Sitting of 9 June 1953

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 22nd May, 1953, for the Whitsun Recess—met at Half past Two o'Clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Frederick Seymour Cocks, esquire, C.B.E., Member for Broxtowe, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
NEW WRIT
For Abingdon, in the room of Colonel Sir Ralph George Campbell Glyn, baronet, M.C. (Manor of Northstead).— [Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GATESHEAD EXTENSION BILL [Lords]

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    RUNCORN-WIDNES BILL [Lords]
    WARKWORTH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

    CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
    HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BlLL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  RIVER BOARDS (ANNUAL REPORTS)
  Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make available to hon. Members those sections of the annual reports of river boards which deal with the exercise of their powers under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I think the hon. Member will find that the information is already available. By Section 10 of the Act I am required to lay before the House the annual reports sent to me by river boards.
  Mr. Greenwood: Can the Minister say what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that these reports are available in the Library of the House?
  Mr. Macmillan: By sending them to the officers of the House.

  HOUSING

    Kent Rent Tribunal (Appointment)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to make a statement on the appointment he has made to fill the vacancy on the Kent Rent Tribunal, giving details of the experience of the new member in tribunal work.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I made the appointment which I considered the most suitable, taking into account all revelant experience and qualifications.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware of the resentment which is felt at the fact that a retired civil servant without experience of tribunal work has been appointed? How does the right hon. Gentleman explain this away in view of his own letter of 27th February this year asking that more work should be given to reserve members? Why then was not a reserve member with experience appointed to this job?
    Mr. Macmillan: I appointed this gentleman to the job because I thought he was the best man to do it.

    Slum Clearance
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he will take to encourage local authorities to provide sites for new houses by demolition of old properties; and what steps he will take to compensate such authorities for the extra expenditure so incurred.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: As my hon. Friend will be aware, local authorities have powers of clearance under the Housing Acts. As to encouraging them to use those powers, I would refer him to the reply given to the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) on 28th April.
    Mr. Gower: Does the Minister agree that many local authorities appreciate the desirability of this course, but they are somewhat held back by the question of extra expense?
    Mr. Macmillan: I hope to be able to produce some plan with regard to this problem at a later date.
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether
    4
    he has now been able to formulate plans for the resumption of a slum clearance campaign; and whether he will convene a conference of local authorities to discuss the whole matter.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I cannot yet add anything to the reply given on 28th April to the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson).

    Sites, North Staffordshire
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what results were obtained at the conference called by his regional officer in Newcastle-under-Lyme on 22nd May on land for housing; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I understand that as a result of the conference the borough council will be putting in a revised application.
    Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Minister for arranging the conference, which it seems may well produce some temporary easement of the situation, may I ask him whether he will instruct his officers to keep a continuous watch on the problem of housing site shortage in the county area of North Staffordshire, because the problem is likely to persist?
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. I have quite an interest in trying to make sites available for housing.

    Size Limit
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is now in a position to raise the limit of 1.000 square feet over which special licences have to be granted for those wishing to build houses.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: The present arrangements only began on 1st January and I think it would be wise to see how they work out before deciding whether any change is needed.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any modest increase which he either authorised or encouraged, so far as it led to people building their own houses, would be a good general contribution to the well being of all who want houses?
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, but I have confidence that the local authorities will operate this scheme in a sensible way.

    5
    For instance, in the first quarter of this year 65 per cent. of the licences issued were for houses up to 1,000 square feet and 35 per cent. for houses between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet.

    Building Costs, Oldham
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the estimated gross cost per house, including land and connection to main sewers and water and light and power services, of the houses now being built in the county borough of Oldham; and whether he will state the detailed method of financing these houses, showing the respective burdens upon national and local expenditure.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I am not responsible for the detailed financial arrangements of individual local authorities; the standard annual subsidies per house are £26 14s. from the Exchequer and not less than £8 18s. from the local rates. For general information about the cost of house-building, I would refer the hon. Member to the Reports of the Girdwood Committee.
    Mr. Hale: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of house building has been going up continually since he took office and has now reached an unprecedentedly high figure, that in Oldham the size of houses has gone down as the prices have gone up, and that the burden now being placed upon the community is a very serious one indeed? Does he not propose to do anything about it?
    Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has made a speech. He has not asked a question. It would take a long time to reply to it in detail.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Cement Works, Padeswood
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what report has been submitted by the official of his Department who has investigated the dispersal over a wide area of dust from the cement works at Padeswood.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: My inspector last visited these works on the 5th March. His report indicated that effective steps were
    6
    being taken to control emissions of dust, and that there was little cause for complaint.
    Mrs. White: As there have been widespread emissions of dust from the factory, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that new mechanical methods have been adopted within the last few months?
    Mr. Macmillan: These premises are fitted with electrical precipitators, but I will certainly send the inspector again if the hon. Lady thinks that it would be useful to do so.

    Wales and Monmouthshire
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the organisation and expenditure of local government in the Principality of Wales and Monmouthshire and to advise him on matters which may require different solutions than those appropriate in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: These complicated problems are in the main common to both England and Wales and I do not think that it is necessary to appoint a committee such as is proposed by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Gower: Has my right hon. Friend noted the peculiarly small income from a 1d. rate in many of the Welsh counties? Will he examine that aspect of the problem?
    Mr. Macmillan

    Bucklersbury House, London
    Sir Edward Keelingasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the public apprehension caused by the proposal to erect an office block of 14 storeys to a height of almost 170 feet, near the east end of St. Paul's Cathedral; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I believe that the building which my hon. Friend has in mind is Bucklersbury House, about a quarter of a mile to the east of St. Paul's. Decision on the plans of new buildings is, in general, a matter for the local planning authority, and there is

    7
    appeal to me only if approval is withheld. I understand that, after consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission, the City Corporation have given planning permission for this project, and the plans do not, therefore, have to be referred to me.
    Sir E. Keeling: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? First, is he aware that this building is to be nearly 20 feet higher than Queen Anne's Mansions and that it will be in the centre of the City which will, therefore, be dominated by it instead of, as at present, by St. Paul's. Is not that the most lamentable proposal? Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Royal Fine Art Commission has expressed disapproval of the scheme?
    Mr. Macmillan: My information is that the Royal Fine Art Commission was consulted and did not disapprove, but I will look further into that. I must point out to my hon. Friend and to the House that it is not my duty. If a local planning authority prevents such an action and somebody appeals, then I have the right to grant the appeal. It is not my duty to go about stopping people.
    Mrs. White: Is not the Minister aware that any site within a quarter of a mile of St. Paul's Cathedral is of national interest? Even if he has no statutory powers cannot the Minister use his undoubtedly very great influence in this matter?
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, I will do that.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is not it a matter for gratification that out of the troubles of the war at least one thing good has happened, and that is that St. Paul's Cathedral can now be seen? Should we not take every step to see that it is not hidden again like it used to be?

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Westminster Hall (Use)
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Works whether he will consider the possibility of making Westminster Hall available more frequently for the holding of midday concerts, in view of the success of that held on 14th May.
    The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): Whenever the proposal is suitable and compatible with other activities in the Palace of Westminster I am always ready to consider applications for the use of Westminster Hall, in consultation, when necessary, with the other authorities responsible for the Palace. But I believe it to be the general view that permission to use Westminster Hall should only be given sparingly and on very important occasions.
    Mr. Greenwood: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on a distinction which I think everybody feels to be well earned, may I ask him whether he is aware that the country will feel that it is doubly well earned if he takes every opportunity in suitable cases to introduce gaiety or colour into our everyday lives?
    Sir D. Eccles: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I would draw his attention to the fact that Westminster Hall is part of a royal palace which is used, for example, for the Lying-in-State of the Sovereigns of England. I do not think that we should turn it into a place of frequent entertainment.
    Sir R. Acland: If choirs such as those which have sung there once or twice were to do so, say on the first Monday of every month, they would give great spiritual refreshment to very large numbers of hard-pressed people. Cannot we tackle the traditionally minded folk who feel that this enjoyment should be withheld when it could so easily be given?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am most anxious to get the feeling of the House on the matter. It would be a great departure to use Westminster Hall for entertainment.

