some assurance that when the views of the peoples concerned in the two Northern Territories about the continuation of their Protectorate status are sought, they will be consulted through bodies which genuinely represent the African population.
There can be no doubt that there is serious fear and anxiety amongst Africans in these two Northern Territories at the present time. They are alarmed both because of the uncertainty of the safeguards and because of the heavy weight-
582
age of the Federal Constitution in favour of one race and one Territory. These are reasonable causes for doubt and anxiety, however much unreasonable prejudice there may also be. The Africans are seriously worried about the transfer of vital powers from their Governments—which, of course, would still be subject to control from Whitehall—to a Federal Government so constituted. It has been said by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place that matters affecting the daily lives of the Africans will continue to be a responsibility of the Territorial Governments. But surely it would have been more accurate to say that some important matters affecting Africans will remain a Territorial responsibility while other matters, no less important, will become a Federal responsibility. There are, for instance, defence, taxation, citizenship, immigration into the Territories and higher education. I think these examples were given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester in his speech, and of course the whole range or transport and communication services are also examples from the Federal list of powers alone.
The future of higher education for Africans which will be a Federal power was not, I think, discussed during yesterday's debate or in another place, and I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what facilities they anticipate will be provided by the Federal Government. I cannot imagine that they would give up their present responsibilities in this regard in the two Northern Territories without a firm assurance that educational prospects of Africans will not be affected by the change. It is common knowledge that Africans will not be able to reach the top level in the public services of Central Africa, or get into or make headway in the professions, without university qualifications or qualifications of a university standard.
This is a very serious problem indeed. We know that the pattern of higher education in the Union of South Africa and in the Southern States of America is to provide separate universities for the two races. That is a reflection of racial separation, and the very reverse of partnership. I sincerely hope that that will not be the pattern of higher education in Central Africa. I think that everyone will agree that separate universities or

583
separate university colleges are, academically and socially, most undesirable. I should like to ask the Government whether they anticipate that the new university college, about which the Commission will be reporting before long, is to be open to all races. And how about the university which is under contemplation in Salisbury? Will it be for white people alone or will it be open to members of other races? If it should happen that separate universities are set up, then there is good reason to fear that the African university will be inferior in teaching qualities and amenities to the white university. I cannot help wondering whether a situation of this kind could not have been completely avoided—I am not saying it has arisen—if the two Northern Territories had been given an opportunity to set up a university catering for all races in Northern Rhodesia which would be just as accessible to the peoples of all races in those Territories as the University College of the West Indies in Jamaica is to peoples of all races in the West Indies.
Now, the transfer of this power over higher education is one example of the abandonment of a first principle of British Colonial policy. This principle, which seems to have been followed, not without exception but as a general rule, by Conservative, Labour and Liberal Governments for 250 years, has been to refrain from handing over powers of self-government to one of our racially mixed Dependencies until such time as they can be shared by all major races. If we had given self-government to the British settlers in the West Indies during the 18th and 19th centuries, the very real racial partnership which now exists there, and which many of your Lordships must have experienced, would not have had the opportunity to grow. Racial spirit is something which grows. If we accept this principle as a right principle, all advance towards self-government in racially mixed territories should be much slower than in countries like West Africa, or the old Commonwealth countries in the past, where the majority of the inhabitants belong to a single race. In what are now known as "plural societies" the impartial authority of the British Government, which stands equally for the rights of all races, is indispensable for the growth
584
of racial co-operation and understanding. There are, of course, other British Dependencies in Africa and Asia where several races have made their homes, and one of the things about this federal proposal which worries me is this: I very much fear that the precedent we are setting up in Central Africa will encourage those mistaken persons who want to force the pace of self-government elsewhere.
I gave the noble Viscount opposite notice that I would ask for information about the method of choosing the representatives of African interests in the Federal Assembly. I made this request—although it may sound a matter of detail for a debate of this kind—for two reasons, reasons which are linked with very important issues of policy. In the first place, I think that Parliament should have the information which it needs in order to be satisfied that the views of the African population will be properly represented in the Federal Assembly. As your Lordships are aware, under the federal scheme there will be nine persons who will represent African interests. In the second place, I think it is no less important that Africans should realise that it will be possible to send their own spokesman to the Federal Assembly and that none of these nine seats will be filled by docile African supporters of the Government. I think that is very important, because there is a serious danger that the Africans will boycott the Assembly by refusing to nominate candidates for the African seats. I think that would be a very unwise thing for them to do, but it has been done before, and it had very serious consequences. Your Lordships will remember that the members of the Moslem League who were elected to the All-India Constitutional Assembly refused to take their seats, and that led to the Partition of India. It is a very serious matter indeed if any large section of a population refuses to participate in the work of the Parliament which has been set up to represent its views and its interests. That is why I should like it to be absolutely clear to the Africans that they are to be given a fair deal.
My first question is this: How will the two African specially elected members for Southern Rhodesia be elected? All that we are told in the federal scheme is that they will be elected by regulations made

585
by the Governor of Southern Rhodesia. But who will vote for them? Will they be voted for by Africans or Europeans on the Common Roll, or by a mixture of both? I think we ought to know that. It is vital. I do not say that the information can be given now, because the African Governments will have to be consulted; but I think that before the amending Bill is introduced and the scheme becomes law, if the Government intend to proceed with it, the information should be publicly available.
My second question is: How will the specially elected European representatives of African interests in Southern Rhodesia be elected? Again, all we know is that the Governor will make regulations. Will they be elected by voters on the Common Roll, or will there be some other procedure, so that Africans also may have some voice in the choice of their European representatives? My third question is this: In Northern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland, the two European representatives of African interests will be appointed by the Governors? Will the Governors be acting in their discretion, or will they be acting on the advice of their Executive Councils? I think that is a very important question, and one which certainly carries a great deal of weight in the minds of Africans. In paragraph 28 of the federal scheme, we are told that the European representatives of African interests in the two Northern Territories will be appointed by the Governor. I think that it is important that we should know in what capacity the Governor will act, because while the Africans would, I think, almost always trust the Governor, they might not trust some of the European members of his Executive Council. The Government have said that a postponement of federation, which is what we are asking for, will encourage the extremists—that is to say, people who believe in racial domination on both sides. That may be so, but I am convinced that imposition will do much more than delay to strengthen those on both sides who believe in racism, in a narrow nationalism, or even in force. More Africans will follow the leaders who talk about "Africa for the Africans" arid will use the present disregard of their opinions to show that Africans will never get what they want by constitutional methods. I am afraid that that is bound to happen.
586
African extremism, in its turn, will make the Europeans more than ever afraid of African domination and, therefore, more reluctant to concede political and social claims made by the Africans. The racial embitterment that federation will set up, the loss of confidence in British administration, as the right reverend Prelate put it, seems to me to outweigh the local economic advantages which have been used as the main argument in favour of the imposition of the federal scheme. I am certain that most of the advantages of closer economic association could have been secured, and can still be secured, without any change in the political relationship between the three Territories. In this way also, the economic disadvantages of racial conflict which this political change will undoubtedly bring about could have been avoided. So I hope that the Government will pause and reflect.
On my reading of Commonwealth history, no self-governing or quasi-self-governing country in the Commonwealth has ever been established by the British Government under more dubious auspices than will be this new State in Central Africa, with opinion divided both at home and in the Territories concerned. I know of no precedent for such a deep cleavage and division of opinion among the people who will receive a quasi-self-governing status and those who are giving it. But if the Government, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said yesterday, are determined to proceed with federation, in spite of the fact that neither Britain nor Central Africa is behind it, I believe that they should do everything possible to mitigate the adverse effect of this decision upon race relations. Many Africans are genuinely afraid that federation will lead to another racial State on the pattern of the South African Union. Nothing would do more to allay this fear of racial domination than a definition of partnership in terms of a policy aiming at equal rights for members of every race. I suggest that a definition of this kind should be associated with a practical gesture or demonstration of the desire of the Federal Government gradually to lift the colour bar.
The noble Viscount said yesterday that partnership cannot be defined. If racial partnership is a policy, then surely it can be defined. I cannot conceive of any

587
policy that cannot be defined, or at least described. But if it is not policy, if it is, as the noble Viscount said, a spiritual concept which issues in action, then surely we should say so; and we might be able to find words which express more accurately what we mean than the word "partnership." For instance, is not what the noble Viscount really means something more like "practical good will" or "practical friendship" towards members of other races? This is a matter of the utmost importance, because the wrong interpretation of partnership—the interpretation of partnership as a policy in Africa—is misleading Africans and undermining their confidence in the honesty of British intentions. I still hope that the Government may go back to the view that "partnership" can be defined as a policy; but if their view is that it is no more than a disposition of mind, a practical benevolence towards other races, then will they say so and allow partnership to drop out completely from the context of African policy?
My Lords, I should like to ask the Government to consider a proposal made by my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton, when he introduced this debate yesterday, in a speech which, if I may say so, I thought entirely worthy of the fine, humanitarian traditions of his family. The proposal was that the word "partnership," which occurs in the preamble to the federal scheme, should be there defined in the form of a statement of fundamental rights such as occurs in many constitutions. Unlike the Constitution, the preamble has no binding force in law, so that citizens would not receive any legal rights or obligations as a result of such a statement in the preamble to the Federal Constitution. I think that is important. Obviously, it would be undesirable to include a statement of that kind in the Constitution, because it would suggest that this change could be made immediately; but in the preamble such a statement would represent an aim or intention of federal policy, like the attainment of fully self-governing status, which is already mentioned.
My Lords, it cannot be said that such a definition of "partnership" would change anything in the scheme, because it would merely clarify the meaning of a word already there. Therefore I do not
588
think that it would in any way be altering the substance of the scheme to the detriment of the Southern Rhodesian electors who will vote in the referendum. I suggest that the Government should consider whether they are prepared to ask the Central African Governments' opinion. As the noble Viscount rightly said, to alter the text of the preamble in this way cannot be done except by agreement, because partnership must either be a gradual and progressive extension of equal rights or the permanent subordination of one race to another. The latter alternative is what the Africans fear at the moment, and this suspicion will continue to poison race relations unless the African partnership is defined on the lines of a gradual realisation of equal rights in these Territories.
The reassurance that equality as the goal of partnership would give African opinion should, I think, be coupled with some expression of intention by the Federal Government, when it is constituted, to start lifting the colour bar. It might, for example, guarantee equal access for all races to public buildings, such as banks and post offices, owned by the Federal Government and therefore under their control, and equal access to transport services taken over or provided by them. My Lords, the practical effect of such a gesture might be small, but its psychological effect in Africa would, I am sure, be tremendous. I strongly urge upon the Government the desirability, especially if they intend to proceed with this federal scheme, of a further effort on these lines both here and in Africa, to reconcile African opinion to the scheme.
I apologise for speaking at such length. I do not often trespass upon your Lordships' patience to this degree. I believe that, in spite of the honesty of the intentions behind it, the imposition of federation on Central Africa would be the most tragic mistake in our external policy since the policy that led up to the outbreak of the last world war. It will antagonise liberal opinion in all the friendly democracies in Europe and other parts of the world; it will be bitterly resented by the non-European peoples of our dependent territories and in the self-governing countries of the Commonwealth; and it will therefore diminish that good will which is the real cement

589
that holds together our Commonwealth of nations. Finally, my Lords, above all, I feel that for many decades to come, it would increase the danger of a racial state in Africa and sharpen the conflict between races who have made their homes in the African continent.
11.56 a.m.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, the noble Earl finished his speech by saying that he thought that if Her Majesty's Government imposed this federation scheme on Africa it would be one of the most tragic mistakes; that it would be misunderstood by liberal opinion in this country, and also in the Dominions. I had better start off by saying that I think that if it were not imposed, if there were delay, it would be a far more tragic mistake. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to attempt to show why I think that, if we are misunderstood in the Dominions and by liberals, it would be merely because they had not appreciated the real fundamental facts of the situation with which we are faced in Central Africa.
I have listened to practically the whole of this debate yesterday and to-day, and I have been impressed by one fact (I hope that noble Lords will not consider me discourteous) which appeared to me to stand out from all those speeches: that they had not taken any adequate account of the fundamental facts of the situation. They have talked a great deal about African opinion and the possibility of adverse effects of the proposed step by Her Majesty's Government on African opinion. But the fact of the matter is that we are faced by a quite particular situation here, imposed on us not by any individuals but by the hard facts of geography and climate. We are dealing here not with an ordinary tropical area, but with an area divided up into three—Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. For the most part—there are of course exceptions—it is an area with a gorgeous climate, thoroughly fitted for inhabitance by white races. Not only is it an area for them to live in during their ordinary lives, where they can try to accumulate money to return to this country, but it is predominantly suited, so far as we know, for them to remain, and hope that their children, their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren will continue to live in the area.
590
I will go further. I would say that the British and other white settlers in Central Africa and Southern and Northern Rhodesia have every bit as much right, morally and otherwise, to be there as the native inhabitants. I believe that that is generally accepted, at all events by the leaders of the Party opposite. Here—and the case is different from that of other areas in Africa—the Bantu is a comparative newcomer, a very real newcomer in terms of history. He occupied the country very sparsely. His ancestors murdered, enslaved and drove out the original inhabitants. How very sparsely the Bantu occupied the country anyone who has flown over it can see. He has maintained a very low standard of agricultural production; he never even invented the wheel, and for the whole of his time, so far as one knows, he has lived by abusing the soil, by destroying it, making it subject to erosion, and then moving on. Therefore, from the moral point of view, the white settler, who has moved into the empty spaces and done his best to counter this destruction of the soil, and who, by imposing the Pax Britannica and applying welfare measures has enormously raised the standard of living of the people, has every bit as much right to live in, possess and occupy that part of Africa as have the natives.
That is the fundamental difference between Central Africa and other parts of the Continent, such as West Africa, Nigeria, or, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, between Central Africa and the West Indies. I cannot believe that the noble Earl was really serious in speaking of the West Indies in relation to Central Africa in regard to this question of federation. The West Indies are occupied by people who have been in contact with white men for hundreds of years. Their standards of living, though not identical, are more or less alike in the different Colonies; and there really is no analogy between the inhabitants of the West Indies and those of Central Africa. Therefore, there is no substance in the noble Earl's query as to why we should go forward with federation in the West Indies by consent and yet should impose it in Central Africa. I believe that that is the real answer also to the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, who, in a most eloquent and sincere speech yesterday, said that he had lived

591
a great deal in Africa. He stated that he had lived in East Africa and West Africa but not in Central Africa, and there is, as I have said, a very great distinction. The noble Lord suggested that if we imposed federation in Central Africa it would have a bad effect on the native inhabitants of West Africa. There is no reason why it should: conditions in West Africa are totally different from those in Central Africa. But if, in fact, the noble Lord is right, and to impose federation would have such a bad effect, it means merely that the inhabitants of West Africa have not apprehended in the slightest the difference between the two areas concerned.
It is, of course, easy to be wise by hind-sight. In my view, one of the major causes of the difficulties with which we find ourselves faced to-day lies in the fact—I do not want to be controversial; I am trying to be historical—that when the leaders of the Socialist Party were in office, they decided that federation was a good thing in principle, though the details remained to be settled and the various schemes threshed out by officials at the various conferences which have been held. I think it is fair to assume that the leaders of the Government Party of that day must have decided that federation was the right thing in principle. The Secretary of State at that time said that he was going to consult African opinion. Now the trouble about the word "consult" is that it has a very different connotation, according to whether you are an Englishman or an African. The Secretary of State of that time went out of his way not to say that he would be bound by the result of their consultation. He would not ask for African consent. If he had intended to ask for African consent, and to accept the results of consultation, presumably he would have said so. He left Englishmen to understand that consultation would take place and that, after consultation, the Government of the day would come to their final conclusions; and he left Africans to believe that nothing would be accepted by His late Majesty's Government to which they were opposed. It is that fundamental fact, I think, which has been the cause of so much of our trouble to-day.
592
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I thought, was slightly unfair to the district commissioners in suggesting that it was through some fault of theirs that a great deal of the trouble arose; and according to the right reverend Prelate we have lost the confidence of the natives through the same cause. But it was not their fault. The loss of confidence was due to the fact that the district commissioners were not allowed to explain to the natives that a decision had been reached. Again, I do not want to be regarded as censorious, because it is so easy to be wise after the event; but it is pretty clear that if the district commissioners had been told to tell the native Africans—the chiefs and others—that His Majesty's Government of the day had decided that federation was sound in principle but that they would consult all the various bodies concerned about the details, native African opinion overwhelmingly would have accepted that; and the natives would have gone forward to discuss sensibly the details, rather than the principles of the thing. But that was not done.
I think that everyone who is much more knowledgeable than I am about the African native agrees that, on the whole, he is the most conservative—with a little "c"—individual in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in his most interesting speech yesterday, described the results of the tribal system. He spoke of what happened in consequence of men having lived for generations in a tribe, conforming to the rules of the tribe and the taboos of the tribe, always subject to the discipline of, and accepting the words of, the chief. A man like that is clearly going to be—and history proves it—reluctant to have any change. The whole history of our administration in Central Africa shows that. Practically without exception, all the steps which have been taken towards improved welfare, in the broadest sense, of the African, have been opposed by the Africans concerned, and have been accepted only when the district commissioner has said, "This is the Government's decision."
In regard to agriculture there was violent opposition to contour control. In the case of disease there was violent opposition by all the natives concerned to measures for the suppression or reduction of venereal disease. In the matter of education, there was violent opposition to