    Building Contracts (Review Committee)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Works to make a statement giving the names, and the organisations they represent, of those appointed to the Committee to inquire into the method of tendering for contracts by building firms.
    Sir D. Eccles: As I stated on 27th January in reply to the hon. Member for

    9
    Southampton, Test (Dr. King), this review of tendering and contracting procedure has been undertaken by the industry itself, under the leadership of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and I am not responsible for the appointments. The Committee of Review initially consisted of representatives of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. I will circulate the names of the representatives in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Dodds: Is not there a place on this body for trade union representatives, because it seems as if all the vested interests are represented? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that suggestion?
    Sir D. Eccles: The matter under discussion is how to get prices for work: it is not how to manage contracts. As I have said before, the appointments are not my concern. I think that it was open to the trade unions to ask for membership. My information is that they did not do so.
    Following are the representatives:
    R.I.B.A.:

    Howard M. Robertson, A.R.A., M.C., P.R.I.B.A.

    A. R. F. Anderson, F.R.I.B.A.

    Harold Connolly, F.R.I.B.A.

    T. Cecil Howitt, O.B.E., D.S.O., F.R.I.B.A.

    Charles Woodward, A.R.I.B.A.

    R.I.C.S.:

    R. H. Francis, F.R.I.C.S.

    E. H. Palmer, F.R.I.C.S.

    Cyril Sweet, F.R.I.C.S.

    M. H. Thackray, F.R.I.C.S.

    N.F.B.T.E.:

    Wilfred Horsfall, President.

    G. W. Grosvenor.

    Nigel Hannen.

    W. W. Sapcote.

    L. A. Walden.

    The Chairman is Mr. Howard Robertson, and the Secretary, Mr. W. A. Rutter, C.B.E.. F.R.I.B.A.

    Scottish National Library
    Mr. Hoyasked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to expedite the building of the Scottish National Library.
    Sir D. Eccles: Special steps were taken two years ago to make better progress on the new National Library of Scotland building, when the contractors agreed to employ additional labour. The position
    10
    at present is regarded as satisfactory by the Trustees of the National Library. I will keep the progress of this building under review.
    Mr. Hoy: In keeping the matter under review, will the right hon. Gentleman remember that this work was started in pre-war days, and that any further delay would be regarded very unfavourably by the people of Scotland?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir.

    Large Building Projects
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Works how many building projects costing more than £50,000 have been licensed to commence in the last 12 months; and whether he will show separately the private and those on public account.
    Sir D. Eccles: This information is not readily available, and I do not think that the work involved in obtaining it would be justified.
    Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the refusal to sanction a project, details of which have been sent to him by myself, is seriously impeding a trade union organisation from improving its property in conformity with its extended activities?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am always ready to look into any special case, and, if the hon. Member will talk to me about it, I will see what can be done.

    Historic Buildings (Grants)
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Works whether uninhabited as well as inhabited houses of outstanding historic or architectural merit will qualify for repair and maintenance grants under his latest proposals.
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir.
    Sir E. Keeling: Can my right hon. Friend say when he proposes to introduce the Bill to give effect to this proposal?
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir; I cannot at present.
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Works how many houses of outstanding historic or architectural merit in Scotland he estimates will qualify for repair and maintenance grants under his latest proposals.
    Sir D. Eccles: It is not possible at this stage to say how many buildings of outstanding historic or architectural merit in Scotland will qualify for repairs and maintenance grants. Each case will have to be considered on its merits.
    Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend make some inquiries before the Bill is introduced in order to see that an adequate share of the very small sum of money which is available is given to Scotland?
    Sir D. Eccles: My impression is that Scotland always has an adequate share.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: If the Minister does not know how many houses are involved, how can he arrive at the amount to be paid out?
    Sir D. Eccles: I was very grateful to receive the sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to give me.
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Works whether ancient monuments not regarded by him as important enough for maintenance by him, but of outstanding historic or architectural merit, will qualify for repair and maintenance grants under his latest proposals.
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. The object of new proposals is to secure the preservation of buildings, and primarily of houses, of outstanding historic or architectural merit. My Ministry will continue to administer the Ancient Monuments Acts with the monies separately voted by Parliament.
    Captain Duncan: Is not the Minister aware that there are some constructions, such as bridges, which are of historic importance, and which, though listed as ancient monuments, are not maintained as such? Would they be covered?
    Sir D. Eccles: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise the limitations of the £250,000 a year. We must do the best we can with it, and I should think it would be the view of the House that houses should come first.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister bear in mind, when considering the matter, the importance in Scotland of groups of quite small houses, none of which may be individually important, but which, taken together, are of great interest?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am certain that the Advisory Council for Scotland will bring just that kind of thing to my attention.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In order to satisfy this disquiet in Scotland, would my right hon. Friend make sure that no less than the Goschen formula of eleven-eightieths will come to Scotland?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am not very sure of my arithmetic, but, no doubt, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look after that.

  CORONATION

    Allocation of Seats
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Works why no seats to view the Coronation procession were made available for Mr. and Mrs. James Wood-bridge, whose son, Flight Sergeant Stanley Woodbridge, was posthumously awarded the George Cross after being tortured and killed by the Japanese.
    Sir D. Eccles: The facilities reserved for holders of the Victoria Cross, the George Cross, the Albert Medal in Gold and the Edward Medal in Silver consisted of free chairs on pavements outside Buckingham Palace. Each living holder of these decorations who applied was given a chair for himself and one for a relative or friend. Lack of space made it impossible to give chairs to the relatives of those who were posthumously awarded these decorations, or died since the award.
    Mr. Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many seats would have been involved if this rather generous gesture had been made? Does not he think that it is regrettable that a jarring note was introduced by the fact that seats for Mr. and Mrs. Woodbridge had to be provided by a Sunday newspaper when representatives of Japan were in the Abbey itself?
    Sir D. Eccles: I appreciate the point. We did make available 686 chairs against only 14 in 1937. It was very difficult to know where to distinguish between one class and another.

    Decorations (Removal)
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Works if, having regard to the visit to London on 5th July of large numbers of

    13
    ex-Service men and their wives on the occasion of the Royal Review by Her Majesty the Queen, he will arrange for the Coronation decorations to remain until at least this date so that as many as possible may see them.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Works whether he will reconsider his decision to remove the Coronation decorations on 22nd June next, in view of the increase in the number of visitors.
    Sir D. Eccles: Certain minor decorations obstruct the light and air in offices in Whitehall. These will be taken down as soon as possible. Arrangements have been made to begin the removal of the main decorations on 22nd June. I will, however, reconsider this date in 10 days' time when the wear and tear can be seen. In any case, the arches and standards in the Mall and the poles in Hyde Park will be the last to go. Some of the stands in Hyde Park will be kept for the ex-Service men's Review on 5th July.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these people have written to me saying that they cannot afford to come to London twice, and, as they are coming at this relatively early date, will he do his very best to show them as much as possible?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir; I will, but I do not wish to show them shabby decorations, and I have no money for the replacement of either the decorations or the flowers.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that, with reasonable weather, the more durable decorations in the Mall, Whitehall and elsewhere will still be worth seeing even in July, and that there is a vast popular desire to have a look at these decorations which cannot possibly be satisfied within the next two weeks?
    Sir D. Eccles: The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems optimistic about the weather, but I can assure him that the Ministry of Works has often been disappointed.
    Commander Scott-Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that concern is being felt among already hard-hit seaside resorts that, if his excellent decorations
    14
    in the capital are left up too long, they may adversely affect the number of visitors to those resorts?
    Dr. King: May I ask the Minister not to be advised by the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller)? Will he remember that this is a unique occasion in the history of London and that there are many people in the provinces who want to come to London to see the decorations?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir; I have that in mind.

    RETAIL PRICES INDEX
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Labour the increases in the prices of foodstuffs that caused a rise of one point in the cost-of-living index announced on 19th May.
    The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): The rise of one point in the Retail Prices Index between 17th March and 14th April was due to increases in local rates as well as to increases in the prices of certain foodstuffs. The principal changes in food prices were increases of about 9 per cent. for vegetables, 7 per cent. for fruit, 7 per cent. for fish, 16 per cent. for flour and between 4 and 5 per cent. for tea.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that, in an answer to a Question which I put to his colleague the Minister of Food, I was told that there has been no increase in the cheaper blends of tea? Why, then, has an increase in the price of tea been taken into account in the Cost-of-Living Index?
    Sir W. Monckton: So far as the Cost-of-Living Index is concerned, I am concerned with getting the facts, and the facts are as I have given them. So far as the causes which give rise to these increases are concerned, I am happy to think that my interest is not matched by my responsibility.
    Mr. F. Harris: Would the Minister of Labour agree that this is a satisfactory position, because, in 1952. the Retail Prices Index went up only 4½ per cent., whereas, under the previous Government in 1951. it went up by 13 per cent.?

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Labour whether he will suspend the call-up of Mr. J. M. Thomas, No. W.M.S. 900/1953, of Cwmtydu Farm, in view of the need to retain him as a worker in an isolated farm; and why he has advised that workers from Shropshire should undertake the tractor work on this undermanned farm.
    Sir W. Monckton: After careful consideration of all the circumstances of this difficult case, I agree with the hon. Member that the farmer could not reasonably be expected to revert to the arrangement under which the tractor work on this farm was carried out by workers sent from his other farm in Shropshire. In the light of this and other considerations, it has been decided to grant deferment.
    Mr. Watkins: I am very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the decision of the National Service Deferment Board to reject the application made on behalf of Mr. I. G. James, Breconshire, No. W.M.S. 830/ 1952, for the renewal of deferment on the grounds of the farm being an isolated hill farm with a hill farming scheme under the Acts; whether he is aware that there is no other labour employed on the farm; what steps he is taking to get a skilled substitute worker to take the place of Mr. James and find accommodation for such a worker; and whether he will suspend the call-up until such time as arrangements can be made for the sale of the farm and stock.
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. This application for extension of deferment has been considered by the Agricultural Advisory Panel three times since last November, and the panel, which had all the relevant facts before it, has unanimously recommended that further deferment would not be justified. This recommendation was accepted by the National Service Deferment Board, and I can see no grounds for disagreeing with it. I understand that no request has been received by my Department from the employer for assistance in finding a substitute worker, but I would point out that the view taken by the Advisory Panel
    16
    is that the work of the farm could be carried on with the help of other members of the family.
    In regard to the last part of the Question, it is still open to Mr. James to exercise his right to apply for postponement on the grounds of exceptional hardship and, until his application had been determined by the statutory authorities, he would not, of course, be called up.
    Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister kindly inquire into this case and come to the same conclusion as he did in the previous one, because this is an isolated farm in an isolated part of Wales, and there is no one left to carry on the work of the farm? Will he also inquire why the Advisory Panel takes into consideration matters beyond the functions of an Advisory Panel?
    Sir W. Monckton: As for the last part of the supplementary question, I can only say that the inquiries I have made show that this Advisory Panel recommends a great many more deferments than it does to the contrary. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not satisfied with the partial success which he has already achieved.
    Mr. Watkins: To indicate my dissatisfaction, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment as soon as I possibly can.

    Medical Examination Results (Inquiry)
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the study being undertaken on his behalf by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine into the results of medical examinations of men called up for National Service.
    Sir W. Monckton: The inquiry, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, was a statistical survey of some aspects of the medical conditions of a limited number of men medically examined for National Service. My Department made available some data, but the inquiry was not made on my behalf, nor have I any responsibility for its conclusions.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is it not a fact that the inquiry has been widened, and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been approached by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,

    17
    give full consideration to such an inquiry because this is one of the rare occasions on which the full data of the nation's health can be collected?
    Sir W. Monckton: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, this was a pilot inquiry and dealt with one medical board and one place only, and one of the consequences was that a wider inquiry was thought necessary. If that goes forward, we shall provide them with data as before.
    Mr. Hastings: In view of the importance of this matter, will the Minister consider instituting a fuller inquiry by his own Department?
    Sir W. Monckton: When I see an inquiry competently conducted going forward outside, I am not inclined to intervene unless I think there is something wrong with it.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Blind Persons, Scotland
    Mr. Hoyasked the Minister of Labour if he is now able to make a statement regarding the appointment of a placements officer for blind persons in Scotland.
    Sir W. Monckton: The inquiries to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member on 23rd April involve reference to local authorities and others, and will take some time to complete.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the Minister aware that this was the answer given to me by the Scottish Office in September of last year, when I was told that the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Labour were collating this information? Can the Minister give a good reason for all the delay which has taken place since then?
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. So far as the Ministry of Labour is concerned, as the hon. Member knows, a conference took place on 14th April. At that conference it was decided to make inquiries because local authorities under the relevant legislation have themselves produced schemes which make them in part responsible for the placement of the blind, and they, in conjunction with others interested, thought inquiries ought to be made. We have not a large staff to do it; it is going ahead, but I cannot say that anything before 14th April is my fault.
    Mr. Hoy: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the findings of that conference only repeated the decision recommended by the working party in February of last year? It does not seem to me to be a very good reason —and I am sure it does not to the Minister—why the blind people in Scotland have been denied the services of a placements officer when they are already employed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
    Sir W. Monckton: On 14th April it was decided by the local authorities and those present that further inquiries ought to be made. These inquiries are being made, and if they result in a request for a placements officer I will do my best to supply one.

    Industrial Disputes
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Labour what representations he has made to the Trades Union Congress or to individual trade unions and to individual employers in cases where strikes have arisen or have been threatened because individual workmen have worked with exceptional energy and zeal; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir W. Monckton: None, Sir. There have been very few instances in recent years where it has been alleged that strikes have taken place or been threatened for the reason stated in the Question.
    Mr. Gower: While appreciating that this is a delicate problem, may I ask if my right hon. and learned Friend does not agree that tendencies of this kind, one or two of which have been recently reported, may be very injurious to the national interest?
    Sir W. Monckton: One is always anxious to see tendencies of the kind suggested in the Question avoided, but it is not easy to say whether an allegation of that sort is proved or not. There has been only one case since I have been Minister of Labour, and I have not found it necessary to take any steps in this direction.
    Mr. Robens: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he has had the utmost co-operation from the trade union movement generally during his term of office?
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, and, if I may add, from the right hon. Gentleman.

    Merseyside Development Area
    Mr. Collickasked the Minister of Labour what proposals for providing employment for unemployed workers on Merseyside are to be put into operation arising from the recent visit of his Parliamentary Secretary to this district.
    Sir W. Monckton: The efforts which are made to increase employment opportunities in the Merseyside Development Area are continuous. The recent meeting of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary with the Merseyside local employment committees has enabled us to profit by their members' valuable local knowledge, and various possibilities suggested are now under consideration.
    Mr. Collick: Is the Minister aware that his answer will not give very great satisfaction to the 26,000 people on Merseyside? Is he further aware that one of the urgent needs, particularly in Birken-head, is for modern factory premises, and that that request was urged upon his Parliamentary Secretary who, I understood, was to let us know the decision? Could the Minister tell us?
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am happy to assure him that the figures are now reduced to 24,500. In answer to the second part of his question, that was the first of the suggestions which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary put forward to the Departments concerned for consideration, namely, the provision of a communal factory at Birkenhead to accommodate small firms.
    Mr. Collick: Thank you.