593
any suggestions for the education of girls. All those things have now been accepted. They were accepted once the Government in London had laid it down that they had made their decision. That accounts for the fact that we are trustees, and we shall have to continue to act as trustees for a long time to come.
If the House will allow me, I should like to give one illustration of what happens when Africans are consulted. On a ranch with which I am connected out in Rhodesia, the Native Commissioner asked us to move a whole settlement of natives because, as a result of neglect by the previous administration, they had reduced the area where they were living to a desert. The whole of the natural vegetation had been browsed off, and there was very serious erosion. Naturally, we complied and moved them, and with the help of the local government authorities, the conservation officers and so forth, we planned their new land. We planned where the land was to be cultivated, where the village was to be sited and where the water supply was going to be.
When I was up there last September, I found that there was considerable discontent, so I went to find out and explained to them again the advantages of the proposed layout. It was pretty clear that they were still not satisfied and finally I said, "Well, how would you like it to be laid out?" They explained, and I said at the end, "Are you all agreed?" and there was a unanimous shout of, "Yes." I had consulted them, but the layout they wanted, if I had accepted it, would have reproduced in the matter of a few years exactly the conditions of desert from which we were moving them. Would the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, suggest that I ought to have accepted their views, or ought I to have imposed my own? In fact, I proposed my own, as the result of the advice given me. When I went back in January of this year to have a look, I found they were all perfectly happy, industriously building new huts and laying out and stumping the ground they were to cultivate; and everybody was as happy as a sandboy. That is a typical example of the result of consulting African native opinion and of the dilemma in which the trustee finds himself—whether he is to accept the advice of the native or exercise his own judgment.
That is really profoundly what is happening to-day in regard to federation.
594
So far as African opinion on federation is concerned, I would go further still. I would venture to say that as a result of delay, very largely caused by consultations with the district commissioners, we are faced not with African educated opinion, which we have heard so much discussed, but with African intimidated opinion. Opposition to some form of amalgamation has been in existence in Africa for a long time. I do not think that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was quite fair in his quotation from the Bledisloe Commission's Report. I have not the Report by me and therefore I cannot check what I am going to say, and I should not like to detain your Lordships so long as the noble Earl in order to go through it and make sure, but the noble Earl read a paragraph in the Bledisloe Report which said that the Commission were of the opinion that we should be doing a very wrong thing if amalgamation were imposed against the wishes of the natives as expressed to the Commission. He suggested that Her Majesty's present Government should follow the then advice of the Commission. But surely the circumstances are not the same. It was because of the opposition to amalgamation, based very largely—indeed, almost wholly—on the differences between the state of civilisation which had been reached by the natives on the one hand and the white settlers on the other, that amalgamation was turned down, and precisely because of those differences and in order to meet that difficulty, which had been expressed by the Commission in their recommendation against amalgamation, that federation was put forward.
Do not let anybody think that the proposal of federation was imposed by a few people sitting in London with no consultation with the natives. Actually, the views of the natives were taken and their original objections to amalgamation—their fear that they would lose their land and their Protectorate status, and their fear that there would be no scope for political advancement, which were the main objections to amalgamation—have in fact been met in this federal proposal which we are discussing to-day. It was because the differences between Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland could not be met under amalgamation that we have this compromise

595
federation scheme, in which we put under Federal control all those things where there is little or no difference in the practice of the three Territories and retain under Territorial control those particular subjects where there is a wide difference in practice to-day. Therefore, in fact, we have met the whole of the legitimate native objections to federation.
While on the subject of African opinion, I would say that it is noticeable that since these changes have been made and the new scheme has been published, the educated Africans are refusing to discuss federation and the new proposals for safeguards inserted to meet their earlier fears. What they are now doing, as we all know, is to concentrate their attacks on a whole series of subjects—the colour bar, trade unions, and Rhodesian passes—which have nothing whatever to do with federation or the Constitution. Some of these things may be bad: I am expressing no opinion on that; but, at all events, they have nothing to do with federation and are not included within the power of a federal body. I hope I have said enough to show that this opposition on the part of Africans is really fictitious. I think the real explanation is that the so-called educated Africans are now hankering after the type of government that exists in West Africa. I think, frankly, that they have abandoned, if they ever entertained, any argument that what we have to find, by some means or other, is a Central African multi-racial settlement, and they do not realise that the white settlers are there to stay and continue to live for ever.
May I say a word about the economic arguments, because they have been brushed aside as of relatively little importance compared with the human and so-called moral arguments? As I see it, the really important thing is that none of the three Territories is viable by itself: there is no doubt about that. It is significant that during this two-days' debate no real suggestion has been put forward about how we could make them viable by themselves, if they do not have federation. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that we could put teeth into the Central African Council, on the lines of the East African High Commission, but really the two are not comparable and the problems before the
596
two are not comparable. The East African High Commission have at their disposal and are administering a whole number of self-financingservices—railways, ports, harbours and so forth—but the problem before the Central African Council is development on a very large scale.
These three Territories cannot stand on their own and continue to progress unless there is enormous capital development. Despite all the good will there has been on the Central African Council, the fact remains that we have three separate Territories, each with its own views, and with no means of compelling them to agree. In the case of the East African High Commission, they are all Protectorates of the Government and in the ultimate resort the Cabinet in London could impose their decision. But there is no such sanction behind the Central African Council; nor, in the nature of things, unless we have federation, could there be such a sanction. Therefore it is idle to suppose—and if the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, had been here to-day I should have told him he knew it perfectly well—that it was any way of solving the difficulties.
If these three Territories separately are not viable, and there is no federation, what will happen? In all probability, Southern Rhodesia will be exposed to such an attractive offer to join the Union that in three or four years' time she will be quite unable to resist. You will not have the Kariba Scheme, you will not have the Kariba Gorge Scheme, and you will not have the full development of the coal resources that otherwise will be available to them. Nyasaland is completely nonviable. They have practically no taxable capacity; they have no natural resources like West Africa or Nigeria. For example, at the present time the expenditure on education is about 2s. per head of the population, compared to 8s. per head of the population in Southern Rhodesia. That is not because people do not want to spend money. Actually the proportion to the total income of the country of 2s. per head in Nyasaland is greater than the 8s. per head in Rhodesia. The only reason why they cannot spend money on the Rhodesian scale is because the money is not there, and it cannot be raised. Even now, as noble Lords know, it is a drain on the British Treasury. The only result of setting up self-government

597
in Nyasaland would be seriously to reduce the standard of living of the people. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, thinks that that would fully compensate them for a drastic reduction in their standard of living.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: I think the Africans are sensible enough to value integrity more than wealth.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: The noble Lord is entitled to his views, but I take leave to doubt whether they would agree with that. So much for the economic side. I think the case is quite overwhelming that unless you have federation in the immediate future, all the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are going to suffer, and we shall find ourselves faced with Southern Rhodesia attracted to the Union.
LORD PAKENHAM: I did not hear the last sentence. Would the noble Viscount mind repeating it?
VISCOUNT HUDSON: I said that if we do not have federation in the immediate future, the standard of living of the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will suffer, and Southern Rhodesia will be attracted to the Union. I do not think which Party wins the election will make any difference—that is purely a personal opinion. South Africa could, if she wanted, offer Southern Rhodesia such attractive terms that the chances of Southern Rhodesian opinion refusing them would be very small indeed. That, I imagine, is hardly what the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, and the right reverend Prelate wish to see.
So far as racial relations are concerned, I should like to repeat something I said on the occasion of the debate last year. I should like to try and disabuse people's minds of the prevalent idea, in some circumstances, that when Englishmen or Englishwomen leave this country and go to the Colonies, to Rhodesia or elsewhere, they automatically cease to be ordinary, decent, Christian people and at once become hard-faced slave-drivers. I seemed to detect underlying some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, some opinion of that kind. He said that British settlers hardly regarded black men as human beings. That simply is not true. An Englishman remains an Englishman when he goes to Rhodesia, with the same
598
ordinary feelings he has when he is in this country. It is not surprising that those of us who go there fairly often detect an increasing tone of bitterness among a large section of the population at reading so many speeches and articles which imply, at all events, a sort of "holier than thou" attitude here. That is doing a great deal of harm.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I think the noble Viscount has in mind a remark of mine yesterday, when I said that whether or not the Europeans change their character for the worse when they go to Africa, Africans believe they do. That is a fact you have to recognise. Africans do not have the same faith in European settlers that they have, in officials.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: I do not think that is the case. Again, perhaps noble Lords will allow me a personal statement. It cannot be the truth that Africans regard the whole of the settlers as hard-faced slave-drivers, otherwise you would not get the flood of volunteer labour—and I emphasise the words "volunteer labour"—that comes down to find employment in Rhodesia on the farms and in the factories. I know of a whole body of boys who walked down from Nyasaland to Southern Rhodesia and another lot who walked from Portuguese East Africa. That is not evidence of belief on the part of the natives that they will not get a square deal from the British settlers—and cases of that kind could be repeated at length. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, said that actions speak louder than words. There is a case in point in which the action of the ordinary settler speaks louder than words.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: If I may again interrupt the noble Viscount, the obvious reason in that case is that there are far too many people in Nyasaland to find jobs there.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: Not a bit of it. They do not have to come down to Southern Rhodesia; there are other places where they can go. The fact that they come down in overwhelming numbers to Southern Rhodesia is proof that they know they will get a fair deal and be treated justly—firmly, but justly. This feeling of bitterness about what is said so often in this country in relation to the settler was illustrated by an old farmer quite close to us, who, about a fortnight

599
ago, was asked how he would vote on federation. He said: "I am going to vote for federation." When asked why, he said: "There are two first-class reasons: first, the Communists are against it; and secondly, the British Socialist Party at home are against it."
Great play has been made in the debate about the risks of federation, particularly if federation is imposed as against what is called African opinion. I am quite certain that there may be some risks in imposing it, but they are nothing like the risk involved in delay. It is reasonably certain that if you delay you will merely give more time for the Africans to intimidate opinion among those who are favourably inclined towards federation; and, what is equally bad, you will give more time to the white extremists, of which there are, unfortunately, only too many, who are against federation. Personally, I do not think there will be any trouble. From such information as I have from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, once the natives are told that this is the decision of Her Majesty's Government, I think you will find it will be widely accepted. I hope at the same time that it will convince the so-called opponents at the present moment that much the most useful task they can do on behalf of their friends and brothers is to join in trying to establish, under federation, a workable scheme in which both races can live together; because both races have got to live together, and there is no chance, so far as we can see, of setting up in Central Africa anything corresponding to the West African Government, or admitting African domination over white. It has to be a condominium and a multiracial settlement. I personally believe that if we do impose federation, as I think we should at once, future generations, not only British, but Asians and Africans as well, will live to bless our decision.
12.30 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, my intervention will, I hope, be extremely brief, but I have a few things I wish to say, and I should be uneasy if I had not said them. The first is this. There is no kind of doubt—and we want to underline this—that this question is really of momentous importance, coming at this particular time of world unsettlement, and coming in Africa,
600
in every part of which inter-racial relations are of critical concern. It is inevitable that, whatever action is taken in Central Africa at this moment, it will have potent effects whether for good or for evil. Secondly, we must all regard the question of federation primarily from the point of view of African welfare, not from that of European welfare—for this single reason: that Europeans have either been given by Providence or have assumed for themselves, a trusteeship for the African peoples in Central Africa. As trustees, they are bound in honesty, as is every trustee, to consider first the interests of those to whom they stand as guardians. Thirdly, I think it is agreed on both sides of this House that the solution can be found only in an honest partnership—a partnership which, from the nature of things, must be unequal for a good long time to come, but which must always be honest.
There has been a demand for a definition of "partnership." I doubt whether it is possible to give a definition. I think it is more than anything else an attitude of spirit applied continuously in practice as one thing or another comes up. But I do not think you can anticipate the general questions which will arise for solution, and say how they must be solved by partnership. I will give a definition of my own. I would define partnership as having two heads: first, a settled purpose to do everything reasonably possible with mutual good will for the progressive, social, intellectual and moral advancement of the African peoples. That, I think, we all accept. Secondly, the inevitable result of partnership must be that the proportionate place held by Europeans will steadily diminish, and the place occupied by Africans will steadily increase, as the results of economic development and educational and social development have their effect. I trust that there will always be a multi-racial partnership, but within that I think it should be quite clearly recognised that the European share will inevitably and steadily decrease. I do not think there is any doubt about that. But let us say it openly, and possibly it has not been said sufficiently openly in the past.
Next I come to the proposals themselves, believing, as I do, that partnership in that wide sense is the object on both sides of the House. There is no

601
difference in principle between the two sides: the difference is as to ways and means. So far as the principle goes, it is such as to command universal Christian support. When you come to ways and means, differences are possible, and it is perfectly possible for equally honest, wise Christian people to differ as to the wisdom of the particular ways or means. I wish to say this definitely, because there has been a kind of suggestion in some of the propaganda in this country that no Christian could be anywhere but on the side against federation. I said something a little time ago, and I wish to repeat it. The principle of federation, as believe, is accepted by all honest people and on both sides of the House. It is a question of timing and of ways and means, and on that question honest people are open to have different judgments and different decisions. But let it never be suggested that one attitude is more Christian than the other in this matter.
Then I come to the fact that, looking at the arguments, it is difficult, in my mind, to strike a balance. The thing is so balanced that to reject one side and take the other is by no means easy, and anybody who decides on one side should not dare to throw a stone at those who decide on the other, for there is no one argument in this field which is conclusive. On each side can be constructed an argument of very great strength; but each side has its own weaknesses, too. Whenever in the course of this debate I have heard any point cheered on either side of the House, I have said to myself, "That is one of the rather weaker sides of the case." The reason why it is so difficult to strike a balance is that the whole thing really depends upon probabilities and on assessments as to what is going to happen in the future; and people may so easily differ in their judgments as to what will happen.
May I venture to indicate my own position? I cannot think that, whether federation is accepted or rejected, any of us can be without grave doubt and anxiety for a good long time to come to know how in fact it will work out. Weighing these imponderables for myself, I am inclined to think that the balance does tip in favour of federation, and in favour of federation now, because I cannot believe that delay is going to
602
help the matter at all. The right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, said yesterday that African opinion was against the principle of the thing and not against the details. Well, it will take a very long time to change an attitude to a principle merely by discussion; and of course there are other reasons why, if there is delay, it will be used for ill as well as for good ends.
Therefore, for myself, thinking it is only a question of the tipping of the balance, I shall not complain if the Government decide to go forward with federation. What has most weighed with me is this. I have had to consider what would be the result if the proposed federation were cancelled—and I just mention these things. If the referendum in Southern Rhodesia were defeated, it would be taken at once as a clear victory for those Europeans whit the least adequate idea of what partnership is. I do not think one can get away from that. If the Government withdrew federation, it would have the same effect—it would appear as a victory in the same way.
LORD PAKENHAM: For whom would it appear as a victory in that case?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It would cause rejoicing in the tents of the Amalekites—that is to say, among those in. Southern Rhodesia who have the least conception of what partnership really means. I think that cannot be resisted. But the same is true; I would say, on the African side. The victory there, if federation were withdrawn, would really be with those who do not trust partnership at all, and who are desiring not partnership but something else.
I would also say this. If federation were withdrawn, two great positive things would be lost. Under federation there will be a direct association between all the Africans of Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia, and, if you like to put it so, the Africans of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are coming to the aid of their brethren in Southern Rhodesia. They are certainly creating a much stronger body of African life and opinion, which, as I would say, cannot but have some kind of effect on the Federal Government. Equally, if federation were rejected it would mean

603
loss of a direct association between the authorities in Nyasaland and in Northern Rhodesia and the authorities in Southern Rhodesia. I think it is a link of immense value that the authorities of Southern Rhodesia should find themselves constantly working with the experience and judgment of those who have hitherto been responsible for the Protectorates.
On the other side, there is this fear of possible disaster, of possible rebellion or outburst, a lack of co-operation or a refusal on the part of the African to co-operate. That, I think, is why there is such anxiety in our minds. This is of immense importance. One has to analyse it; and as I analyse it I cannot feel sure how deep that African opposition goes. The Bishop of Nyasaland has been quoted. I have had letters from the Bishop of Nyasaland, and I have noticed again and again that he speaks of the African Congress sending propagandists into Nyasaland in increasing numbers in the last few months and of African resistance increasing proportionately. I am not sure that that means any real conversion of the whole community of Africans—but propagandists can always show results. I am not convinced that if, in the end, federation is applied, and proves to bring great benefits, moral and economic, it will not be found that that opposition was rather unsubstantial. Some remarks which the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, made just now supported that view. I cannot feel it is a final objection, though, of course, it is a matter of immense concern.
I am not very interested in these arguments about the safeguards; it is possible to argue one side or the other. There are solid safeguards and there are also solid gaps in the safeguards. The question is, will this Constitution be worked in a spirit of real endeavour to make the partnership grow, or will it not? Deeply Christian people who have been working in Africa—missionaries and others—have told me recently that, although it is the unpopular opinion in Christian circles, they have become convinced that federation is right and is the best thing for the future of the Africans. These people have experience, and I have not. There are many, of course, who say the opposite thing. That is the quandary in which we are all placed. All I can say is that
604
I believe there is a great amount of good will behind this scheme and a desire to give it a good chance of working; and I believe that if that is indeed so, it is the best possible thing for the Africans. If this fails, on the other hand, the partnership will have failed. Southern Rhodesia would go its own way—I do not mean into South Africa—and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland would be left economically stranded, lacking the power they would otherwise have had to exercise their influence within a Federation.
I believe, further, that if this chance is taken there will be a flowing tide to carry it forward in a true spirit of partnership. The flowing tide is of two kinds. The first is that tide which is inherent in our tradition and in our blood, and I am not going to believe that in Southern Rhodesia and the Protectorates it will fail. In the nature of things in this world, as it is at present, all who look for progress look along the lines of partnership. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton spoke of a wavelength and said, I think, that Southern Rhodesia was at present on the South African wavelength. I do not believe that that is true. From what I have heard of Southern Rhodesians I think that they are not on that wavelength. Moreover, I think that federation would be a step towards making sure that they will never get on to it but that they will get on to a wavelength of another kind—the kind for which we in this country have always stood. Rejection of federation would destroy the partnership. But adoption of it would give it its chance; and in that hope I should be content if it went forward.
There are two final points that I would make. The first is that this decision must, of course, be made only with anxious thought as to the future. The second thing is this: how relieved we should all be if there could be some action in the near future which could make it obvious that this good will is really there! Education is the heart of this problem. If there could be some statement that there would be a centre of higher education for these Territories, without any division between races, the whole thing could go forward in good hope.
12.47 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I should begin by making an apology, in that it was impossible for me to be in

605
your Lordships' House yesterday except for a short period. I had engagements which I think most of your Lordships who know of them would agree I could not have broken. I have been reading the speeches made in yesterday's debate, and I hope that any remarks I make—and they will be brief—will not be too repetitive. Your Lordships will have observed during this debate the extreme difficulty which speakers have in speaking briefly on this subject. I hope that I may prove an exception. Indeed, I intend only to ask for certain information.
I am going first to make a general point. All the speakers on this side of your Lordships' House have said that their fundamental objection is to imposition of this scheme. To this it has been—I think quite rightly and reasonably—replied that if you are in a position of guardianship it may be that you have to take a decision for your ward the motives for which he will not appreciate, and to which, indeed, he is opposed. I would not underrate the strength of that argument; but if we are to continue the practice of argument by analogy, perhaps I may point out that when a ward becomes of age, then, if you are talking of wards in the wide political sense, there is a criterion by which the maturity of the ward may be tested. It is quite clear that you cannot put off the coming-of-age until such time as every member of a community is fully able reasonably to understand, in detail, any problem which may be put to him. If that were so, we should have to disfranchise many of our own electors, and probably those of the representative Governments in almost any country. Every country has its leaders and those leaders are propagandists. The most reverend Primate made a rather disparaging reference to propagandists. All of us who have appeared on a platform must plead guilty to being propagandists, and I do not think there is anything to be ashamed of in that. We believe, indeed, that it is a creditable thing to stand on a platform and explain to people who might not otherwise understand the matter the merits and demerits of a case.
The criterion which can be used to test the moment when you can overrule your ward's objections, as opposed to the moment when you would accept them even if you think they are wrong, is the time when your ward has reached a point
606
at which his leaders are able to explain the situation to him and when he, for better or worse, is able to follow those leaders, because that is the moment when the community—not necessarily every individual in it, but the community as a whole—has reached political maturity. We who are older may think that the ward who has just come of age is still pretty young and pretty brash, but the fact remains that he is of age; and, because he is of age, his opinion must be considered and must carry weight. In the end, in fact, he has reached an age at which he must be responsible for decisions which affect him.
This, it seems to me, is the situation in Central Africa. I think there is a rather wide measure of agreement on all sides of the House that African opinion, by whatever means you use to test it, is opposed to federation. The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, referred to the fact that the African attack on federation was directed to many things which have no part in this scheme. No, indeed they have not. There is no mention in the scheme of a colour bar, though there are special provisions for the employment of Africans in the Civil Service. But the reason the scheme is being attacked on these, as it were, extraneous subjects is that Africans believe, and I think believe rightly, that the predominating influence under the federal scheme will be Southern Rhodesia. They fear that the practices in Southern Rhodesia will thereby be spread throughout the three Territories. They believe and fear that their own progress will be prevented, will really be petrified, at the present moment of advance.
If that is so, surely they have a very good case. For what in fact is the position? Under this scheme, the first elections are to take place under the existing electoral rules in two of the Territories, and in the third Territory special provision is to be made because there are no electoral arrangements. But what, in fact, are those rules? In Southern Rhodesia it is true that they have a common roll, but under that common roll a very small number—I think 370 Africans as opposed to 40,000 Europeans—are registered. It has been computed that there are large numbers of Africans who could come on that roll if they got themselves on the register. I believe that the maximum number is only about 4,000. In those

607
circumstances, is it not plain that the Africans are going to have little say under this common roll procedure in the Southern Rhodesian elections? There is also a common roll in Northern Rhodesia but there, equally, it is entirely a political advantage upon paper, because in Northern Rhodesia only British subjects have the vote; British-protected persons do not, and the vast majority of the African population of Northern Rhodesia are protected persons. Therefore, they are without a vote. So that, in these first elections, in two Territories they have a common roll—I am a tremendous believer in the common roll; I will say in one moment why I believe in it so strongly—and this procedure of the common roll will, in fact, operate to exclude Africans from voting.
The most reverend Primate said a great deal with which I am in agreement. He made two principles. He said that he would not define but would describe "partnership." He said that he would divide it into two parts: that there should be between all the communities a desire to co-operate for their mutual advancement; and, secondly, that it must be faced that the Europeans under partnership would at the beginning play a predominant rôle, but as the partnership progressed, and as the peoples forming the partnership progressed, they would play a steadily diminishing part. That is a description with which very largely I would agree, and it is for that reason that I believe that this diminishing function, on the one hand, and an increasing function, on the other, could very well be made to operate through a common roll, a common roll on which more and more Africans would come, until such time as they were playing a part which was proportionate to their share of the population in the country as a whole.
But under this scheme—and this is where I begin to ask my questions of the noble Marquess who will reply, and I will be as brief as I can in asking them—as I understand it, the first elections will take place under the present arrangements in Northern and Southern Rhodesia. I have already spoken of the inadequate functioning of the common roll in those Territories, but the Legislature is given power to draw up rules—again, I think it is slightly unfortun-
608
ate that they may be different rules for the three Territories—for future elections. On the other hand, it is under no compulsion to do so. In other words, the present arrangements may, if it happens to suit the majority of the Legislature, continue for ever. It will stereotype and will petrify the position of Africans as it is at the present time. In those circumstances, it seems to me that African opposition is not only reasonable but wholly natural and proper. That is one point which I wanted to ask about. What would in fact happen in this connection supposing that the electoral law were introduced into the Legislative Assembly? Suppose this electoral law laid down that, for example, the qualifications for an elector should be the same as they are in Southern Rhodesia at present—that is, a high property or income qualification which, in fact, disfranchises the majority of Africans, would that be differentiating legislation?
When that legislation was introduced, or was recently amended, in Southern Rhodesia, some of us went to see the then Secretary of State to protest against it, saying that it was discriminatory. The Secretary of State said that he could not act because, in fact, it was not discriminatory. It has been said to me that this term "differentiating"—I think it is quite reasonable to say so, reading the Act—is very much wider than "discriminatory"; that if legislation of the type of which I am speaking were introduced, though it might not be discriminatory it would be differentiating. If that were so, and if the African Affairs Board protested and their protest was sent to the Secretary of State, I should like to ask—and obviously it is difficult for any Minister to reply for a Minister in the future and, therefore, I would put it in a perfectly personal way—if the noble Marquess were the Secretary of State in those circumstances and he received this protest, what would his own reaction to it be? Because I think all the House would agree with me that the reaction of the noble Marquess is likely to be both just and honourable. Therefore, it would be a guide to us of what another Secretary of State might possibly do. But supposing in fact that did happen—and I think it might happen—I should like to ask also whether, equally, supposing that the said legislation laid down that in the case of Northern Rhodesia there should be no

609
vote for British protected persons as opposed to British subjects, would that be differentiating legislation, or would it not? These are very important points from the point of view of African prospects of political advancement under this Constitution.
I have also spoken about the African Affairs Board. I should like to ask the noble Marquess a question about that. It is laid down that there shall be three European members. It is not, of course, stated whether the Chairman is to be an African or a European; but I think it is not unreasonable to assume that in the first instance it would be a European. The Chairman is given a casting vote. He is also directed to cast his Vote in such a way as to keep the discussion open. I believe the same term is used in connection with the vote of the Speaker in another place. My impression of that was that he would have to vote against sending forward the recommendation to the Governor-General, or rather, I think, to the Speaker of the House who transmits—
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): May I correct the noble Lord? The position is exactly the opposite. It is exactly like the point we were discussing here about keeping the question open. Keeping the question open means that the process of reservation should have the chance to operate. It would be just as easy for the Chairman to give his vote exactly in the opposite sense to that which the noble Lord has suggested, and that is what he will do.
LORD FARINGDON: That was just the answer I was hoping to get. But I want to know what then happens. Is this piece of legislation to which the African Affairs Board has objected, returned? Is it, so to speak, thrown out of the House for the time being? What are the mechanics of it? Obviously, if the discussion is to remain open the Bill cannot become an Act.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What happens is this. I think I can clear up this matter completely and remove a great deal of doubt. The Bill can be passed by the Legislature—
LORD FARINGDON: Would it be passed before it got to the African Affairs Board?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The African Affairs Board may object at any stage. But what is important is, whether the Bill becomes an Act. It does not, it is reserved. If it is reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure it cannot become an effective Act of Parliament until, on the advice of the Secretary of State, Her Majesty has agreed to it. If Her Majesty is advised not to signify her Pleasure, then it is dead.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What opportunity has Parliament got at that stage?—none.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The scheme sets out how the thing is to be presented to Parliament. If certain things are objected to, then certain steps have to be taken.
LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Viscount. I had heard this interpretation before, and I was really trying to get an assurance. In fact, we may assume that if there is an equal vote on the African Affairs Board that piece of legislation will not be signed by the Governor General, bat will be sent home to the Secretary of State just as if there had been, as in effect there will have been, a majority vote in favour of its being regarded as a piece of differentiating legislation. I am very glad to hear that. It considerably strengthens the position of the African Affairs Board. On the other hand, of course, there are considerable anxieties about the Board itself. I know there are arguments on both sides as to whether the change in the set-up of the Board as between the original scheme and the present scheme is or is not an improvement of its Position. But I am very anxious, because it seems to me that the Africans may well be under such pressure from their electorate that they may find themselves in the position of insisting too frequently that legislation is differentiating. However that may be, I think those are really the major questions that I wanted to ask.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, said that African anxieties extended to land, to their protected status and to political advance. I understand their anxieties on all those points. It is perfectly true that land questions are reserved to the local Legislatures, but under this scheme those powers may be surrendered by the local Legislatures to the central Legislature,

611
and obviously even on that subject they cannot be too certain. As to their protected status, it must of necessity follow from federation that that status will be affected, because in fact the metropolitan Government are surrendering a part of their responsibility for these people to the Central African Federal Legislature. That must be so. But the surrender of responsibility, and the rest of it, while it may not apply to all things which concern Africans most closely, may have some application, and therefore their protected status is inevitably affected.
Finally, with regard to their political advance I have already said quite enough, and many other people have spoken at great length on this subject. I maintain (I hope that the noble Marquess will be able to convince me otherwise in regard to this) that the inevitable result of this legislation will be to petrify the African political position as it is at present. That seems to me almost an inevitable conclusion. But I will say again what has been said before—I apologise for repeating it, but it seems to me to be supremely important. I do not believe that the best scheme in the world—the best scheme that angels could work out—would have any prospect of success without the support of the majority of the people in the Territories affected. I am convinced that the consent of the Africans is really of the essence of the matter. I believe that that consent could be obtained. I believe that, with alterations in this scheme, if the Government were to give their mind to some of the points which have been raised in this debate by my noble friends and others, African alarm and disquiet could be allayed. I believe, for example, that if the Government had proceeded with the talks in regard to the reform or alteration of the Northern Rhodesian Constitution a great deal might have been done to allay African anxieties. Inevitably, when those talks were postponed they felt that, here again, they were being pushed into the background and that concessions were being made to Southern Rhodesia.
If I may say so, in this regard the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, was a little less than fair to my noble friend Lord Listowel, when he said that my noble friend's arguments about federation, drawn from the West Indies, were wholly
612
fallacious, since no one could compare the populations of the two countries. I do not think my noble friend meant to compare the populations; he was merely talking about federation as applied in other places—whether it be in the United States of America or in the West Indies. There are general methods that you use when you are making a federation, and they have not been operated and are not being used in the case of Central Africa. A vastly predominant position is being given to Southern Rhodesia. That may have been necessary in order to get Southern Rhodesia's agreement, but it is inevitable that this predominance should give cause for alarm to Africans.
I believe that if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to reconsider this scheme, to make amendments and alterations in it, to press forward, within the Territories which they control, with many of the reforms which I am certain most of them would agree were desirable—such reforms as the abolition of the colour bar in certain respects—they would find that, in a comparatively short time, they could make a real change of atmosphere in Central Africa and get some prospect of a satisfactory scheme which would be acceptable to all communities.
1.9 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite ended his speech on a very familiar note. The most familiar note in the speeches of noble Lords opposite is, of course, "There is something to be said for this scheme, though it is very dangerous as it stands. Put it off. Go on with endless talks, endless conferences and debates in your Lordships' House and in another place, and endless talks with the African inhabitants. But put the whole thing off." They seem quite unable to recognise that this matter has been discussed for the last quarter of a century with the European inhabitants of both Northern and Southern Rhodesia, who are getting (if I may be permitted to use such a phrase) "fed up" with the attitude of politicians in this country who want to put everything off, who have not the courage to come to a decision. I charge noble Lords opposite with that lack of courage.
It was their lack of courage when they were in office, and when they had the

613
opportunity of dealing with this matter, that has led to the situation which exists to-day. It is the mistakes which they made and the false impression they created which have led to so much of the present trouble. Let me hasten to say that I am sure they acted quite honestly. No one who knows noble Lords opposite or their colleagues in another place could accuse them of being other than disinterested. I know that after being a personal friend of many Members of both Houses for many years, and I should never dream of making the slightest suggestion against their integrity. But it was by their muddle and mismanagement of the situation—and that especially refers to the Ministers who were in office—that the situation was made infinitely worse than it need have been.
I speak as one who has some knowledge of Africa. I think I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who has had land out there for forty years. I have known practically all the leaders of European opinion, and a great number of the leaders of African opinion, and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon (and this applies equally to the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, who has not had experience of these matters), that it is really no use coming here and in a somewhat tutorial—I might almost say "governessy"—fashion, telling the European inhabitants of Northern and Southern Rhodesia what they should do. I should like to make a quotation in that connection, because I see no reason why one should avoid controversy in this debate. We were told originally—especially by noble Lords opposite—that we should avoid controversy. But every speech they have made against federation, including the speeches of the right reverend Prelate and Lord Noel-Buxton, have been impregnated with controversy.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Earl would not claim, I suppose, that speeches which have been made from his side of the House have been free from it.
EARL WENTERTON: I never said that they were free from it. I was hoping to get the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham to agree that it was ridiculous to say in a matter of this kind, upon which sincere views are held on both sides, that controversy should be avoided. I do say
614
to noble Lords opposite that if the Labour Government had dealt with this matter as they should have done, a great deal of this controversy could have been avoided.
I do not want to detain your Lordships for long, because we have had somewhat lengthy speeches to-day. The noble Earl who opened the debate to-day spoke for fifty minutes, and I must confess that I was somewhat reminded of the observation once made by Lord Curzon about Lord Chancellor Haldane. The noble Earl, I am sure, not mind me, in my much humbler position, repeating it to him in his much humbler position. Lord Curzon, referring to a speech which had been made by Lord Haldane, said:
"We have the misfortune to have in the Lord Chancellor the greatest master of repetitive irrelevance we have ever had in your Lordships' House."
The noble Earl spoke to us for fifty minutes to-day, and he told us absolutely nothing, so I really think that that sentence of Lord Curzon's might almost be applied to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to-day.
As I was saying, I should like to quote to your Lordships something which was said by a Minister in Southern Rhodesia, because I think it is important in this debate that we should realise what I have already endeavoured to make clear; that is, how much resented is the attitude which some people in this country are taking up towards the whole point of view of Europeans in the two Rhodesias. Those of us who sit on this side of the House, and people in the Conservative Party generally, should attempt to rebut this. Believe me, my Lords, as one who knows something about conditions out there, nothing could be more fatal for the whole Commonwealth—I use the word deliberately—than for the European inhabitants of Africa, who, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson has said, have just as much right there as the African inhabitants, to think that there was a large body of opinion in this country which treated them—in the words used by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House in a previous debate—as "Simon Legrees." Nothing could be worse, nothing could be more calculated to cause trouble not only in the Rhodesias and in South Africa but also throughout the whole Commonwealth.