    D. C. Thomson, Ltd. (Dispute)
    Mr. Isaacsasked the Minister of Labour if he has any further information relating to the points outstanding in the dispute of D. C. Thomson; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir W. Monckton: The House will recall that, following the dispute last year, there remained outstanding the question of reinstatement of the men who had been on strike.
    After the settlement of the main issue of principle when the firm ceased to insist on their employees giving an undertaking not to belong to a trade union, it was my hope that conditions would be created in
    20
    which a mutually acceptable solution of the outstanding question might be reached. I was much encouraged in this by the action taken by the unions in lifting the ban which had been imposed on the firm's supplies and distribution. In the light of this action, I again expressed to the firm my hope that a way could be found to remove the remaining difficulty and offered the assistance of my Department to that end, but I was informed that their board remained absolutely definite in their view that none of the men concerned could be re-engaged. It was a matter of great regret to me that the decision of the firm made it impossible to explore further any means of arriving at an agreed settlement of the remaining issue.
    I understand that of the 78 men originally concerned, four are no longer available for employment in the printing industry and the remaining 74 are in work of a temporary character.
    Mr. Isaacs: First let me express my thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I appreciate the very full answer he has given, but there are one or two points about which I should like to question him if I may.
    Is he aware that the ban on handling the firm's goods was lifted after conversations that created the understanding that to do so would lead to the return to work of some of the men concerned? Further to that, since that has taken place, the firm have completed their staffing. They have engaged a number of other men, and not one of the men previously employed has been re-engaged. Finally, can the Minister say if at any time the firm have applied to the local employment exchange for men to fill the vacancies?
    Sir W. Monckton: In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, he will have seen from my answer that I did what I could to make further approaches to the firm when it became possible to do so, but they were fruitless. In regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question about the replacement of the men, it is true that further men have been taken on. They have been nominated—the right hon. Gentleman will know how that works under the Notification of Vacancies Order —but it was made clear to us that it was

    21
    no good our putting forward people who had been employed there before.
    Mr. Isaacs: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that of the 74 men who were out, most of whom are in temporary employment, 17 or 18 of them have had to leave their home town in Scotland to find employment elsewhere? It seems as if the firm have not quite played the game in haying got the ban lifted and then punishing the men for joining the union which the firm now say they had no right to do.
    Sir W. Monckton: So far as the attitude of the firm is concerned, I did my best to persuade them to take a different line, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not within my power to do more than attempt to persuade in the matter. I can neither direct men nor employers in this case, and I am not asking for powers to do so.

    Tally Clerks, London Docks
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Minister of Labour the percentage of unemployment amongst tally clerks in the London docks for the most recent four months for which figures are available.
    Sir W. Monckton: In the four months ended 30th May, 1953, the average daily surplus was 81 per cent. of the total number of tally clerks on the London Register.
    Sir R. Acland: Will the Minister watch the changing situation carefully, particularly in so far as alleged temporary shortages are offered as a ground for further recruitment? Would he or somebody else on his behalf inquire particularly as to whether the alleged shortages are not being aggravated, or even caused, by the curious habit of representatives of firms in the docks keeping men on pay even when they have no work for them to do?
    Sir W. Monckton: As to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am sure he knows that happens not only in this part of the labour field. As to the first part of his question, I am constantly watching the changes and during the three weeks ended 6th June last the percentage of men surplus to requirement dropped to 1·7 per cent. and in the last week of all there is practically no surplus at all. Nevertheless, I have to be careful to see that one is not misled by temporary changes either way.
    Sir R. Acland: Would not the position have been much better if the labour force had been fully employed, as it could be if there were discussions between the owners and representatives of the men in order to secure the better use of the men, before agreeing to further recruitment?
    Sir W. Monckton: I shall continue to do what I can to ensure that such discussions take place.

  SCOTLAND

    Open Prison, Wigtownshire
    Mr. Mackieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the strong local feeling existing on the question, he will reconsider his decision to acquire Penninghame House, Wigtownshire, for use as an open prison.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): No, Sir. This property has already been acquired for use as an open prison. I can assure my hon. Friend that I gave most careful consideration to the representations made by the local authorities and others concerned before I authorised the purchase.
    Mr. Mackie: While regretting the decision of the Secretary of State, a regret which I know is shared by many people in Southern Scotland, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will repeat the assurance which he gave to a delegation of Wigtownshire and Kirkcudbrightshire County Councils which visited him at St. Andrew's House recently, to the effect that no prisoner would be allowed out of this institution without an escort? The reason I do so is that representatives of the Scottish Office who visited the locality before Easter gave local authorities a different impression.
    Mr. Stuart: I assure my hon. Friend that prisoners working in the district outside the open prison will be escorted to and from their work, in the same way as in a number of cases elsewhere at the present time.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people with humanitarian and social views regard it as a step forward that some useful purpose will be served by the labour of these men, instead of having the men shut up in boxes and being perfectly useless?
    Mr. Stuart: I assure the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that these men are only first offenders. They are very carefully selected and are nearing the end of their term of imprisonment when they would in normal circumstances become free citizens in any event.

    Water Supplies, Maybole
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reasons that five farms, with approximately 300 dairy cattle, at Guiltreehill, Farden-william, Ballycoach, Carrington and Commonhead, in the Maybole district of South Ayrshire, have an insufficient water supply; and what steps he is taking to deal with the matter.
    Mr. J. Stuart: These are private water supplies and the question of sufficiency is primarily one for the owners or occupiers. The County Council, propose, however, to introduce a public water supply for the area and I am prepared to authorise a start with the work as soon as the necessary pipes can be obtained.
    Mr. Hughes: Does this answer mean that there will be no economy coming into consideration of the matter?
    Mr. Stuart: The maintenance of an efficient supply is necessary and we shall do our best to provide it as soon as possible.

    Health Service Committee
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint a secretary from the Scottish Health Department as an additional secretary to the Committee of Inquiry into the National Health Service under the chairmanship of Mr. Guillebaud.
    Mr. J. Stuart: An experienced officer of the Department of Health for Scotland is being specially appointed to the secretariat of the committee to assist on matters specially affecting Scotland.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will specify precisely the nature and scope of the inquiries into Scottish conditions which are to be undertaken by the new Committee of Inquiry which has been set up to investigate the National Health Service; and what steps he intends to take to protect the interests of the Scottish people in this matter.
    Mr. J. Stuart: It is for the Committee themselves to decide, having regard to their terms of reference, the nature and scope of their review of the National Health Service in Scotland. As regards the second part of the Question, I understand that the Committee have invited memoranda from Scottish bodies and intend to hear oral evidence in Scotland, so that they will become fully aware of Scottish needs and circumstances.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the widespread alarm which the appointment of this Committee in Scotland has caused, could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the advantages which the Scottish people have enjoyed during the last six years will be in no way imperilled?
    Mr. Stuart: I can only draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the terms of reference which end by saying:
    "… while providing for the maintenance of an adequate Service.…"
    That is our intention.

    Land Drainage
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated acreage which could be brought into agricultural use if the land drainage schemes known to his Department were completed.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The report of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Committee, published in 1950, estimated that about 200,000 acres of land affected by inadequate arterial drainage should be drained in the interests of efficient agriculture.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware that his repeated pleas for better agricultural production would have much more effect in Scotland if the various areas that have these drainage problems continually thrown back were authorised to proceed? Could he give an assurance that there will be legislation to allow drainage to take place, instead of certain individuals being able to stop it because they are not prepared to pay the money necessary?
    Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I have done in the past, that I am very anxious to see this matter proceeded with. It has necessitated very difficult negotiations, and I hope to introduce legislation as soon as possible.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is it not a fact that this is not only a matter of bringing agricultural land into use by drainage, but of saving agricultural land from lack of drainage?
    Mr. Stuart: I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.