615
This is what Mr. P. B. Fletcher, Minister of Native Affairs in Southern Rhodesia, said at a meeting, referring to the Party of noble Lords opposite. He wished, he said, to make a strong protest at the way
"our integrity is impugned by such speakers who had resorted to threats about enforcing the Constitution if they return to power."
This, said Mr. Fletcher, was in keeping with the deplorable Party political level to which they had reduced the Commonwealth and Empire affairs. They would certainly not be permitted to use the Constitution as a vehicle to advance their extreme doctrines which were inimical to the Commonwealth in Africa. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will take up that point when he speaks. I suggest that it shows the dangers of threats by ex-Ministers in this country about what they will do if they should come into power again; it clearly shows the effect that sort of thing has on our fellow-countrymen in the Rhodesias. I had the impression that it would be out of order for me to refer to a speech made in another place by a leading member of the Socialist Party in which he spoke of what they would do if they came back into office. I hope that that speech does not imply any suggestion that they wish to treat Southern Rhodesia—
LORD PAKENHAM: Would it not be fairer—and I know that the noble Earl is always particularly fair—to give the quotation about which he is now speaking.
EARL WINTERTON: That is a fair interruption. But as a matter of fact I have not the quotation with me. I was referring to a speech made by Mr. Griffiths, in which he appeared to suggest that if the Party of noble Lords opposite were in power they would adopt a different attitude to the Government of Southern Rhodesia from that adopted in the past. Possibly I am wrong, and possibly Mr. Fletcher was wrong; but he is the Minister of Native Affairs and that was his impression also.
LORD PAKENHAM: It is a little difficult to follow.
EARL WINTERTON: I would suggest that this issue is really a very simple one. And I think it has become simpler since
616
we have had this debate and since the debate in another place. I will try here to avoid being controversial, and I should like to say something which may be a point for Lord Pakenham when he speaks. I think he may have some sympathy for the point of view which I am about to express. I would suggest that there is one most solid, stubborn, indisputable fact which opponents of federation persistently ignore, and I am afraid that among them I must include moderate opponents like the right reverend Prelate, because I presume that he must be regarded as an opponent.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: At any rate, I am an opponent of the imposition of federation.
EARL WINTERTON: In other words, the Lord Bishop is in favour of further delay?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I am in favour of further consultation with the Africans in a way which they have not hitherto enjoyed.
EARL WINTERTON: I am afraid that I must repeat that I regard the right reverend Prelate as an opponent of federation, because one thing is certain—and I think I should say this with the greatest frankness. The Government, I believe, are absolutely right in saying that if federation fails to-day it will fail for all time, and a far more dangerous state of affairs will arise. I regard all those who support the idea that there is need for more consultation as being opponents of federation. And I think it is necessary to make it clear to Europeans in both the Rhodesias, through the medium of your Lordships' House, that the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester do not necessarily represent the views of the Church of England in this country as a whole. In this, as in so many matters, both temporal and spiritual, I think it is right to say that the Church is not wholly united. There are many men of great eminence, not only in the Church of England but in other Churches, who are believers in and supporters of federation. I should be very surprised to learn that they held the views in favour of delay expressed by the right reverend Prelate, because they know, even better than any of us in this House, what the danger of delay would be.

617
I apologise for the somewhat tautological interruption in my speech. I should like to state what I believe to be an indisputable fact. There is talk of the settlers, on the one hand, and Africans or natives, on the other. Those who talk in that way completely fail to realise, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, pointed out, that both have their homeland, which in many cases is the land of their birth, too, in these Territories. With the greatest earnestness, I would ask noble Lords opposite, especially the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, to have regard to what I am about to say. It is an indubitable fact, though their statements and speeches, and even some sermons in this country, completely ignore it. There are Africans of Caucasian descent and those of negroid descent, and we cannot say to these Caucasians, numbering more than 200,000 in the three Territories, that we are not going to allow them in any circumstances to federate and that we are going always to control their destiny from London.
I say to noble Lords opposite that to adopt that attitude, to say that we must be the judges here of whether they federate or not, is a reversal of the policy of every British Government since the time of the American War of Independence. What the Government in this country are entitled to say, in view of their responsibility for Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, is that we must be a party to, and approve, the conditions of federation, in order to safeguard the interests of other and majority communities in these mixed racial Territories. The argument that these majorities must completely ignore the facts and that we should listen to objections raised by people incited by leaders, who in their turn have been incited by agitators in this country (here, naturally, I am not referring to noble Lords opposite, or to right honourable gentlemen in another place, but to certain people, including at least one newspaper, who have incited—there is no other word for it—these people to protest against federation) cuts both ways where the question of trusteeship is concerned. As trustees we are entitled to tell these people that in the long run they will be worse off and not better off without federation. Trustees in private life have frequently to say and do things
618
which the beneficiaries of the trust object to; and, with the best intentions in the world, as all of us knew from our private experience, trustees have often no power to protect the beneficiaries from misfortune.
We hear all this talk about the value of trusteeship in Northern Rhodesia. Why have we not heard in any of the speeches opposing federation, or in the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, who argued that we should not support the scheme without further consultation, a single word about the failure of the alleged trusteeship to protect the Africans in Northern Rhodesia from certain disabilities? Why, during the six years noble Lords opposite were in office, did they do nothing to stop the action of the European trade unions in Northern Rhodesia in effectively preventing the Africans from doing skilled work in the mines? Why have they not fulfilled their trusteeship? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will tell us when he comes to reply. They had five years in which to do it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl has forgotten the Dalgleish Report, which still waits to be implemented by the present Government.
EARL WINTERTON: I am not talking about the Dalgleish Report but about the fact that for five years the noble Lords were in office and during those years they were faced with this question.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I do not think the noble Earl can be familiar with the reference to the Dalgleish Report. This Report deals entirely with industrial questions and the removal of restrictions. Nothing has happened.
EARL WINTERTON: That still does not answer my question. It does not require a Dalgleish Report or a Macmillan Report or any other Report to deal with a situation that should be apparent to anybody. The Socialist Government entered into power in 1945 and for five years they talked about their successful trusteeship of the Africans. They talk about it to-day, asking your Lordships to believe that they are the only people who are really interested in the Africans. Why did they do nothing?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, we have never made that claim. I entirely repudiate that suggestion.
EARL WINTERTON: If it is not the contention of the noble Lord, that is the spirit with which all their speeches are imbued. If the noble Lord does not take such a high and mighty view of their position, of course I will withdraw my statement. But certainly I am not going to withdraw my point about the Dalgleish Report. It does not require the Dalgleish Report to deal with the situation. Everybody knows there is this discrimination and everybody knows—I must say this quite frankly though it may be embarrassing to the Government to some extent—that no Government, whether a Conservative or a Socialist Government, can deal with it. We cannot force the white trade unions out there to do something they are not prepared to do. And, of course, a Socialist Government, above all, cannot do that, because to have a fight with trade unionists anywhere would be most inimical to their prospects here. Yet few of the opponents of federation, and those who talk about the Dalgleish Report, say that of course we cannot do anything. They say, "We must consider what is recommended by the Dalgleish Report." I am bound to say there is a lack of sincere approach—I do not think that will be regarded as an objectionable phrase.
In passing, I must say there is another matter which I find it difficult to understand. I am surprised that the opponents of federation have not told us about another part of Africa, where a far more primitive set of African inhabitants than even those in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—I refer to those in the Southern Sudan—are objecting, so far as they can do so, most strongly against being taken away from what they regard as the trusteeship of the British Government, to be handed over to those whom they regard, rightly or wrongly, as their hereditary enemies—the people of Northern Sudan, with, behind them, the Egyptians. They have unpleasant memories of slave raids and things of that kind. There has not been a word by Canon Collins in the pulpit of St. Paul's about the Sudan, and Canon Collins is a principal opponent of federation in Central Africa. Why are they so excited about the Africans of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Why, if they are sincere
620
—and I am sure they are—are they not equally interested in the welfare of the Dink as in the Southern Sudan? The Observer has hardly referred to them. If we are trustees in the one case, we are equally trustees in the other. When I hear speechs and read the statements and articles of the opponents of federation, I understand, though I naturally resent, as all your Lordships do, why the French sometimes refer to us as perfide Albion.
I have only this further to say. Not once in the course of this debate have we had one word from noble Lords opposite, or from any of the opponents of federation, to show in what respect the Africans would be better off if federation is not effected. Do they really think that this scheme, which offers great hopes for future confidence, if properly worked, and offers a tremendous opportunity for these races—both equally entitled to a place in the country in their respective Territories—to come together, will result in the negroid inhabitants of the Territories being worse off? We have not had a single word from the opponents of federation to show how the Africans would be better off if federation were defeated.
The opponents of federation must not think that those of us who support it are without our moral scruples. We are just as much entitled to say that this is a moral issue, and the opponents of federation are quite wrong, as the opponents of federation are to say that it is a moral issue and we are quite wrong. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will tell us how the Africans will be better off without federation. Will it reduce the colour bar in Northern Rhodesia? Will it make the white tradeunions—and most of the white trade unions in Northern Rhodesia are in favour of federation—more likely to regard the Africans as fellow workers and not as inferior fellow workers? Will they be in a more amenable state of mind? Will it make Southern Rhodesia more determined to remain one of the most loyal and constant parts of the Commonwealth? Will it make the position of the African there any better? In what way will it improve things?
The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, and others, including the noble Viscount who spoke for the Government—no one will deny this—have shown the enormous practical advantages in the way of

621
economic development which will arise from federation. Surely, the most extreme advocate of the rights of negroid Africans cannot deny that an improvement in the economic conditions will benefit the negroid inhabitants. It is true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, said, that the economy of the three Territories is not viable. If federation does not take place, there will be a great bar to future development. If federation is defeated, either by the Referendum out there—which I do not believe will happen for a moment—or by Parliament turning it down in this country, in what respect will the Africans be better off? In what respect shall we be better able to carry out the purpose of our trusteeship?—and here we are all at one in regard to the improvement of the conditions of the negroid inhabitants, and the reduction of racial feeling. In what way will that be improved? I cannot see that there is an answer to that.
I apologise to your Lordships for the time I have kept you, and I should like to end on this note. I have not thought of any ending to my speech; it comes completely out of my mind at the moment. I would say that we have here a tremendous opportunity of advancement for two races—I would say two great races—the people of European descent, of British and Dutch descent, and of Bantu descent. We have an opportunity of realising once again something of the dream of a man who was abused and insulted in his lifetime by people who were unworthy to tie his shoe laces—namely, Cecil Rhodes. We have an opportunity, too, of showing to the world that we have not lost heart in all the troubles and difficulties which we have experienced in the last forty years, but are still able and willing to advance the cause of prosperity and, I would add, in the long run, of self-government, in various parts of the Empire. If we say: "No; we are timid; we are nervous; there has been a great deal of opposition in your Lordships' House, and elsewhere; the Government have many other things to attend to, and we had better drop it," then a great responsibility will rest upon us; and it is a responsibility in respect of which I venture to say future generations will say that we were not lacking in blame.
1.34 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I have listened to many memorable speeches coming from the heart and, in a great number of cases, based on long first-hand experience. The noble Earl who has just addressed us is so dearly loved a public and Parliamentary figure that he needs no massage for his ego from me—in other words, he will not expect me to agree with his conclusions. He said that he would speak in a controversial way, which we welcomed. I myself felt that there was only one remark—I think it as unintended, and quite impromptu, and he would probably wish to alter it—which he let fall which was hardly worthy of him. If I heard him correctly, he accused the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester of lacking a sincere approach.
EARL WINTERTON: I am deeply indebted to the noble Lord. I certainly never intended to say that, and if I did it must have been my misuse of language. I regard all the opponents of federation, or those who wish to delay it, as completely sincere. What I said, I think, was that it gave the impression, when you said you were in favour of delaying federation, of an insincere approach. And I stick to those words.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am obliged to the noble Earl; I felt sure he would wish to alter his phrasing. The noble Earl attacked so many of my friends, and some people who are not my friends, including certain editors of new spapers—not all of them named—that I should occupy your Lordships for a great many minutes if I replied on behalf of all those attacked. I might even speak not only as long as Lord Haldane but as long as Lord Haldane and Lord Curzon combined, which would take me quite some time. Therefore, I should like to issue an omnibus defence in respect of all individuals and newspapers attacked, unless I say anything to the contrary. I agree with the noble Earl that this is a moral issue. It is a moral issue on which Christians, as the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury said, are just as much entitled to hold the strong view that their faith leads them to a conclusion in favour of federation as we are to draw an opposite conclusion.

623
I should like to follow up a great many points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, but time is short, and perhaps he will forgive me if I confine myself to one, in particular, at the moment, although I may refer to others later. He raised a point of some substance, in my view, which noble Lords on this side of the House and, indeed, the country generally cannot lightly set aside. Many points have been raised from the opposite side of the House during the past two days which obviously are important, but to which I cannot reply now. However, the particular point to which refer, on which I think I might pause for a moment, is that the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, asked why when we were in office we did not do more to get rid of the colour bar. Of course, no Government is perfect; and, while we made efforts, I am not able to point to the situation in Africa and say, "Look how good it was when we were in office." I think we must face the facts as presented by the noble Earl, and must not accuse noble Lords opposite of having conduced to this, or condoned it in some special way up to the present.
As the noble Earl will agree, this is a very difficult matter. I feel that as a nation we should do more at home than has been done in the past. But when we attempt anything of that kind we fall under a kind of censure in another quarter which I think rather appeals to the noble Earl. I know that we are not supposed to quote at length from speeches made in another place, but the noble Earl introduced this topic, and unless the House stops me I should just like to put our side of the matter. In another place, a recent Minister, Mr. Dugdale, spoke as follows (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 513, col. 703):
"It is important that it should be realised in the Rhodesias that when we can get power we shall, at the earliest possible moment, see whether it will be possible to alter the laws by which there is an industrial colour bar in Northern Rhodesia and whether the Dalgleish Report can be implemented."
I thought that was sound language, and was in keeping with the spirit of one part of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Winterton. I feel that we ought to do more than we have done in the past. But Mr. Dugdale was severely rebuked for that statement.
624
Many speeches have been referred to, including one by Mr. Welensky. I read in the Manchester Guardian of March 26 these words:
"Mr. Welensky took strong exception to the statement of Mr. Dugdale, the former Colonial Secretary, that if the Labour Party were returned to power in Britain it would see that the Africans' safeguards in the new Constitution were operated 'to the full'."
In other words, Mr. Dugdale was criticised even for saying we were going to continue to preserve these safeguards and fulfil our trust. He did not there even go so far as to suggest that we should try to get rid of the colour bar. I do ask the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, who is a very fair controversialist and an experienced Minister, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who I know is interested in this matter, whether it is not right to say that this Government, the next Government, and, I hope, all Governments in Britain, will say that they intend to see that the safeguards are operated to the full. I ask the noble Marquess, when he comes to reply, to introduce that matter into his speech. If we are trustees and are introducing a scheme subject to safeguards, surely it is our duty to say that we will resist, and will continue to resist, any attempt to prevent those safeguards from being honoured and carried out to the full.
EARL WINTERTON: The noble Lord has quite rightly challenged me, but I am afraid I have not the quotation with me. I think it was that speech to which the Minister of Native Affairs took exception, but unfortunately Mr. Dugdale used the word "Rhodesias," which gave Southern Rhodesia the impression that there was to be a different attitude from that hitherto pursued.
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not think I can follow up that argument as the noble Earl has said that he has not brought the quotations here. I have made the point, and noble Lords will be seized of it.
There have been many memorable speeches, and I suppose those which will be remembered longest are the speeches made by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, and the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. Still, I myself do not hesitate to say that I feel a strong emotional response—as I think many of us on these Benches must have felt—to