    New Schools
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new schools were completed in 1952; and on how many of these schools construction was actually commenced during the period of the present Government.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Twenty-three new schools were completed in 1952, of which two were started during the period of office of the present Government.
    Miss Herbison: Can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that the beginning of new buildings in 1952 is anywhere near adequate to the needs of Scotland.
    Mr. Stuart: I was not asked that Question, but I would again say that we shall do our best in the prevailing circumstances to provide as many places as possible. We added about 7,000 places, by additions to, or extensions of, existing schools.
    Mr. Manuel: Does the Secretary of State agree that a greater number was started under the previous Government, and is he aware that site acquisition and preparation of the number indicated were also started under the previous Government? Could he give some assurance to the House that site acquisition and preparation are being kept up to the high level reached under the previous Government, in view of the future educational needs of Scotland?
    Mr. Stuart: I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that, while it is agreed that the great majority of new schools were started under the previous Government—his Question asks only about new schools—in addition, 7,000 places have been provided by extensions to existing schools.
    Sir T. Moore: In any case, was not the term "under construction" used by the late Government to delude people into thinking that buildings would shortly be completed?

    River Pollution
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the plant established at Goettingen and elsewhere in Germany, of which he has been informed, for the production of methane gas from town sewage; and whether he will give consideration to this possible economic ancillary advantage from the removal of pollution from Scottish rivers.
    Mr. J. Stuart: A number of sewage disposal works in this country already use the methane gas produced in the course of treating domestic sewage and I encourage local authorities to adopt this practice wherever it appears to be of economic advantage.
    Mr. Woodburn: In view of the fact that there are quite a number of drainage problems in Scotland needing urgent attention where pollution of rivers is taking place, will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the local authorities to the fact that they might make a contribution to the avoiding of pollution by making economic use of their sewage?
    Mr. Stuart: I am entirely in favour of that, and I will certainly encourage any such action.
    Sir H. Williams: May I suggest to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he might pay a visit to Croydon and inspect our sewage digestion plant, which has been producing methane gas now for many years?

    St. Andrew's Home, Millport
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Western Hospital Board not to renew the five-year contract to pay for orthopaedic treatment for tuberculosis patients at St. Andrew's Home, Millport; and if he will give an assurance that this hospital, which has 130 patients and an efficient staff, will be retained in an effort to wipe out this disease.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware of the Board's decision. Only 27 patients are now left in this hospital, and I am assured that enough hospital beds are available in the Western Region to accommodate these 27 patients and all other patients

    27
    suffering from non-respiratory tuberculosis who need hospital treatment. I am advised also that it would not be practicable to convert St. Andrew's Home, Millport, into a hospital for the treatment of respiratory tuberculosis.
    Mr. McGovern: In which hospital are these patients to be housed?
    Mr. Stuart: The Board are satisfied that there are sufficient beds in their own hospitals to treat all non-respiratory tuberculosis patients. Therefore there is no need to renew the five-year contract with St. Andrew's Home.

    Seed Potatoes (Rail Charges)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the letter, dated 21st April, from an Edinburgh company, which has been sent to him, reporting heavy cancellations of orders for Majestic seed potatoes and that they are unable to find any buyers who will pay the freight which British Railways charge to send Caithness seed to English potato growing districts; and if he will make a further statement.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I have made further inquiries and am informed that the sale of Scottish seed potatoes has, in general, been satisfactory this season, and that the letter from the company referred to does not reflect the general state of the trade. If the company consider that rail charges are unduly high, their proper course is to endeavour to negotiate a more favourable rate with the Railway Executive. Should they be unsuccessful in this, it is open to them to place the evidence before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland.
    Sir D. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that Caithness seed is wanted by the English farmers, but the trade cannot stand the penal freight rate from station to station, which is now £7 per ton? The result is that the traffic does not move at all, the British Transport Commission lose the freight, and the taxpayer loses £7 per ton, while the potatoes have to go for pig food.
    Mr. Stuart: It is not entirely due to that. There has been some cancellation of orders due to flooding. In addition, the potato acreage in England and Wales declined by 24 per cent. between 1950
    28
    and 1953, therefore, of course, causing some falling off in the orders.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that sometimes it is far cheaper to move these seed potatoes by sea to a port on the Wash, such as King's Lynn?
    Mr. Stuart: Yes, Sir.

    Anglo-Soviet Trade (Herring)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the negotiations for the sale of herring to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Negotiations are still proceeding.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a statement has been published in the Scottish Press indicating that a £1 million contract has been signed? Could he give us any information about that?
    Mr. Stuart: I shall certainly inform this House at the first possible moment, but negotiations have been extended to cover not only herrings and we are not in a position at the present moment to announce the final agreement.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does that mean that the contract includes not only herrings but also white fish?
    Mr. Stuart: I would not like the hon. and learned Member to take it that it includes everything that he wishes.

    Blown Timber (Replanting)
    Sir J. Barlowasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now give permission to clear blown timber without the contingent requirement of replanting.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The representatives of the woodland owners have raised no objection in principle to the Forestry Commissioners' decision to require the replanting of the areas devastated by the January gales, and I do not think I would be justified in asking the Commissioners to reconsider their decision.
    Sir J. Barlow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he insists upon this replanting clause in issuing licences, undoubtedly a substantial acreage will not be cleared or be planted?
    Mr. Stuart: I cannot agree that that is necessarily so. I think that it is very important that the devastated areas should be replanted as soon as possible.
    Sir D. Robertson: Whilst appreciating the importance of the point which my right hon. Friend makes, may I ask whether he is satisfied that his Department possesses the legal powers? Is he aware that there is no reference to blown timber in the 1951 Act? Why should a felling licence be issued in respect of timber blown down by an act of God?
    Mr. Stuart: I never completed my course at Edinburgh University in reading law and therefore I would rather not comment upon that, but I think that it still remains the case that devastated areas should be replanted.

  WORLD PEACE (THREE-POWER MEETING)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the proposed Big Powers Conference.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I hope to meet the Heads of the United States and French Governments in the near future, when we shall discuss this and other questions. Meanwhile I have nothing to add to my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 21st May, when I said:
  "It is my main hope that we may take a definite step forward to a meeting of far graver import."

  UNITED STATES AID
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister whether, when he meets President Eisenhower, he will express the thanks of the British Nation for all the dollar aid received and inform him that it is not our intention to accept any more.
  The Prime Minister: I have frequently expressed, both publicly and privately, the gratitude of the British nation for the generous help we and the late Government have received, and I shall do so again. I shall also thank President Eisenhower for the way in which he has recognised, in the proposals which he has
  30
  recently put to the United States Congress, the heavy defence burden still borne by this country. At the same time I shall assure him of the resolve of Her Majesty's Government and of the British people, to manage their own affairs in such a way that they can become independent of financial aid from abroad, while at the same time carrying their share of the common defence burden.
  Mr. Donnelly: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there is a substantial body of opinion in this country which would like to see that aid terminated now and is quite ready to face any hardship or difficulties which may result—and that opinion is particularly held on this side of the House—in order that this country may be able to play any part herself with complete independence in the difficult negotiations which may lie ahead?
  The Prime Minister: The opinion which the hon. Gentleman expresses and with which I do not in principle quarrel was not nearly so strongly held by the party to which he belongs in their six years of Government.
  Mr. Grimond: Would the Prime Minister again represent to the President that if we are to repay our loans to the United States then they must accept goods from this country as the only way in which repayment can eventually be made?
  The Prime Minister: I am very much in favour of "trade not aid" and of our earning our living by all our toil and effort, and I think that feeling is very strongly held in this country. I earnestly hope that we shall be able to give effective expression to it before very long.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind, when he compares the position now with the position as it obtained in the six years of the Labour Government, that by the year 1950 this country was in a position to dispense with all further dollar aid and would have remained so but for the unattainable target of re-armament, as everybody now knows it to be. which we undertook in that year?
  The Prime Minister: We did not throw out the unattainable target referred to by the hon. Gentleman. In fact we had to reduce it to somewhat smaller and more

  31
  distant lines, but I do particularly remember the £1,000 million loan for which we are now paying the interest and repaying the capital and the Marshall Aid for years for civil matters, apart from the military. We have not any of those conveniences, great helps and aids, but we are doing our best to attain financial independence.
  Mr. Osborne: Would the Prime Minister not agree that if we are going to refuse to have any more American aid we must either increase the productivity of this nation or our standard of life must go down? Will he make that perfectly clear to this House and the country?
  The Prime Minister: I think it is obvious that in an island with 50 million people living in it and only growing food for something between one-half and two-thirds, the most strenuous efforts have to be made, of mind and body and organisation and sacrifice, in order to secure us our independent means of life.
  Mr. Shinwell: In view of the implied criticism of the previous Government's rearmament programme, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when that programme was presented to this House there was precious little criticism or opposition from any quarter?
  The Prime Minister: I always supported the right hon. Gentleman on any occasion on which he did anything which I could concede was patriotic.
  Mr. Shinwell: In that case, what is the right hon. Gentleman complaining about?
  The Prime Minister: I was meeting complaints not in any spirit of controversy but in order to show the modern historical perspective in which these events must be judged.

KOREA (TRUCE TALKS)
Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the Korean truce talks.
Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the Korean armistice negotiations.
Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the Korean truce talks.
Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will make a comprehensive statement indicating what differences are still outstanding in the truce talks in Korea; and what progress has been made during the last month towards agreement.
Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the Korean truce talks since 22nd May.
The Prime Minister: I will, with permission, answer these Questions together, but I think it might be more for the convenience of the House, if, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I did that in a short statement at the close of Questions.
Later—
The Prime Minister: With permission, Sir, I will now answer these five Questions.
As the House is aware, on 8th June the Armistice Delegations at Panmunjom signed the agreement on the question of prisoners of war. This agreement followed quickly the revised proposals which were put forward by the United Nations Command on 25th May with the support of Her Majesty's Government. We are satisfied that the arrangements now agreed will ensure that no prisoner of war is repatriated by force.
Two points of substance which were outstanding when I made my last statement on 21st May have been settled to our satisfaction. India will be invited to provide the forces to take custody of prisoners under the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission. Prisoners who refuse to be repatriated will not be detained beyond 120 days, after they have been transferred to the custody of the Commission. The other provisions of an armistice agreement have already in the main been agreed for many months past. Thus nothing ought now to stand in the way of the conclusion of an armistice except the necessary administrative arrangements, which I trust may be soon completed.
I will venture to repeat again for the third time to the House what I said a month ago upon our relations with the United States about Korea:
"… the United States, as mandatory for the United Nations, has borne nineteen-twentieths of the burden in blood and treasure. The matter is not one which we have either

33
the right or the responsibility to decide, but it is our duty, without separating ourselves from our great ally, to express our opinion frankly and plainly to them as occasion offers." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 888.]
This was well received in Washington and generally throughout the United States. We made a number of suggestions to the United States Government. These were most attentively considered. They were discussed on several occasions not only with our Ambassador but with representatives of the members of the British Commonwealth who have combatant forces in Korea who were invited by the State Department to attend the meetings. In the result, we found ourselves in complete accord on the new proposals to be made at Panmunjom. We thought it right, in view of this, to make public our intention to support the United States along these lines in any way that might be desirable or necessary.
When this statement was issued, events moved rapidly to the agreement to which I have just referred. Under the decisive guidance of President Eisenhower a result has been achieved which, unless new disappointments occur, will be of high value in itself on all sides, and also important in relation to the world position.
Perhaps I may make one further observation which rather concerns ourselves here. I do not feel that full justice has been done by us here—I include myself— during the last few months to the difficulties to which General Clark and General Harrison were subjected, not only by Communist obstinacy but also by the attitude—not very apparent to us—of the South Korean Government under Mr. Syngman Rhee. One must remember that it was the policy of the United States to build up a strong, well-armed, efficient South Korean Army which would in couse of time relieve them of the heavy burden they have been carrying. This army has for some time been a factor of growing importance.
In my opinion, these American Generals, whose names I have given, most faithfully sought to bring hostilities to an end in terms compatible with the honour of the Allied Powers acting under the authority of the United Nations, but all the time they had to consider the reactions which might occur in the powerful South Korean forces
34
which they were creating and had to a large extent created. I think it is only fair to say that, because I did not appreciate the full aspect of this myself. We must never be unjust to people who do their very best.
The House will recall that the draft Armistice Agreement provides for the summoning of a political conference where serious issues remain to be discussed; that is, after the prisoner of war business has been settled and after an armistice has been reached, there is then this political conference. It would be unwise to assume that many difficulties do not lie ahead. But I feel we may regard what has already happened as constituting a definite step forward towards the goal we all seek.
Mr. Henderson: In welcoming this statement of the Prime Minister, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends when I offer him our congratulations on the consistent part that Her Majesty's Government have played in bringing about a solution of this very difficult problem, and I am sure the Prime Minister would be the first to acknowledge the valuable contributions that have been made by the various Commonwealth Governments, especially the Government of India. May I ask him, on another point, with regard to the agreement itself, whether the various declarations of President Syngman Rhee indicate that the South Korean Government will be a party to the agreement and the truce that will follow?
The Prime Minister: I do not know at all what the answer could be, but, on the whole, I expect it would work out all right in the end, having regard to the very great power and clear, decisive policy of the United States.
In reply to the other point, certainly I would like to acknowledge the contributions made by other Governments. We have been following out, in the main, the sort of line that I am sure would have been taken by the party to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman belongs —by the Front Bench opposite. The matter only came to a head after all this long period of delay. I think that if we are going to make acknowledgements we should remember my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who influenced the United Nations very much towards giving great emphasis to the Indian influence as

35
a means of solving these difficulties. I am sure we all wish him God's help in the ordeal which he is going to face.
Mrs. Castle: While warmly welcoming the progress so far made towards an armistice, may I ask the right hon Gentleman whether he would agree that the Chinese Communists have made fundamental concessions in these negotiations on principle, without which an armistice could not have been possible; and, in view of this hopeful evidence of a co-operative attitude, will Her Majesty's Government now take the initiative towards a wider settlement by pressing upon the United States Government the urgency of admitting the Peoples' Government of China to the United Nations?
The Prime Minister: I think all this could have been settled many months ago if the Chinese Government had not, for reasons which I cannot measure, shown no desire to bring these matters to a conclusion.
Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister agree that after this great success the next great step forward should be the recognition by the United Nations of the China Government in Peking, and will he say what steps he will take to bring about that desirable event?
The Prime Minister: The course which we are following has a lot of fences in it, and I really think it is better to jump them one at a time.
Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that though events have taken a more favourable turn lately, they have left in their train a considerable deterioration in Anglo-American relations and a failure in the United States to understand our point of view? Will he take an early opportunity to direct his unparalleled prestige towards an amelioration of those relations?
The Prime Minister: That raises a lot of issues, but I certainly feel that we have an absolute right to put our views forward, and we have done so, not with disadvantage to anyone. I also feel deeply indebted to the United States, who
36
have borne the burden for so long and who were joined by the members of the late Government at the time of the invasion of Korea. I do not think there is any real difference between us on the main principles involved.
Mr. Donnelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the best way to improve Anglo-American relations is for us always to speak frankly, as he has already done? Amongst all the general congratulations which have been offered to the right hon. Gentleman today, will he express his hope that this—to use his own words—is just the end of the beginning and that many great events will follow, in which there will be just as great a readiness by people on the other side of the Iron Curtain to see our point of view as there has been by people on this side of the Iron Curtain to express the views of China when it has been unpopular to do so?
The Prime Minister: We should always look forward with eagerness to opportunities of speaking frankly, but I think the time must be well chosen.
Mr. Noel-Baker: The Prime Minister spoke of the political conference which is to follow the signing of the truce and the many great problems it must face. If I understand the matter rightly, the first step is for the Assembly of the United Nations to be convened again by its President, Mr. Pearson, of Canada. Should we rightly assume that it will be the Assembly which will decide the composition and the terms of reference of the political conference, on behalf of the United Nations?
The Prime Minister: We have just met after a holiday and we have a considerable period of the Session before us. Therefore, I think I may fairly ask for notice of that somewhat complicated series of hypothetical questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND FEDERATION [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the Federation of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, or out of the Consolidated Fund, of any increase in sums payable thereout under any other enactment attributable to an Order in Council under the said Act or to any instrument made under that Order.
  Resolution agreed to.