625
the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who spoke with so much evident love of the Africans from his first-hand knowledge and friendship with them. I hope that the noble Marquess will find it possible to say a few slightly more generous words about the very fine speech of my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton in opening this debate, because in our view he has not received very friendly or fair treatment from noble Lords opposite during the course of these two days.
The most reverend Primate made an important intervention, and it is no good pretending, from a debating point of view, that it tells in our favour. I am glad he spoke, because I think it is far more important that fundamental statements should go out to the world and be considered than that anyone should win a debating advantage. I quite understand the reason which has caused him to be absent for the end of the debate. Still, I feel a certain diffidence in replying to the most reverend Primate, because I am one of the comparatively few Members of this House who are not members of the Established Church. Noble Lords will forgive me, therefore, if I show the slightest lack of respect. I shall, of course, be able to quote one or two statements from eminent leaders of the Established Church which conflict with the view, as I understand it, expressed by the most reverend Primate this afternoon.
At this point I will say merely that we differ from him in one very sharp respect, quite clearly and definitely; and it is simply a question of faith. We consider that there is a difference of principle between those who wish to impose federation and those who do not wish to impose federation. The most reverend Primate did not deny that, but he omitted that point in his comparatively short remarks. He said that there was no difference of principle between the two sides. We say that there is. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said yesterday that this scheme really cannot be called imposition, but I think he was effectively answered by the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, who said it was. I am prepared to take the latest of the Conservative speakers until he is contradicted by some more authoritative spokesman. We all know what we mean by imposition, and there is a difference of principle between those who favour it and those who do not.
626
There was one further point made by the most reverend Primate—I am sorry to say this in his absence, but it seemed a somewhat frivolous point on a very grave aspect of the matter. He said that if we delayed it would be regarded as a victory for all sorts of unspecified evil elements. I ventured to interrupt, and I did not obtain a very clear answer from him. He said that it would be thought to be a victory for the Amalekites. I have consulted an encyclopædia, which says that King Agag was a byword for old-time might and power, so there is no great opprobrium in that statement. King Agag was slain by Samuel as a sacrificial offering. If the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, were here, that might be our fate, but I think on the whole this particular allusion to the Amalekites was without very much relevance to the discussion.
The simple truth is this. If this scheme were defeated, in my opinion—and I think others will agree—it would be as a result of parliamentary and public discussion. We have been denounced for all sorts of things we have not said, and for all sorts of implications and backward thoughts. There has been a suggestion that there is something wrong in inciting people to differ from the Government. I take strong exception to that. Are we not to be allowed to argue and to have meetings? Is it an evil thing to stir up opinion against what we think is wrong? If so, I do not know what is meant by democracy. If this scheme were held up by the Government for a considerable time it would be a victory for the British way of life, about which we have heard so much, and also for the British methods of discussion. The noble Viscount shakes his head, and there is quite a bit of headshaking at this point. But I must give that as my own considered opinion. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has left us. I do not know whether he is going to return.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): He asked me to say that he had been called away on official business. He will be coming back as soon as he can.
LORD PAKENHAM: It places me in a great difficulty. The noble Viscount was not here for very long yesterday, and having silenced me he fled from the

627
Chamber. He seems to have silenced me again this afternoon by this official business which seems to overtake him at critical moments. If he does not return fairly soon I shall have to allude to his oration of yesterday, because I do not intend to keep your Lordships long.
I am sure the noble Marquess will agree that public conscience is greatly disturbed, whichever way one decides this matter. I am sure that he would echo, as I would, the words of the most reverend Primate, that this problem of whether federation should be imposed confronts the nation with a great challenge to conscience, and that many people are uneasy. Some leading men with whom I was in close affinity in my own Party have come out in favour of going ahead with this scheme at once. The overwhelming majority of the Labour Party agree with us on these Benches but there is a very great concern outside. The Liberals took up a cryptic attitude and I cannot speak with clarity as to their position; but certainly in another place they voted with us, and unless they have done a quick somersault I must assume that they are still, as a Party, opposed to federation. The trade union movement, which nowadays receives many bouquets from noble Lords opposite, is entirely of the same way of thinking as we are, in that they have asked for delay.
The critics, of course, have been delighted by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. I gather that he is not with us now. I do not like to refer to any noble Lord, even rhetorically, in his absence, but there are certain ethics of debate even when it is impossible to remain to the end. The noble Lord poured scorn on almost everything, but he left his final attack for the United Nations. It seemed an unnecessary "crack," but that was clearly his state of health or mind. I must defend the United Nations against Lord Milverton—not that I think it needs much defence in a House of this kind, when the noble Marquess is one of the United Nations Association's most distinguished patrons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not agree with them about this, and I would tell them so.
LORD PAKENHAM: I hope and believe that the noble Marquess is a keen supporter of the United Nations.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Does the noble Lord mean the United Nations Association or the United Nations?
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount thinks so quickly that he always finishes my sentence before I come to it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was only asking a question.
LORD PAKENHAM: I was beginning to explain that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has denounced the United Nations and the United Nations Association is most concerned about this. Above all, the British Council of Churches—I speak subject to authority—is a very strong opponent of the imposition of federation. Last year—and this was the last recorded utterance on the subject by the British Council of Churches—this statement was made. Incidentally, I think that, for once, the Officials' Box will not be able to supply an answer. Last year the British Council of Churches said that the achievement of partnership will not be furthered by leaving the affairs of Africa in the hands of a few politically-minded people. The Report went on to say:
"The attempt to impose a plan of federation in the face of almost unanimous opposition…would destroy the basis on which its success would depend within partnership."
I believe that to be the last recorded utterance of the British Council of Churches on this particular subject. No doubt the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester will correct me if I am wrong.
I am glad to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has been able to rejoin us. I think he is one of the most effective advocates of any case that one could wish to meet. If I were to get into trouble I should be very glad to have him defending me—particularly if I were guilty. Even if he did not get me off he would, I know, give the opposite attorney such a bad time that that attorney would never dare appear in that court again. But I am bound to say to the noble Viscount that we were very much disappointed with him with regard to the attitude he took yesterday. Serious, considered speeches, the fruits of much labour, were delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, and by the right reverend Prelate; and the noble Viscount

629
made no attempt to answer those points. I hope he will find it possible to be more friendly to us and less violently hostile.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With the exception of the noble Lord, who is so bitter and pronounced an opponent of the scheme, nobody, I think, could call my speech discourteous or refer to it in the terms in which he has described it. Of course the noble Lord did not like my reply, because he did not agree with me. But I certainly did not say anything discourteous. I think I took more trouble over that speech than over any speech I have delivered in this House, because I felt I had never before spoken on a graver occasion. I may have failed but certainly not on the grounds which the noble Lord suggests.
LORD PAKENHAM: Well, what has been said does not, at any rate, detract from my high regard for the noble Viscount. I think he had a difficult case, but there was one part of his speech which did cause much regret. The noble Viscount gave us his picture in this way (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col. 485):
"It is said that all Africans are opposed. If by 'all Africans' is meant the African Congress Party, I entirely agree. I think that probably every member of the Congress Party is opposed. There are not a great many of them. A comparatively small number of extremists are opposed. They are opposed to the whole idea of co-operation and partnership, exactly as are the European extremists on the other side. And I must say that these people have been propaganding with the maximum of misrepresentation."
There, my Lords, is a passage which the noble Viscount tells us is a very carefully considered statement, so we must take that to be his considered view. I think one could draw the conclusion from that—certainly it appears to be drawn in the Press this morning—that the opposition among Africans is confined to a comparatively small number of extremists. It is open to the noble Viscount or to the noble Marquess who leads the House to amplify that statement or explain it and to tell us that it was incorrect to say that the noble Viscount was, in fact, referring to a small group. Certainly I think that is the impression created: that the opposition is confined to a comparatively small number of extremists. The right reverend Prelate said yesterday all that could be said on that subject. And yet the noble Viscount proceeded with this announce-
630
ment, and so I do not make any apology for returning to the matter.
The question is, how can we settle this question of whether Africans are or are not opposed to federation? If I want to satisfy myself on any matter of this kind I usually like to go to some reputable newspaper which tends on the whole to take an opposite view from mine. I have done so on this occasion and I should like to read to your Lordships this paragraph from The Times of Monday, March 23:
"The crucial point in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to-day is that the chiefs have turned against federation. A small number of politically-minded African white collar workers were against it from the start."
Those are the people presumably to whom the noble Viscount was referring. The paragraph concludes as follows:
"But all this would have amounted to little if the chiefs, the traditional authorities, had not sided with them. It is the opposition of the chiefs to federation which lends substance to the claim that Africans as a whole are against it."
I hope the noble Viscount or the noble Marquess either now or later will be able to tell me that I have misunderstood the noble Viscount's words.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I withdraw nothing which I said in my speech. We are all entitled to an opinion. People may look at a thing, and one may come to one conclusion and the other person to another. I do not withdraw what I said. I gave a considered opinion. That is my opinion and I stand by it.
LORD PAKENHAM: I could easily cross-examine the noble Viscount as to whether he is in fact taking the view that opposition is confined to a few extremists, but I will not pursue the matter. The noble Lard, Lord Hailey, said yesterday in effect that African opinion in so far as it is expressed is hostile to it. I think there is a very understandable case in favour of federation and there is no need to misrepresent—I am sure unwittingly and quite sincerely—the matter in this way. If the case for federation is a good one, surely noble Lords opposite can accept a few facts against them, instead of brushing them off and saying that the opposition is in the hands of a few educated Africans.
EARL WINTERTON: That is not the charge that many of us are bringing. It

631
is a much more serious charge. The Government cannot bring this charge, but I can and do. Some of these people who are opposed to federation wish the Europeans out of Northern Rhodesia and to have a Negro Government. They are in sympathy with some of the extremists in Kenya. I say that with very personal knowledge.
LORD PAKENHAM: That has nothing to do with what the noble Viscount said yesterday. The noble Earl is now making a further charge. I say you are going to add to the bitterness if you act in the way in which the Government seem likely to act at the moment. This is undoubtedly a very serious issue. I can sympathise with the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said yesterday when he put the point so well. This was left on their plate by us. None of us has been disposed to come forward and say that this is some Conservative trick or something hatched out of the Conservative Central Office. This came forward in the Labour Government and now the present Government find it on their plate. They may feel that they have been hardly treated by fate or by their predecessors in finding it there at all.
I am not going into whether we have handled the question well or whether they have handled the question well. All Parties always feel that they could have done better than the people running the thing. We think that we could have done it better than the present Government and they feel that they can do it better. I am not going to follow up that argument. Diametrically opposite views can be held on that. What I am going to deal within a sentence or two is the case for federation and the case against. The case for federation was put plainly by the noble Viscount. Of course, I am not charging the noble Viscount, with his ability and experience, with simply wasting our time. He put the case for federation very well indeed. But what he did not do was to attempt to reply seriously to any of the major objections to the scheme.
I think the noble Marquess who is to speak at the end of this debate will accept this summary of the main case for federation. First, that federation offers certain economic answers which, in the view of
632
the experts, are the best answers available—certain economic advantages; secondly, that these economic advantages will lead to an improvement in the social and economic conditions of the Africans; thirdly, that whatever the Africans think about it, it is the duty of the trustees to go ahead in the interests of the Africans and the white people alike; fourthly, that, that being their duty, they would be signally failing in their trust if they failed to carry it out. I think that puts one side of the case very fairly. There are certainly many arguments for federation. I do not think the arguments are overwhelming; I do not think you will find a transformation when you get federation. These comparatively small communities can co-operate now without federation. I went to Rhodesia in 1950 to open the Livingstone Airport—that was a trunk airport. Now a trunk airport is being sited at Salisbury. That is clearly a waste of money, in view of the limited resources of the community. While, under federation, you might avoid that kind of absurdity, you might avoid it without federation if there were a little more co-ordination.
EARL WINTERTON: You might say that it is the duty of the Central African Council to avoid that, but it had no sanction behind it. Therefore, Southern Rhodesia is able to do exactly as it likes. It has spent over £1 million on the airport. With federation, one or the other would have been allowed or cancelled.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am not going to argue on that point further, although you can argue that in favour of federation. I am saying that at the present time you could secure a much greater advantage than you are securing if a little more wisdom were shown. That is my own opinion, and I opened that particular airport. There is an opinion which is more important than such arguments and it was unfolded by the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, in a speech which was certainly eloquent and, speaking from a personal sense, most impressive, though, of course, he differs on almost every point of social philosophy from those of us who sit on this side. In effect, he said that if you do not federate, Southern Rhodesia will be likely to join the Union. If that is really so, it conflicts with the view that has been put forward that Southern Rhodesia is an enlightened, progressive and liberal-minded place. That

633
was unfolded in a vivid speech by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. If that is so, why should they be so easily attracted by Dr. Malan? I think you can argue it either way, but you cannot put both those points of view in one kind of argument.
I know I am making purely a debating point, but the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, and the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, told us that we were to conclude from the fact that the Africans are ready to work in Southern Rhodesia, that they are attracted by Southern Rhodesia and that they are sympathetic towards the set-up in Southern Rhodesia. Are we to conclude from the fact that Southern Rhodesia, on the noble Viscount's own showing, would be irresistibly attracted to the Union, that they are sympathetic to the set-up there? If Dr. Malan cared to make a proposition which was sympathetic to his ideas, would the noble Viscount suppose that Southern Rhodesia—he is a settler; he commutes between Salisbury and this House and he speaks with authority—
EARL WINTERTON: Why should the noble Lord—
LORD PAKENHAM: May I finish my sentence?
EARL WINTERTON: Yes.
LORD PAKENHAM: If you are going to say that Southern Rhodesia would be happy to join South Africa as part of the appalling régime there, how can one paint the picture that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, painted of a progressive, Christian-minded State?
EARL WINTERTON: That is a misstatement that is constantly made—I do not apply that to the remarks of the noble Lord. It is a misunderstanding that is constantly occurring to believe that because Southern Rhodesia might, as a last alternative, have to go into the Union, they are therefore supporters of Dr. Malan. If they went into the Union, they might just bring the balance of Malanism to an end. I do not believe they would be supporters of Dr. Malan if they chose to go into the Union.
LORD PAKENHAM: I cannot believe that if, for instance, we in this Island were asked by Dr. Malan to join, any of us would entertain it for one moment.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: It is quite on the cards that Dr. Malan will lose the next election and be succeeded by a Liberal Government. In fact, I should think that the odds are seven to five on.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount opposite is obviously happy with that last intervention, but he said that, whatever happens in the elections in South Africa, whoever won, Southern Rhodesia would be attracted and be ready to join the Union of South Africa. I do take that argument seriously, that they might join the Union of South Africa. I think that something would be lost if federation did not go through, but I am answering the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, who asked: "What would be the gain in not going on?" The gain would be that you would avoid a certain tragedy whose end cannot be foreseen. That is the gain—or, if you like, the avoidance of a colossal loss.
I have touched on the arguments for federation which have naturally been deployed fully and ingeniously by the advocates of the scheme. Let us come to the question of the African opposition. We seem to be now agreed that, according to The Times,
"there is substance in the claim that Africans as a whole are against it."
That being so, can we or can we not prudently set aside this opposition as though it is a relatively unimportant factor? Surely the noble Marquess would agree that it would be much more agreeable and pleasant if in fact he had been able to persuade the Africans. In the statement made by the present Government on October 21, shortly after they came into power, on a closer association, we read that the Government:
"recognise that African opinion in the two northern territories has declared itself opposed to the proposals in the officials' report; but they trust that, in the light of the assurances agreed upon at Victoria Falls Conference, and of the economic and other advantages of closer association, Africans will be prepared to accept them."'
It was clearly an objective of this scheme to secure African acceptance. They have failed to secure it. I am not arguing about it. May be it is quite impossible, but they set themselves that objective and they have failed in it, and I hope they will admit it. It is a serious factor. I cannot help quoting—there have been interruptions which of course I welcome; they have been fairly frequent

635
and always very enjoyable—the pledge given by the late Government which Mr. Griffiths referred to in his main speech in another place, when, as Minister, he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; Vol. 513, col. 678):
"The second undertaking I gave was that we would consult African opinion, and that full account would be taken of it before any change affecting African interests was considered and decided."
The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, was, I think, probably opposed to that pledge. I do not know what he said at the time. I would ask the noble Marquess specifically, if he feels able to, to tell us whether he thinks it was a mistake ever to give that pledge of consultation with the Africans. I will pass the quotation to the noble Marquess. We consider that that was a wise pledge, and it having been given we must stand by it. In paragraph 35 of the Officials' Report we are told:
"We have constantly borne in mind that whatever is proposed must be designed not only to indicate the will of Territories and their inhabitants, but also to be acceptable to the inhabitants and to the Governments and Legislatures concerned."
I must assume that that phrase refers to all the inhabitants; certainly that is the view of the officials. That was a wise expression of opinion—that the scheme should be acceptable to all.
That, my Lords, is where we find the matter at the present time. I have only a few more things to say. I suggest that the success of federation will depend on the spirit of its operation alike by Africans and Europeans. I should like to say specifically from this side that we do not regard all Africans as perfect. I hope that the impression will not get about that we believe that in every dispute between Africans and white men the Africans are always right. That is not our view at all. But I am sure that, whatever our Party, we feel a special responsibility for these people for whom we recognise an obligation of trusteeship. I do not know what co-operation the Africans will or will not offer. Naturally, we shall deplore any kind of violence at all. Certainly no words of mine are intended to encourage violence.
But I am not thinking of violence; I am not even thinking of strikes; I am not even thinking whether some particular union does or does not come out
636
against this scheme at some particular moment. I am thinking of the long years ahead, and of the effect on the relationship between the two peoples. I agree, therefore, with what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said yesterday, that in that sense, taking the long view, without the active co-operation of the Africans federation is bound to fail. It is not a short question; it is a long question. I heartily endorse his words. Success also depends on the spirit shown by the Europeans.
We have heard something about Sir Godfrey Huggins. I do not take the view, and I do not think anybody on this side has taken the view, that when you reach Africa you become a Simon Legrees and that ordinary Englishmen turn into brutal slave drivers; but certainly the white settler tends to adopt a different attitude towards the Africans from that of the average Englishman in this country. When I opened the new airport in Livingstone in 1950 I was surrounded with Europeans on the airport; there were Europeans in the enclosures and Europeans beyond that, and then thousands of Africans. Then, on a subsidiary dais I met the African chiefs. That is in Northern Rhodesia. I say that as long as that situation exists we cannot talk of partnership. I am not blaming the individuals. As a matter of fact my host, the acting Governor, is one of the most humane people that one could find anywhere. Therefore, it is not a question of bad faith or anything so unpleasant as that. But I do say that this colour distinction is a blot on the British way of life in Africa. Surely, we can be proud of what Englishmen have achieved overseas, without professing to be perfect. I believe there is a tremendous amount in what Lord Winterton said—that as a country we have not done enough to guide our brethren overseas towards behaving properly to the black men. I cannot put it higher than that.
EARL WINTERTON: I hope the noble Lord will not put those words into my mouth. I did not put it in quite that way.
LORD PAKENHAM: I was grateful to the noble Earl for having helped me to find the words that I was looking for. I heard some noble Lords say that, after all, partnership, federation and the colour