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND FEDERATION BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND FEDERATION BILL

    Clause 1.—(POWER BY ORDER IN COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH FEDERATION, ETC.)
    3.44 p.m.
    Mr. James Johnson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the beginning, to insert:
    "As soon as a majority of the inhabitants of all races within each of the Territories concerned has decided in favour thereof."
    On 9th April there was a referendum in Southern Rhodesia, in which 25,570 people voted in favour of federation and 14,729 voted against it. This has apparently given the Secretary of State the all-clear for the federation of Nyasaland and the Rhodesias. I would point out that only 429 Africans were qualified to vote as against over 49,000 Europeans, in connection with a scheme that will settle the future of over 6 million Africans in Central Africa.
    I do not wish to quote Sir Godfrey Huggins in connection with his statements since the referendum—time and tact would forbid—but if it is a good thing to test the opinion of the 49,000 Europeans in this part of Africa it is also good that we should know what the Africans think about their future under this scheme. We on the Labour benches have always been consistent in our views upon this matter, and we have been scoffed at by the Secretary of State for what he has termed the negation of leadership on this side.
    38
    On 4th March, 1952, in the debate on the scheme, the Secretary of State quoted the old French text:
    "We are their leaders provided that we follow them."
    That may be so, but where is British leadership in Central Africa if the Africans do not follow us in this particular context? The Labour Party have always been consistent in this matter. I can quote the former Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who said —in the debate we had in July—that the overall thing was to gain the confidence of the Africans. That was the crux of the matter, and it would be a bad thing if we were literally to force federation down the throats of the Africans without their consent.
    There was a chance of federation by consent after the Victoria Falls Conference, but the impetus was afterwards lost, and there was an unfortunate delay at the end of the year. The Africans expressed their fears—which I think will prove well founded—that Her Majesty's Government would go through with this scheme whatever opposition they showed in the following months or years. In the event they have been shown to be correct. Let the Government show their sincerity in this matter by testing the feelings of the Africans upon this scheme. At one time assurances were given. Why change?
    It is probably within the recollection of the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) at one stage in the debate last July asked the Secretary of State why there had to be so much haste in this matter. He asked for an assurance, which was given, that federation would not be imposed without the consent of the Africans. I think the point was later followed up by the Leader of the Liberal Party, who made it so startlingly clear that the Secretary of State said, "Please do not put words into my mouth," or words to that effect. It was so embarrassingly clear that the right hon. Gentleman said, "Please do not put too many words into my mouth."
    We now have a new scheme, and the Africans are even less enamoured of it, but the Government still plough on, going ahead like a juggernaut. I do not think this is good enough for the Africans —never mind good enough for the

    39
    Labour Members of the House. The Secretary of State has always shut his eyes to the overwhelming extent of the opposition in this matter, and when the Minister of State went to Africa he must have shut his ears as well, because he came back with quite unusual views about the extent of the opposition. I do not wish to bandy words with the Minister across the Floor of the Committee, but in another place two noble Lords, Lord Hailey and Lord Hemingford, clearly recognised the opposition and recognised that there is almost 99 per cent. African opposition to this plan. Even the "Daily Telegraph," which is not a Socialist newspaper, said, in a leader on 8th April, that African opposition was overwhelmingly lined up solidly against the scheme.
    First of all, Nyasaland has always been against federation. Even at Victoria Falls their representatives were coaxed to discuss it only by the eloquence of the former Secretary of State. Northern Rhodesia has always been somewhat cagey in the matter, but their representatives said they would consider federation if—and these were the important words—there was an agreed definition of partnership, whatever that might mean, when it came to be worked out. Various delegations have been over here; we have met them, enjoyed their company and felt their sincerity in this matter. We know that delegations have been over here both before and during the Coronation.
    I therefore say to the Secretary of State that if he denies that there is this overwhelming opposition, let him test the views of the Africans in this matter and test the sincerity of the African leaders. Let him sound the feelings of the millions who are behind the leaders in the Nyasaland Protectorate Council and the Northern Rhodesia Congress.
    A point which bears most weight with hon. Members on these benches, and I hope it will bear some weight with the benches opposite—because all of us, Conservative, Liberal or Labour, are all liberal, with a small "I," deep down on matters of human rights and liberties and dignity for those people for whom we are guardians in Africa—is that any agreement decided under duress is no agreement at all. The African Members have walked out of the Assembly at Lusaka in
    40
    Northern Rhodesia and even Mr. Moffat and Mr. Nightingale have testified in this matter. Mr. Moffat's action must have been a shock to the Secretary of State who, if I may again use the vernacular, slapped down my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in the last debate when my right hon. Friend was quoting Mr. Moffat's views and actions.
    We feel that if this scheme of federation is adopted it must carry the confidence of the Africans or it will be unworkable. The Nyasaland Protectorate Council have held a meeting and have decided unanimously that they will have a non-co-operation campaign, will boycott European shops, will not take employment with Europeans, and in every way possible, as the Indian model, will show their displeasure. If this nonviolent, non-co-operation campaign is carried out, the Africans cannot but win the sympathy of both sides of the House and the respect of all liberal, decent-thinking people. I say this advisedly— as long as there is no violence it deserves our sympathy. If we push the scheme down their throats too hard, we must realise that it is not merely politically foolish, even politically infantile, but also morally indefensible.
    The test of any kind of constitutional development such as this is whether it will increase good will between white and black in this multi-racial Commonwealth which we are slowly but painfully evolving. I do not think it will. At the moment I fear it will not, because of all the portents I see about me. Mutual confidence is being destroyed by the actions of this Government. I fear that their actions may erode the foundations of future social and economic development, if they persist in them.
    Why are they doing it? Why are they persisting in the imposition of this scheme? I shall be quite blunt about it. They are doing it because they think they can get away with it. May I compare the position in Africa with that in the West Indies? A federation scheme is also to be adopted in the West Indies. I am the first to admit that in the West Indies it will be federation by consent—but not consent by all. The two mainland Colonies, British Honduras and British Guiana, are not coming in.