637
bar are all rather separate matters. So they are in a way. That is a practical question. But through the minds of all of us there has been running a bigger question to-day—namely, what is going to be the future of the Africans and of ourselves in Africa. That was a question put so wisely and rightly by the most reverend Primate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that while the colour bar remains in existence things are going to be very difficult. It is within the power of the Government to prevent partnership from being so much humbug if the intention is to remove the colour bar steadily and ultimately to get rid of it altogether. That is surely the real ideal of Her Majesty's present Government, and, in so far as they can, to help our own people, the white people, to understand it. We here stand for the abolition of the colour bar, root and branch, and though we realise the difficulties—it is much easier to say it in Opposition than to do it when you are in office—we beg the noble Marquess to-day to tell us that that is also his intention. It is a much bigger thing even than federation. The real issue is whether the Government intend, to the best of their ability, to sway the white man in Africa in order to get rid of the colour bar.
I implored the Government last year not to impose this scheme on the Africans. I am bound to say that, in my view, if the Government do impose it they are, with the best intentions, laying up a store of evil for generations to come, and they are undoing or going far to undo the ideals that we and they share in regard to Africa. But, even more fundamental than that, taking the long view (and this, I think, must have run through the mind of the right reverend Prelate, and I think it was running through the thoughts of all of us), is the question of how soon we can bring the Africans to a true realisation of our aims.
2.19 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to say a last word on behalf of the Government at the end of this long and important debate. I believe that the most reverend Primate called it a momentous debate, and I do not think that word is too strong. This is a debate which has occupied our attention for two long days, and in particular a debate which was to-day illumined by a remark-
638
able speech by the most reverend Primate. I think I have listened to practically all the discussion. In the course of it I have been asked a great many questions. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not answer them all. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, alone subjected me to a regular bombardment of questions, but gave no notice of what he was going to ask, and if I attempted to answer him I should have to speak for several hours.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am quite certain that the noble Marquess does not suggest any discourtesy on my part. As I thought his noble friend Lord Swinton was the official spokesman in regard to Commonwealth matters, I spoke to him about the points I was going to raise in this debate. I thought that was the correct procedure.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise to the noble Earl; I did not know that. But, in any case, as I say, if I were to give a full answer to all the points raised, I am afraid I should try the patience of the House too highly.
I am quite certain that neither the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, nor I will complain that your Lordships have returned again to the topic of Central African Federation, a subject which has occupied so many debates in recent months. For it seems to me, if I may say so without offence, to be about the only chance of bringing any sense of reality to the consideration of this problem, at any rate on the part of certain sections of opinion here: and though I do not want to be controversial, judging by a good deal of what we have heard yesterday and to-day we have still a very long way to go in that respect.
To me, at any rate, as one who has had long connection with this subject (I will not call myself an expert),this has been in many ways a very sad debate. It has been inspired, I am quite certain, by the highest motives on the part of the movers of both Motions and those who have supported them—every one of them. But they have, I am afraid, only succeeded in showing by their speeches a complete misunderstanding of both the nature and the complexity of the problem with which we have to deal. It is a remarkable fact, I think, that the actual details of the plan of federation—this scheme which has

639
been devised with so much labour, over so many months, by all that concourse of men, official and unofficial, both from the United Kingdom and Central Africa—have hardly been mentioned. Except for the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, all of whom devoted a portion of their speeches to the scheme, it has been largely ignored.
Nor have those safeguards which have been devised by officials and others with lifelong experience of the countries concerned, to ensure that an even balance should be achieved between the Europeans and Africans, been given any real objective examination. There were a number of references in the speech of the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, and a rather briefer one in the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, who I am sorry is not able to be here to-day, and of the other two noble Lords I have mentioned; but that is all. In the other speeches from the opposite side of the House the whole emphasis has been thrown—I thought the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, was a good example of this—on one point, and one alone: the question of whether these proposals (whether they were good or bad did not seem to matter at all) had the support of the African people. That is the point that has been drummed in throughout these two days.
It is said that there is opposition and that that opposition has grown. How far that statement is accurate it is difficult to say. The great masses of the African people in these Territories—as has been said by noble Lords with practical experience of them—are largely inarticulate; and, so far as there is articulate opinion, it has mainly been worked up by men (the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in his speech ignored this) whose main object is not to find a multi-racial solution at all but to get rid of the Europeans altogether, and who for this reason use any methods of distortion, intimidation or what-not to serve their purpose. It is really no use noble Lords opposite shutting their eyes to that. It is a fact which is confirmed by all our sources of information. But, in any case, I personally should not be at all surprised if the initial reaction to this scheme on the part
640
of the Africans were unfavourable—even strongly hostile. Indeed, I think that is almost inevitable, for in these Territories all past experience has shown that African opinion is always hostile to every reform and change, whatever that change may be, until it gets used to it. Then usually, if the change is a good one, opinion becomes equally violent in its favour.
Are noble Lords opposite aware that African opinion, so far as it was articulate, was opposed to the institution of hospitals and schools when they were first introduced in these areas, and that it was hostile to the transfer of Northern Rhodesia from the Chartered Company to the Colonial Office? Are they aware of the reason? The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who gave us an extremely interesting speech yesterday, gave us his reason. He said that Africans dread change because it is so often detrimental to them. With all deference to the noble Lord, I believe that assessment to be entirely superficial. I suggest that the real reason is far more fundamental than that. Africans dread change as a child dreads the dark; it is the fear of the unknown. The peoples of Central Africa are still, in spite of what noble Lords have said, very primitive peoples; and very primitive peoples, like children, cling to what they are used to. Anything new fills them with the deepest suspicion.
Take this case of the transfer of the administration of Northern Rhodesia from the British South Africa Company to the Crown in 1924. According to the information which I have received, this is what happened. An indaba was held, and was attended by the chiefs and headmen who were informed of the pending change. This news caused a good deal of uneasiness amongst the African population, and the chiefs expressed themselves as opposed to it. I have been further told that the opposition was undoubtedly no more than a manifestation of African conservatism and the dislike of change which has so often attended the introduction of new methods and improvements in education, agriculture and medicine and so on. What would noble Lords have done if they had been in office at that time? No doubt, holding the views that they do, the transfer of administrative power from a private company of settlers

641
to the Crown would be all to the good. But Africans, from motives of conservatism, opposed it.
One wonders what Lord Noel-Buxton, Lord Ammon and Lord Winster—who was so very emphatic on this subject—would have done. Judging by what we have been told during the last two days, and from other things which I have heard, they would have been bound to drop it—and, indeed, the introduction of hospitals and everything else. We may be told that such reforms would only have been postponed until the Africans had been converted. But, as Lord Tweedsmuir said in his brilliant speech yesterday, primitive peoples are seldom converted, except by experience. I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who did deal with this subject, that if he really meant that we should delay all reforms until the majority of Africans had approved them, it means, in fact—and we must face it—that we had better put them off for ever.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I offer one reflection to the noble Marquess? Surely there is a difference between deciding that something is necessary in the interests of health and deciding that you are going to embark on a so-called partnership with someone who does not want to embark on a partnership in that form?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no difference between constitutional changes, such as the transfer of administrative power which I have mentioned, and this change.
LORD PAKENHAM: But a partnership is different.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord mouths the word "partnership" as if it explains everything. He does not really try to get down to the realities of this matter at all. I am trying—probably very inadequately—to explore how the minds of the Africans work and how we must deal with people in that stratum of society.
It has been suggested (it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, yesterday) that this scheme has been rushed by the present Government—the word the noble Lord used was "railroaded." But nothing could be further from the truth. The question of the
642
closer association of these Territories, as all your Lordships know, has been the subject of innumerable inquiries almost since the days of Rhodes himself. If it has come to the fore again that is not our doing. It is the doing of the Party of noble Lords opposite It was they, in 1950 or 1951, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, very fairly stated yesterday, who appointed a Committee of Officials which discarded other solutions and recommended federation. It was they who called the first Victoria Falls conference to consider the Officials' Report. They did this, presumably, because they thought federation was the best form of closer union for these Territories.
The late Government must have known—at least, they ought to have known, if they had listened to their advisers and experts—that the initial reaction of the Africans to the Officials' scheme was bound to be hostile. Anyone with a knowledge of the country and the mentality of the primitive Africans could have told them that. Why did they set this ball rolling, unless they meant to see it through the goal? Why, in particular, having set it rolling, did they forbid the district officers—as I understand they did—who are the natural and trusted leaders of the Africans, to give any guidance on this? Why did they leave this entirely to the African Congress, many of whose members they must have known were only out to get rid of the Europeans? And what reason is there to suppose now that further delays will make things better?
During the last two days we have been appealed to, in impressive unison, by the noble Lords, Lord Ammon, Lord Winster and Lord Lucan, that we ought to start again from the beginning. We have been told that we ought to appoint a new and impartial Commission—that was Lord Winster's idea—or to postpone the decision for five years, which is, I know, the normal panacea of the Labour Party That was Lord Lucan's suggestion. And then, even odder, there was some other alternative, quite unspecified, which was Lord Ammon's proposal. But what good would a new impartial inquiry do? The officials' inquiry was an impartial one. No doubt that was why they were appointed. What possible value could come from a further investigation now? This new investiga-

643
tion must either come to the same conclusion, in which case it is not worth while to have, or it must differ from the views of our most experienced advisers. In any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, was careful to point out, the Government would not be bound by it, even if it did succeed in producing another proposal. What would noble Lords expect to get from that, except further bewilderment? Or what will Lord Lucan's five years further delay achieve, except five years further uncertainty?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Marquess has asked me a question. I should say that it would give the Europeans an opportunity of removing the Africans' suspicions by a change of attitude.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It would also give the Africans an opportunity to remove the Europeans' suspicions. Noble Lords opposite never consider that. But what, in fact, would happen is that the Africans would become more rigid on their side and the Europeans in turn would become more rigid on theirs. Other noble Lords may know the country much better than I do, but that is my firm opinion from my experience of it. It is also the opinion of my noble friend Lord Hudson, who knows the country, and of everybody else who knows it and who has taken part in this debate.
As for Lord Ammon's alternatives, the noble Lord did not say what they were: so of course we cannot judge. But I would remind him, if he were here, that the officials considered all the other alternatives before they opted for federation. I would remind him further, that if the Africans were not present at earlier conferences, it was because they would not come. In any case, I understand from the noble Lord's speech it was not so much that he had any great hopes of these new alternatives; his main object seemed to be to obtain a little further delay. In fact, that has been the main theme of all the Opposition speakers—delay, delay, delay. But on this side of the House we do not accept the view that delay can do us no harm; nor is that the view of the Governors of the two Northern Provinces, and of others who
644
have reported to us. On the contrary, all our reports from Central Africa itself are to the same effect: that a situation of the utmost seriousness would be likely to arise. That is borne out, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Forester, in the very remarkable maiden speech which he delivered to your Lordships' House yesterday. The friction between the two races would become more inflamed. The more extreme elements among both Europeans and Africans would gain strength, the moderates would be squeezed out, multi-racial co-operation might well become permanently impossible and an enduring division caused. These are the fruits of delay. That is the fact which is causing anxiety among all those who really know Central Africa.
I should have thought that that would have penetrated the consciousness even of one with the self-confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton. But not a bit of it. He proceeds serenely ahead, wrapped in his mantle of rectitude—I do not say "unctuous" rectitude, for I did not hear the greater part of his speech. But that is what I would say about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, which I did hear. On the strength, so far as I know, of one comparatively short visit to Central Africa—I do not know how long he was there—the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton wrote an article in the Contemporary Review, which I read with great interest, because it appeared to be a confession of the noble Lord's faith. In this article he castigated those who had devoted their whole lives to the development of these countries for what he called their "certainty of superiority and conceit" If I may ask the noble Lord, with all deference—and I do not say this in an offensive spirit—is he sure that he himself is entirely free from those very faults?
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I do not think any of us can claim to be free from these faults, though we may try to be as free of them as possible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: At any rate, to many of us it seems curious that the noble Lord should set himself up with such certainty, on the strength of such short personal experience, against so many men who have spent their lifetime in close touch with the problem on the spot.

645
One noble Lord (I am not quite certain who he was) said yesterday that the fact of whether or not a man had personal experience of the countries in question was not a conclusive argument either in favour of or against his views. I entirely agree with that: I think we all should. But if every noble Lord in this debate who has real experience of these countries takes one view, and every noble Lord who has no personal knowledge of Africa takes another, that is surely a significant consideration—I am not putting it higher than that. In this debate we have had, on one side, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who is the elder statesman on this question; the noble Lord, Lord Forester, who has lived in these countries; the noble Lords, Lord Hailey and Lord Milverton, who were great Colonial administrators; the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, who has very recent experience of Rhodesia; and the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who also speaks with great experience.
On the other side, we have had a number of most agreeable speeches from noble Lords, nearly all of whom have never been within a thousand miles of Central Africa. I felt as I listened—and perhaps the explanation is in what I have already said—that there was a remarkable difference in the whole approach, between the speeches of one group and those of the other. To the supporters of federation it was a practical problem. They are experts on the subject; they know the places themselves; they know the Africans, and have worked with them. On the other side, there was the academic school. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said— and I honour him for it—that from his point of view it was a matter of morals more than a practical consideration.
LORD PAKENHAM: I did not actually say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord said it was a matter of morals.
LORD PAKENHAM: Why the laughter? Why is it a funny thing? When other noble Lords said it was a matters of morals, we respected it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not laughed.
EARL JOWITT: The laughter did not come from the noble Marquess, but from
646
certain colleagues of his on the Front Bench.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord might at least hear what I have to say. I do not laugh at the noble Lord for the point of view he has taken. As I said, I honour him for it. But even morals ought not to be entirely divorced from reality. That is the complaint I have of his speech and others we have listened to in the last two days. I remember being told many years ago that Mr. Asquith once described a man who was in a debate, a little out of his depth, perhaps, as "bogged and befogged in a jungle." I could not help feeling that at some moments of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that was not a very bad description of him.
I should now like to refer to one or two other speeches. First, there was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford. The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, comes into a completely different category from the noble Lords of whom I have been speaking up to now. I make no complaint—I am sure nobody will—that he should have expressed the views he did. I honour his sincerity; I recognise that he was voicing convictions formed from his experience in various parts of Africa. In that respect, of course, he was in a rather special position. On the other hand—and this is a point which the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, has already made—the noble Lord will agree—in fact, he frankly confessed it in his speech—that he does not know Central Africa. West Africa in particular, where the noble Lord, I know, occupied a distinguished position, is in two respects, I suggest with all diffidence to your Lordships, different from Central Africa, which we are discussing to-day. For one thing, West Africa is purely what may be called a black man's country. You can have white doctors there; you can have educationists, administrators, merchants and so on; but the climate is not suitable, and never will be, so far as I know, for a multi-racial society. Therefore, the same issues do not arise in regard to West Africa that arise over Central Africa.
There is also one other respect in which Central Africa, I suggest, differs from West Africa, the Gold Coast and other Colonies of that kind. The West African indigenous population, in many of these areas, at any rate, is far more

647
intellectually advanced than the population of Central Africa. The impact of Western civilisation has been with them, I suppose, much longer, and possibly that is the reason: at any rate, it is a fact that they are more advanced. The African population in the three Territories which your Lordships are discussing to-day are—and I should like to stress this—in no way comparable to the West Africans.
LORD PAKENHAM: Since the noble Marquess seems so anxious to pursue this personal line of comparison, which seems to us so feeble, could he tell us from where the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, derives his experience?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has had great experience in Africa and at the Colonial Office, which, after all, covers the whole Empire. But I am not saying that everybody who has spoken on this side of the House has had a long experience of Africa. If I were to say that, I should be putting myself extremely in the wrong. I do know Southern Rhodesia, but I cannot claim to be an authority on the subject, and I never have claimed that in this House. But the fact remains that the list of noble Lords which I gave would be regarded by any unprejudiced observer as a strong team for dealing with this subject. It does not impress the noble Lord, but it will impress the general public, believe me.
LORD PAKENHAM: We shall see.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There are, of course, even in Central Africa some Africans who are extremely advanced, but they are very few indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, compared the people of Africa with young people growing up to manhood—I believe I got his metaphor right, and I thought it was a good one. But if we are to use that metaphor, I suggest that the people of Central Africa are still in their childhood. For that reason, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that, in my view, the references which he made to federation in the West Indies are completely off the point and utterly irrelevant. In such circumstances, also, I am afraid I cannot, with the best will in the world, attach quite so much importance to the views of the noble
648
Lord, Lord Hemingford, as I would otherwise do.
Finally, I come to the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, who, I understand, has now withdrawn his Motion. The right reverend Prelate has never suggested, so far as I know, that the sentiments which he expressed were based on any personal experience. No doubt he was basing himself mainly on views which were representative of some of the missions in Central Africa Like the right reverend Prelate, and, I imagine, like every noble Lord in this House, I cannot express myself too highly as to the selfless devotion of these saintly men who give their whole lives to the welfare of backward peoples; it is an example to everybody, whoever they may be. But it is surely no insult to them to say that I am by no means certain that they are equally good advisers over the practical administration of an Empire, for which quite a different training is necessary. In any case, as the right reverend Prelate knows, the churches themselves are deeply divided on this question. We have been told, I think by Lord Pakenham, that the British Council of Churches were against federation. That may or may not be so.
LORD PAKENHAM: I must offer it to the noble Marquess as a fact.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I believe it is not, by any means, a certain fact.
LORD PAKENHAM: The right reverend Prelate will tell us.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: The British Council of Churches considered this matter of federation last April at Belfast, at a special meeting, and passed a fully considered statement at that time. They will no doubt consider it again when they meet in Birmingham.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But I understood that no final decision was taken; it was to come up for further consideration. I would point out to the right reverend Prelate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that a great deal of water has passed under the bridges since then, and it is by no means certain that the view will be so strong as it was at that time. The right reverend Prelate quoted a number of sources, and naturally, as he was developing his argu-

649
ment, they were, on the whole, on one side. That might possibly give the impression that there was an overwhelming view on the part of all denominations against federation. I am sure, therefore, the House will allow me to quote the views of the Quakers of Southern Rhodesia. I would remind your Lordships, in doing so, that the Quakers have an unsurpassed record in the service of backward peoples. There is nothing secret or confidential about this document I am going to read—it was published in the Rhodesia Herald on March 14 of this year. I am going to read it at length, because it is a powerful document, and I think it is important in this context. This is the letter:
"Sir, the members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) resident in Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, are deeply conscious of their special responsibility in a multi-racial society, mindful of the backward state of the African peoples, gravely concerned at the attitude of some political groups and religious bodies in the United Kingdom, and fearful of the consequences of a wrong decision on this great issue of federation, state:
(1) We accept that any efforts to maintain the supremacy of one ethnic group over another by any means is wrong, and is bound to fail."
We shall all agree about that.
"(2) We consider that the great advantages to be expected from federation offer the liveliest hope for the future development and progress of black and white alike in this part of Africa.
(3) We believe—
noble Lords opposite will note this—
"that not more than one African in 1,000 understands the great issues behind the federation question. We are convinced that to defer further the decision en federation would gain nothing and would probably add serious complications.
(4) After the fullest examination, we hold that the proposals at present before the electorate of this Colony entrench all the present privileges and safeguard the future position of the African peoples of these territories—in many cases to the great disadvantage of the multi-racial Society as a whole. The economic advantages as well as these political safeguards are such that we believe its adoption to be justified in spite of opposition.
(5) We fear the rejection of federation, either by this Colony or by the United Kingdom, will result in a very few years in an effort to maintain dictatorial white supremacy, which will inevitably be followed by a retreat to barbarism.
(6) We as a body, deeply interested in the building up of a Christian social order in this part of the world, place on record that we are in favour of federation and pray
650
that God may guide all who are concerned in determining the future of Central Africa."
My Lords, I do not say that equally good people might not hold a different view, but it is a powerful document, coming from those who are already devoting their lives to the peoples of Central Africa. It is, if I may say so, a very different kind of view from that expressed to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, and others who have supported him. For he implied—I do not wish to misrepresent him at all—that federation meant handing over the Africans to settlers who regard them as so inferior as to be hardly human. That is not the view of the Quakers. In any case, I should not personally accept the word "inferior" as a description of the attitude of the white people of Southern Rhodesia to the Africans. I would regard "less advanced" as a more correct description. If that is so, who of us will say that they are wrong? It is absolutely true and undeniable that these primitive peoples are at present centuries behind us. They must gradually be educated up. We all want partnership in due course—the fullest partnership. I think I have said this perhaps ad nauseam to your Lordships in earlier debates, and I do not withdraw what I said at that time. That is common ground to all of us, and I am glad to think that we are agreed that there have been considerable advances made in all these Territories since we first arrived there, now about seventy years ago. But it cannot be done all at once, as the most reverend Primate himself said this morning.
What is partnership? Several noble Lords have tried to define it in this debate, and nobody has made a complete success. As I see it, it is a matter partly of spirit and partly of organic growth; and, in the meantime, while the Africans are moving up to the state which would qualify them for full partnership, the main burden of responsibility is bound to rest upon the Europeans. I hope, as I suppose other noble Lords do, that the period which I have described may be the shortest possible; but it is bound to take time, and to suggest that the Africans are at present anything like as advanced as the Europeans or able to take an equal part is really—the noble Lord will forgive me, but anyone who

651
has seen them and knows them at all will agree—sheer moonshine.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Marquess spoke of full partnership as his goal. Does he mean equal partnership? Is that the same?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have said that it is impossible to define, and it is. As I see it, these races are moving together, as it were, up a ladder. The Africans have much farther to go to get to the top of that ladder. The difference between what I may call our British creed and some other creeds is that some people think the backward races should always remain at the bottom. We do not think that, but equally we do not consider that they are near the top yet. That may not be what the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, described as "the London point of view." That was a phrase he used, I think, in his Contemporary Review article. But it is the truth, as is known by everybody who has studied this question for any length of time. I could not avoid the impression that, behind the attitude of the noble Lord and some of his friends who have taken part in this debate, in their heart of hearts they have a serious doubt whether the European should be in Central Africa at all. Perhaps they have a subconscious guilty conscience about it, and they unload it on those whom they refer to as the "settlers." That is why they use this word "settlers," as if they were birds settling on the trees preparatory to flapping their wings and flying off—as if they were temporary denizens of the country. In fact, that is not the position at all. Central Africa is the home of these people. Their fathers have been there, in many cases, almost as long as the Matabele have been there. They are no more settlers in the noble Lord's sense than the white peoples of Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the United States are settlers. I hope that nobody on the other side of the House is going to argue that the British throughout the Commonwealth and Empire are there on false pretences.
LORD PAKENHAM: Nobody has even begun to think of them in any such absurd state.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the essence of the word "settler" is that they are not the real inhabitants of the
652
place. Why, otherwise, do you not call them Southern Rhodesians?
LORD PAKENHAM: If the noble Marquess will permit me to intervene, I am quite ready to call them that. If it is an insult to use the word "settler" I will not use it; but I thought it was a word frequently used even by their friends.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a word used to differentiate between them and the genuine inhabitants of the country. I accept the sincerity both of the noble Lord who moved this Motion and those who have supported him. I am quite certain that they have been saying very much what is in their hearts. But the spirit which has been exhibited on that side of the House is not the spirit, in my view, on which the British Empire, with all its influence for good, has been built up. If the things noble Lords have said in these last two days really represented the view of their fellow countrymen, I should be inclined to agree that it is far better that we should give up our task of trying to lead the Africans forward. But it would be disastrous for the Africans, and, in my opinion, it is assuredly not the view of the vast majority of the British people.
The British people are, I agree, taking an immense interest in this matter. It is a remarkable fact how much interest is now beginning to be aroused. But the British people, or a great many of them, are beginning to recognise, too, that the policy which noble Lords opposite have recommended—this policy of delay or shying off—is likely to work out, whatever its intentions may be, as a policy of scuttle—an honourable Member in another place used an even more trenchant phrase. The British people do not like "scuttle." They know perfectly well—and noble Lords I am sure recognise it, although they have not mentioned it—that under British rule (and by that I mean not merely the rule of the Home Government, but the rule of the local British Governments as well) the slave trade has been abolished, cruelty and oppression have been crushed, and justice, equity and security, in the sense in which we mean those words, have been enshrined in their place as never before. But it is only if British influence is maintained that that situation will continue. If we were to have to leave, those coun-

653
tries, very rapidly, would sag back just where they were before we came.
That brings me to the federal scheme itself, a subject which I said earlier has been only lightly touched on in a good many of the earlier speeches. Of course, this scheme must contain adequate safeguards, safeguards for Africans, safeguards for Europeans, if it is to be acceptable to any of us. I personally, like my noble friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, believe that, as the scheme emerged from the last Conference, the safeguards for Africans are now about as powerful as the wit of man can devise. I do not want to weary the House by retraversing yet once more the ground which he has already so well covered, but at the risk of tiring your Lordships I should like to say one more word about these safeguards, because they are obviously extremely important. I frankly believe that they have been greatly strengthened by the changes which the assembled delegates made at the last Conference.
Take the African Affairs Board. Under the old scheme the Board was an outside body—an excrescence on the Constitution, which we ourselves should certainly have greatly disliked if it had been tried here. It is now an integral part of the Constitution, a Select Committee of the House, but one whose members are elected or selected to represent the African point of view. It is at least as strong a body as the old Board was; and it has the additional advantage that if is not only able to transmit to the Governor-General objections to legislation but its members are able to continue and press arguments in favour of these objections when the Bill comes before the House. In that way I should have thought that it would be able to exercise more influence than it could have done under the old scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, questioned this. But if he had been offered the alternative of membership of a body which could press its point of view in Parliament and one which could not, I am sure which one he would choose, and I am sure he would be perfectly right.
Then there is the new and very powerful safeguard to which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, referred. For the initial period of ten years there is to be no change in the allocation of responsibilities between the federal, concurrent
654
and territorial spheres without agreement of all three Territorial Governments. That should be a massive protection for Africans; for it means that the Territorial Governments will retain all the powers they have for the whole of these ten years, unless all three of them agree to some change. I do not myself think it is inconceivable that some small change of machinery might have to be made by agreement. After all, if one is starting a new Federal Constitution one may in time discover some particular feature which is quite unworkable. Therefore, it is necessary to allow for some possibility of change; but there can be no change for upwards of ten years except by agreement with all the Territorial Governments. I would add that the review which is to take place at the end of ten years will surely be more realistic and valuable as a result of the experience which has been gained during that period.
I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Winster, is not here to-day. He quoted yesterday a Report of a Conference which was held in January of this year in which some of us took part, and he called attention to a statement in paragraph 38 in which it was stated that Her Majesty's Government would naturally seek the views of the Federal Government on any amendments to the Constitution. My impression was that he drew the conclusion that they may be biased by the advice they received. But he did not quote the early part of that same sentence, which says:
"The responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom remains unchanged."
That surely makes the whole difference to the sense. There was also criticism of the provision in the scheme by which there had to be a two-thirds majority in the Federal Parliament before any alteration in the Constitution could pass through that body. But I think the House ought to know that that particular provision was put in at the behest of the Northern Governments, and not of Southern Rhodesia, to ensure that the position of Africans should be safeguarded.
Some noble Lords seem terrified that the interests of Europeans are going to be safeguarded, too. But we cannot have it both ways. The interests of the

655
Africans are safeguarded, and I think that ought to satisfy these noble Lords The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me who would decide when the new Federation becomes a Dominion. I am speaking without the book, but I should say the correct answer is that we do—the other members of the Commonwealth and ourselves. The final decision rests with them and us and not with the Federation.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The question I actually asked the noble Marquess was, who was to decide when the two Northern Territories would give up their Protectorate status, and not who was to decide when the Central African Federation would become a Dominion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I take it that that would be a constitutional change, like any other, and would come under the ordinary procedure. The final decision then would rest with us. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham has asked whether I agreed that it was right for every Government to see that all safeguards were operated to the full. He knows that the United Kingdom has a certain position which is defined in the Federal Constitution. I think every Government should do the full duty that devolves upon them under the Constitution.
My Lords, if I have spoken rather more strongly to-day than is my wont, it is because I have been deeply shocked by the mistrust and hostility exhibited in this debate against our British fellow-countrymen in these three Territories. I cannot help saying that. And perhaps noble Lords will allow me to add this: let us not forget that these British people whose home, and I repeat the word "home," is in Central Africa, are blood of our blood, flesh of our flesh, steeped in our traditions, passionately loyal both to the British connection and to all for which Britain stands; and, what is more, they share our outlook—let me emphasise that word "outlook"—towards the treatment of backward peoples.
When the last war broke out and we were in danger, though they themselves were in no way directly threatened, they sent to fight in the cause of liberty the very cream of their youth. I am speaking again without the book but I believe I am right in saying that a higher pro-
656
portion of the population went to the war from Southern Rhodesia than from any other part of the Empire. We did not hear, at that time, the sort of suggestions that are made about these people now. My Lords, I feel they do not deserve this treatment from us.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, I think, used the word "bitterness" with reference to the relationship between Europeans and Africans in Southern Rhodesia. I do not know from what source he got that impression. I can only tell him, from my own experience, which is a very small one, and I do not seek to exaggerate it, that I have not found this to be so. One or two years ago I spent a few weeks on a farm in the centre of the Colony. We were fifty miles from the nearest town, and fifteen miles from the nearest European farm; and we were on the border of a native reserve and surrounded by Africans. Yet no one thought of locking the outer door of his bungalow at night. That does not give great evidence of bitterness. Indeed, it compares very favourably with conditions in our own country.
Then, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said that he had gained the impression that the Southern Rhodesians would be happy to join the Union.
LORD PAKENHAM: I was trying to quote something which the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, had said.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord may have got that impression. But I would assure him that that is not the position. The last thing the Southern Rhodesians want is to do that. But if people in this country continue to insult them and slap them in the face, they may well be repelled from us.
Finally, my Lords, it has been suggested that our policy should be dependent on the prior approval of the governed. This was not true of the late Government, the Government of the Party of noble Lords opposite. Their statement of policy in June, 1951, was most careful to use only the word "consultation." That is not at all the same thing. Anybody who is drafting an important document of that kind knows that there is a very great difference between "consultation" and "consent." I am not complaining of that. It never has been true of our policy to backward

657
peoples that it depends on the consent of the governed: it is not true now; and in my view, so long as those peoples are backward, it never can be true, any more than the policy of trustees towards minors can be dependent on the consent of their wards. No doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, truly said, it would be much more agreeable if all concerned agreed from the first—of course it would be; but if they do not, then I am afraid that we are not absolved from our responsibilities.
My Lords, our duty as trustees at this most crucial moment is not, as I see it, to haver and waver according to the breezes of opinion, which are often fanned by agitators and extremists, white or black, both of them very dangerous. It is to face up to our responsibilities. It is to make up our own minds what is best for the benefit of Central Africa and for the inhabitants, African and European, who live there. If we do that, soberly and objectively, in the light of advice from those who have the longest experience, I have no doubt at all that we shall go ahead with this scheme, which is manifestly to the advantage of both Africans and Europeans.
I am told that there are perils in going forward. My Lords, of course there are risks, whatever course we take in a situation like this. But it is impossible for us to stand still; we cannot do that; and to go back would, in my view, be yet more dangerous. This is one of those occasions, I suggest, when the way of courage is the way of safety, and it is as such that I commend this scheme with all sincerity to the House.
3.12 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I shall be as brief as possible, as it is my duty to be, but I hope your Lordships will excuse me for speaking for a few minutes. The noble Marquess has challenged me on the certainty of my own point of view and the point of view of others on this side of the House. It is a rather interesting fact, I think, that I realised for the first time only the other day, that Wilberforce had never been out of this country. Was, therefore, the abolition of slavery and slave trading in the British Empire wrong on that account? My own forbear who took over from him had not been out of England. He may have spent too
658
much time shooting partridges in Norfolk. But those people did the right thing about slavery.
I submit that there is such a huge issue of principle involved here that it is possible to have an accurate view upon it without going to the Territories concerned. Of course, it is better if you have a chance to go. It is better to go for two months than for two weeks, and it is better to go for two weeks than not to go at all. In my own case—without boosting my own case, because I am not interested in that—I think there are certain merits in not going on a conducted tour, as it is so easy to do. In the course of being in Central Africa for two months, I had my eyes fairly open and, though it is a certainty of view which I have, it is a humble certainty, it is a certainty which does not really sound as the noble Marquess says in stating that one cannot have a genuine view point on this subject. A principle can be clearly viewed from a distance. A football match can perhaps be more clearly viewed from the touchline.
The noble Marquess mentioned how many centuries the Africans were behind us. I read this morning, in a publication of the Southern Rhodesian Government, a series called The African in Southern Rhodesia, issued by authority, this revealing sentence, which in itself is a subject for a whole debate in this House on another occasion:
"It is a salutary reflection that probably a higher proportion of Southern Rhodesia's Africans are more literate than were Englishmen at the time of Waterloo…or perhaps very much more recently."
That is very interesting, especially coming from a Government publication.
TUE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It does not quite bear out the noble Lord's contention with regard to their being "scarcely human." It does not bear out the noble Lord's contention that the white settlers regard the Africans as being "scarcely human."
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: I think the point is that people on the spot are tending to be very blind. Most Europeans in Africa—I want in a second to go out of my way to dissociate myself from condemning settlers—do not really know the Africans. They only know them through their houseboys or other people who work for them. There are a great many people

659
who would be horrified to go into an African's hut. I have heard people say with passion, "I would not go into an African's hut."
The Government must be feeling very uneasy about this word "partnership." I would bet that some people wish it had never been coined in relation to this question of federation. The great question is "settlers." sI feel that, if one was a settler oneself, one would be too busy, as I suggested yesterday, building up one's farm or one's business, to have much time to consider this question of race relations. I further say that aspiration towards Dominion status is a noble thing in itself; and walking in the streets of Salisbury or Lusaka I immediately realised that this is like walking in the streets of Auckland, New Zealand, or Winnipeg or Adelaide. There is no difference. Yet in this particular case of Africa the situation is different, because there we are confronted with this vast native problem—the most explosive type of problem that can exist in the world. With all humility, I suggest that the individual settler cannot properly rise at the moment, or does not properly rise at the moment, to this question of how the races are to live together. I do not feel that we have had from the Government, in the course of this debate, any very satisfactory definitions of "partnership." Thinking back to early settlement in New Zealand a hundred years ago, it is rather interesting to read the remarks of John Godley who was one of the early leaders of the Canterbury Settlement, when he said of settlers there that they would never do anything great until you left them alone; they wasted their time and energy complaining of the Mother Country. Throw them into the water and they would swim.
I should like just to say one final word about relations with the Union. I have been accused by the most reverend Primate, I think wrongly, of saying that the Rhodesias are on the same "wavelength" as South Africa. The whole problem of European settlement in Africa is one problem. It has taken various forms in different parts of Africa. We need a change of heart on the part of the Europeans everywhere. It is so simple to think only of surviving and the problems of one's own race only. How can noble Lords defend Southern
660
Rhodesia, when there are such measures as the Land Apportionment Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Pass Laws, the Mixed Marriages Act, and a whole host of things that approximate towards the Union? In the framing of some of these Acts, it is undeniable that Union legal opinion has been specifically consulted and advice brought in from the Union.
I should like to point to one place—and there are of course others, like the Domba-Shawa Agricultural School near Salisbury—where there is a really fine atmosphere, as I saw it. I admit that I was there for only a very short time. One place was the St. Faith's Mission and Farm at Rusapi, South-East of Salisbury. That is a really good example of practical partnership between the races. There is an African farm manager there. Every week an excellent discussion group is held, sometimes at the house of Guy Chitton-Brock, the farm superintendent, sometimes in an African's house; and matters like federation are regularly threshed out. There is a European farm worker there, and, as I say, the present farm manager is an African. When you are there it seems so normal; but as you go back on the train to Salisbury, or wherever else you may be going, you feel that you have not really appreciated how normal and natural, and yet how extremely rare, such an atmosphere is. I am not saying that the situation is getting worse, but it could get worse. Southern Rhodesia is a thoroughly uncomfortable country to live in. and places like St. Faith's are exceptional oases.
Finally, I say that to convince Africans we must first have individual improvements in the individual Territories before we can seriously consider moving towards a scheme of federation, desirable in itself, My Lords, we shall not divide the House, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, yesterday; but noble Lords must understand that we could not feel more strongly than we do on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE BILL [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONTROLLING BODY FOR BROADCASTING
3.22 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the fact that ten months have elapsed since the publication of the White Paper on broadcasting (Cmd. 8550), what is the cause of the delay in setting up the controlling body envisaged in paragraph 9 thereof. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question which stands in my name, and to say just a few words upon it, I should like at the outset to explain that I do not intend to discuss the merits of commercial television, because commercial television has already been agreed to by Parliament and is a closed matter. I shall address myself solely to the question of the setting up of a controlling body as envisaged in paragraph 9 of the White Paper on Broadcasting, published, I think, in May of last year.
This controlling body was to be set up for the purpose of controlling and supervising the various private stations, but up to date there is no sign of its being set up, and nothing more has been heard about it. The purposes of the body are first, to regulate and conduct the new stations and to carry out a general oversight of the programmes; to advise on various matters and on the issuing of licences; and to safeguard against abuse. So it will be seen that it has a very wide field to cover, and is of a particularly vital nature in the scheme of this new experiment, for such it is at the moment. This body is vital to this new product. It is also vital that it should be in existence some time before the actual commercial stations are set up, in order to make the rules and regulations under which they may be set up and under which people may know how they are to proceed.
I think in June last year, the Home Secretary said in another place that there was much to be done by this controlling body before the development of commercial television could start—I have the reference here in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I will not weary your Lordships with it. But he was quite definite upon that. He said that there was much to be done by this body generally before these stations could start. I would point out to your Lordships that there can be no responsible applications for licences until
662
the terms under which the licensees may operate are known, and it is to be presumed that these rule; and regulations and terms of operation are to be drawn up by the controlling body. I think it is rather unfair or perhaps wrong to keep the public, and interested parties, such as advertisers, in the dark any longer than is necessary about the terms under which they will be able to operate.
I do not think that we should confuse the immediate issue of setting up a controlling body with that of actually producing the money for capital investment in these private television stations. In actual fact, to set up the controlling body now would cost next to nothing. That is quite a different matter from going ahead with the programme itself. Therefore, at this point, the setting up of the body in itself could be no burden upon the resources of the country. It is vital, however, that this body should be set up very soon, in order to prepare for the time when it will be possible to go ahead with the main scheme. In connection with going ahead with the development of commercial television, it was pointed out last year that this would have to wait until other and more important national items of expenditure had been satisfied, and also that the B.B.C. development programme should have priority over the private television programme. But I remember, in connection with this, that in the debate last year on this subject the noble Earl, the Postmaster-General, said that the start of the private programme would not have to wait until the B.B.C. programme had been completed. That is Very important, because it means that this private programme can start at a reasonably early date; and unless I hear to the contrary from the noble Earl I shall take it that that is still part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Whilst referring to this matter of expenditure on private stations, I should like to point out that, although the expenditure might sometimes be thought to be very large, I understand that it is likely not to be. I have heard it suggested that £1 million would cover the erection of six private stations, a figure which compares favourably with the annual capital expenditure of the B.B.C., which in the last four years has averaged something like £1,750,000. Without actually

663
going into the merits of commercial television, which I do not want to do, I would point out that proper progress with this private programme is certainly desirable, because it will help to keep technicians in training for any possible crisis, and will also keep up to the mark discoveries and developments in the technique of television. I do not believe that work on this television equipment will conflict with the armament or export drives. It also provides a means of employment in areas where employment is slightly thin; and of course, most of all, it will give the public an alternative choice of programme. In conclusion I would remind the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that the immediate issue is the setting up of the controlling body to make plans for the future, and not that of spending large sums of money.
3.29 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. I very much hope that there is not going to be any weakening in the Government's policy in regard to the settling up of this controlling body. I think that as soon as we possibly can we ought to get on with carrying out the intentions contained in the White Paper. I should also like to see the television station building programme of the B.B.C. finished at the earliest possible date, because it has been strongly represented to me that large parts of East Anglia, where I live, cannot receive the present stations. And it is in those areas, thinly populated as they are, where the people are doing a wonderful job of farming and so on, that television would be most advantageous. In many cases they cannot get easily to cinemas in their local towns, and it is not possible for them to get an alternative programme. We know that there must be some further delay until finance and materials are available, but I hope there is no weakening with regard to the setting up of this controlling body. There is a great deal of planning to be done; a great deal of work making regulations and so on, so that the alternative stations may know under what conditions they will have to operate. With those few words, I desire to support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron.
3.31 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, for putting this Question. I think that behind it there is a genuine fear that there has been or maybe some delay in dealing with the matter of establishing, or allowing to be established, commercial television stations. It gives me an opportunity that I appreciate of dispelling, I hope, some of that uneasiness by saying, straight away, that the Government announced their policy last summer, of allowing competitive television, and intend to carry out that policy at the earliest possible moment.
With regard to the specific question which the noble Lord addressed to me, about how soon after the starting of the television stations, commercial stations would be allowed to begin operating, I think it is best for me to refer him back to those debates in which, I think, the position was made quite clear. It is true that the noble Lord referred in his Question only to the appointment of the controlling body, which is to regulate the conduct of the new stations, to exercise general oversight of the programmes and generally to act as a safeguard against any possible abuses.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if, before answering the noble Lord on that very limited point, I touch on the general background of the subject. In the first place, let me make it clear that major capital developments for television, whether by the B.B.C. or other potential broadcasters, are not being held up for lack of a controlling body. They have been held up simply and solely because, in this and many other spheres, it has hitherto seemed necessary to the Government to concentrate our national resources rather on defence and exports. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, himself said. Your Lordships will recall the Government's policy as laid down in the White Paper and in debate. It is to permit, in television broadcasting, some element of competition
"when the calls on capital resources at present needed for purposes of greater national importance make this feasible."
To this statement of policy the Government adhere, but the words of the White Paper which I have quoted would, in

665
fact, have had no meaning and no justification at all if, at the time, immediate action in introducing competitive television had been considered possible. Whether or not, therefore, the point has now been reached when further capital expenditure on television development can be permitted—and the Government realise that many people feel strongly that dais is so—I must make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that there can be no question of the Government's having in any way fallen behind in their programme as announced and approved by Parliament only ten months ago. On the other hand, I can assure noble Lords that this matter is, and has been, under constant review by the Government, with a view to allowing the earliest possible relaxation.
I gather, however, that there is another point that is worrying the noble Lord at the moment. He fears that even when the go-ahead is possible, so far as material resources are concerned, the Government will not be ready with their plans and conditions for the issue of licences for sponsored television. I think I am right in interpreting his fear. Let me at once reassure him not only on this but or another point that is of more immediate significance. He has not, in his Question, mentioned the Television Advisory Committee and the very essential information that is needed from it with regard to the availability of frequencies, without which the radio industry can make no progress in preparing sets and equipment for competitive television.
I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that very satisfactory progress has been made in this field. The reconstituted Television Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Admiral Sir Charles Daniel, have done a really remarkable job in examining the technical problems involved. I hope to receive their first Report in the very near future, by which I mean, if not actually during this month—and that is not yet out of the question—at least early in May. My present intention is that the Report should be published. I have not yet seen it, but unless some strange circumstances arise, it is my intention that it should be published. In any event, the information contained in it will be made available to the radio industry without delay. That
666
means that the information should be in their hands at any rate some time during next month.
I can now come to the direct Question of the noble Lord about the controlling body, its powers and functions and terms of reference. Early last autumn I appointed a Working Party for the very special purpose of studying this whole subject. As the noble Lord has said, there is an immense amount of material to be collected about it, and I thought there should be no delay upon that matter. The Working Party have just completed a thorough survey on the problems that are involved and, at the same time, have examined very carefully the corresponding machinery in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, where commercial broadcasting is allowed in one form or another. I feel that that information will be of value.
Perhaps, in passing, I may be allowed to mention, as an illustration of the complexities of the problem, just a few of the fundamental questions which the Government have to consider in preparing their proposals about the terms and conditions upon which competitive television will operate and the nature of the controlling body, which they have undertaken to bring before Parliament before the first station is licensed. This, of course, is a matter which the Government have to consider. I believe that a great number of these questions are of such fundamental importance that we should not hand them over to the controlling body without some important Ministerial decisions and guidance upon which that body should work. What are some of the questions? I will endeavour to outline them.
What action should be taken to control monopolistic tendencies? How shall we limit the number of stations to serve any one area or the country as a whole? Should foreign capital be allowed to participate? Should the hours of transmission be limited and controlled? How long should the licences run? Should we provide, as in the case of the broadcast licensing system, for the Government to take over the service at the end of the licensing period, and, if so, on what terms? What is to be the degree of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament in regard to its actions? To what extent should it be given statutory powers and in what respect should it be only

667
advisory? How is it to be financed? These are the examples of the questions that must be considered before the Government can decide finally not only the terms and conditions of the licences but precisely the nature and functions of the controlling body.
I want to assure the noble Lord, and I want him to take this as a strong assurance, that these matters are being considered very urgently and he need have no fears whatsoever that the controlling body will not be set up in time to fulfil its appointed task. I want to go further than that and assure him that it is my firm intention that it shall be set up sufficiently ahead of that time—that is the point the noble Lord himself stressed and I agree with him strongly upon it—to be able to survey its problems and responsibilities well before it is asked to function. I think he places great importance on that. I certainly do. I think it is most important. Its task is going to be a difficult and complicated one and it must be set up in time to have a good look at its job before it is asked to function.
3.42 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before we depart from the subject, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he is satisfied that there are not elements of cumulative delay in this. No doubt the controlling body, as he says, will be set up in ample time to perform their functions, but it seems to me that there is abundant opportunity for great delays before there are functions to perform. I see that the Television Advisory Committee have drawn up a Report, in which they are going to recommend wavelengths and all sorts of things. Is the noble Earl going to publish at the same time the decisions he is going to take on those recommendations, or is the Report to be in the nature of a Blue Book, open to public debate, and at some later stage the Government will bring forward their proposals? If it is the latter, there are possibilities of considerable delay. I thought the other important decisions which the noble Earl detailed might have been decisions taken by now if a body competent to take them had been in existence. I am not sure whether it is a matter for this body or whether it is a matter for the Department or the
668
Minister. But, at the worst, I suggest that there can be considerable delays before this eventual body has any functions to perform, though, of course, the noble Earl will produce the body well in time to perform its functions.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, by leave of the House, I will try to answer the questions raised by the noble Lord. In suggesting that there had been cumulative delay, I think it would have been helpful if the noble Lord could have given us examples of that delay.
LORD HAWKE: May I correct the noble Earl? I said there would be opportunities of delay.
EARL DE LA WARR: But there is generally something behind the suggestion that opportunities are available. I made it clear, if the noble Lord had been good enough to listen to my remarks, that the Television Advisory Committee were appointed as soon as I could get a body I thought good enough to consider the subject, and they have done a remarkable job. To anyone not familiar with the complications of the frequencies, band waves, channels, and all the technical problems with which they have had to deal, it is hard to realise how remarkable a job the Committee have done in producing their Report so quickly. I would tell the noble Lord that the Report might well have been published already were it not that those I appointed, particularly those representing the radio industry itself, represented to me that, so important were these complicated problems to them, involving the expenditure of many hundreds of thousands of pounds, possibly millions of pounds, if the wrong technical advice were given, I should not press the Committee for their Report so hard as I was doing.
With regard to the controlling body, we have a slight disagreement on the machinery that should be used. I feel that both the major questions I outlined to your Lordships are of such immense importance that the Minister must take responsibility for them. We have no right to appoint a committee without giving them strong Ministerial guidance and terms of reference. Therefore, it seemed to me that the first step to take—a step which I took in the early autumn—was to appoint a working party in my

669
own Department to consider these questions. They have produced a very full report for me, together with certain alternative recommendations with regard to the policy to be pursued. Obviously a committee of officials cannot decide policy.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I presume that report is not for publication?
EARL DE LA WARR: No, it is a purely departmental report. I have to consider it. Many of its main points are of such importance that they may have to be discussed with other Departments, and then I shall have to decide what steps I shall take. But as I received this report only a matter of days ago, I hope noble Lords will not press me further but will accept my assurance—which I thought I gave in a way it was impossible not to accept—that I am determined not only that this Committee shall be ready in time to fulfil their functions but appointed well ahead of time in order that the immensely complicated problems they have to face shall be faced with statutory powers behind them, where they are required.
LORD HAWKE: Will the noble Earl clarify one point of his answer? I may not have heard it correctly. Is the technical report of this Committee which has done a great job of work to be published? Will the noble Earl publish it with the decisions of the Department and all he has accepted, or will it be published and subject to public debate before he makes up his mind? In other words, will the document be a technical one on which he will be able to decide immediately, or will it be a policy document on which he will have to take Parliamentary opinion?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I can reply only by leave of the House. I apologise to the noble Lord for not picking up the point. Until I see the report, it is difficult to say. I assume that 70 or 80 per cent. of it will be of a technical character, presenting me with the facts. It may or may not have to be confirmed by Ministerial decision, but there can be no question about such things as the availability of certain numbers of bands and channels and the manner in which these channels can be best apportioned. I suppose, inevitably, technical facts and technical reports entail certain Ministerial decisions, and they naturally will be made
670
available at the earliest possible moment. What I have to keep in mind is that it is vital for the radio industry to have its information as soon as possible, because it is going to take a year or two for them to make use of such information.
LORD HAWKE: I realise that this is quite out of order, but I want the noble Earl to appreciate that any question of delay which I suggested was not with malice aforethought. It is merely the possibility of breeding delays through these various reports.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, most warmly for his full statement.

  STORM DAMAGE TO SCOTTISH TIMBER
  STORM DAMAGE TO SCOTTISH TIMBER