    41
    Do we talk of making them come into the federation in the same way as we talk of making Nyasaland come into the Central African Federation? Of course not. Why do we not? Because, to be quite candid, Honduras and Guiana are politically mature, more politically advanced. They do not want to come in and it would be difficult to force them in although we know that economic facts are as demonstrable in this case as in the case of Central Africa. The mainland is needed for emigration, of workers from the islands, just as we talk of Nyasaland labour being needed over the Zambesi to work in the mines and plantations of Southern Rhodesia. We can argue just as good an economic case about Honduras and Guiana, as in Central Africa.
    If it is said in the matter of suffrage that we cannot take the views of the Africans, I will point to the example of West Africa. There are people in West Africa, particularly on the Gold Coast and in Nigeria, who have voted and who are no better or worse in this matter of political literacy than people in Nyasaland or Northern or Southern Rhodesia. I do not see that the Government's argument here holds good if we consider whether or not to hold some kind of referendum among the native population of Central Africa.
    No one can know, and I can only say what I fear; and I fear that federation will be disastrous if it is imposed at this time and under these conditions against the obviously demonstrable opinion of the African people. I hope that it does not become an implacable opposition, but at the moment there is no doubt that it is a unanimous opposition, particularly in Nyasaland. I feel that the human dignity of the Africans must be observed and, in my last words, I say that if a referendum is good enough for the Europeans, let us have some kind of referendum also for the Africans.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mrs. Eirene White: We are once more debating a matter of serious principle. Although it has been discussed previously we are perfectly justified in protesting once more about the unwisdom of trying to carry out this federal scheme without having secured the consent and approbation of at least a very large proportion of the inhabitants
    42
    of the territories. One would hardly expect unanimity on any question of such magnitude, but to carry out this proposal without having taken steps to try to ensure the consent of at least the majority of the people concerned will, it seems to me, lead us on a path that will bring us to extreme difficulties.
    We have already seen in Northern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland the beginning of the breakdown of confidence between the people and the Administration, a breakdown which is directly due to this method of procedure whereby a question which those people may not fully understand, but which they deeply feel is in some respects detrimental to them, is being pressed on without their consent. I cannot help feeling that this breakdown in confidence is likely to be the most immediate serious result of the imposition of federation.
    Hitherto, more particularly, perhaps, in Nyasaland, there has been a very deep sense of trust between the Africans and the representatives of the Government. The Africans in Nyasaland have in the past been particularly inclined to feel that the representatives of the Government were their counsellors, their friends, concerned wholeheartedly for their welfare. There are clear signs that this relationship has been very seriously impaired, and that, far from regarding the Government as their friends, the Africans are already beginning to regard the Government as their enemies.
    We have had very recently an instance about which we hope to question the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow, the banishment of Chief Gomani, a senior chief of some 32 years' standing. I do not wish to go into the details of that, except to point out this. When there is a chief of such long standing and service, who has hitherto been regarded as a loyal chief and a loyal servant of the Government, and he feels so strongly that something is being done to the detriment of his people without their consent that he embarks upon action that, I think, is not compatible with the position of a chief, and gives advice to his people that they should disregard Government ordinances, clearly he must have been very deeply moved indeed. From personal accounts one has had from people who have been with him recently, it is clear that he has been deeply moved by what has been

    43
    occurring, and that he and his people feel obliged to take measures to protest against the Government that are the only ways open to them to express feelings which they are unable to express by any other method, for those people have no franchise.
    It seems to me that this is the kind of protest that will grow. We are bound to have these protests. Perhaps they will be sporadic at first, but they are likely to come in increasing volume, with incidents here and there, maybe by only a few people, maybe by only young people, but maybe by senior chiefs. However, I foresee a situation in which a large number of people will ultimately feel obliged to take action because they have no other method of protest and because their consent has not been obtained. I foresee a situation in which, as a result of that action, the Government will feel obliged to take punitive measures. So we shall start in these Territories a whole series of incidents, or protests, of action possibly legal, possibly illegal, which in turn will lead to a train of punitive actions on the part of the Government which may in some cases lead to the deposition of chiefs, possibly to the banishment of chiefs.
    If that happens, the whole tribal structure will break down, and the whole basis on which hitherto the government has been conducted will break down. It seems to me that this course upon which the Government apparently are determined to proceed will inevitably lead to the kind of results I have envisaged. If we impose on people something which they feel in their inmost hearts is detrimental to them and their children, if they have no constitutional methods of protest available to them, they will resort to extra-constitutional methods. I cannot see how persons of spirit and independence can be expected to do otherwise.
    Therefore, it is not simply academic to suggest that in proceeding with this scheme, without having first obtained a large measure of consent to it among the peoples concerned, the Government must face the fact that they are embarking upon a course which will lead to a long series of incidents, of protests, and a long story of persons hitherto loyal becoming disloyal, becoming cynical, possibly being deported, and put on trial; and
    44
    that the net result of this course will be a breakdown of confidence in the Administration.
    Once that has happened, once there is no longer the feeling on the part of the Africans that the Government are their friends, the prospects for further development in those Territories will be very much less rosy than those persons who have advocated federation on economic grounds have supposed, because if we cannot get the willing collaboration of the workers on which the economic developments depend, the economic improvements will at least be delayed and possibly entirely thwarted. The Africans, having a very low standard of living, have at least the advantage that, if they choose to withhold their labour, they can still subsist in a way in which it is not possible for Europeans to do.
    There is an indication that Africans will be discouraged from going to work outside their territories. Not only in the Union of South Africa but in Northern Rhodesia, and to some extent in Southern Rhodesia, too, industries are dependent on migrant labour, and if the chiefs are able to persuade their peoples to withhold their labour, though their own standard of living will thereby be diminished, if they are steadfast they may be able to make things extremely difficult for the industries which are dependent upon migrant labour.
    It may be said that nothing should be said by those of us who have constantly opposed the imposition of federation to encourage such people, I try to put myself in the place of an African who feels in his heart, as I am certain many of these people in Nyasaland do, that what is proposed to them is not for their benefit, and I am certain that, having no constitutional avenue of protest, having attempted to send delegations and to submit petitions which have been ignored, and having attempted action in a court of law which may or may not succeed, the outcome of which we are not certain at the moment, when all these things failed I myself would feel that I would take any nonviolent action open to me to make it clear that I did not agree with what had been put upon me by a Government without my consent, or without the consent of at least the majority of those with whom I consorted.

    45
    I understand that at the present time Africans are being advised that there is no point in discussing this matter any further, that it has already been settled, and that they should therefore now quietly accept it all; that they should not try to get any better safeguards; that they should not try to protest against any of the individual conditions in federation; that they should not even try, presumably, to have partnership implemented as they had indicated they wished to have it implemented at the original Victoria Falls Conference. They are to say nothing; they are to keep quiet; they are not to discuss the matter any further. In other words, we are to assume their acquiescence, having failed to attain their assent.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman by what authority notices have been issued anticipating the decision of this House upon this matter? As he is no doubt aware, the district commissioner in Blantyre and, I believe, other district commissioners in Nyasaland have issued public notices to native authorities with orders that the notices should be displayed, saying "It is now certain that the law making federation will be passed on its Third Reading in the British Parliament."
    The Chairman: While I might allow the hon. Lady to raise this point on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," it does not arise on this Amendment.
    Mrs. White: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Charles. I will attempt to adduce my arguments when we reach that stage.
    The point I feel I am entitled to make is that it is quite unreasonable to expect people whose consent has not been obtained to acquiesce in something which they believe is to their detriment. It is not as though under the provisions of the federal scheme they will have very much hope of making their voices adequately heard in the future. If there were, one might more willingly try to prevail upon them to accept the scheme, even though they themselves did not care for it.
    As we shall be discussing representation, and so on, later I will not labour that now, but it is perfectly clear to those who have had correspondence with Africans in these territories, and have bad first-hand reports from persons who
    46
    have recently been there, that there is still the most serious disquiet among the Africans concerned, and that they have been by no means reconciled, despite the efforts of District Commissioners to the provisions outlined by Her Majesty's Government; they are still fearful of what may come, and apart from the one indication, which we are very glad to have confirmed, that the university is to be multi-racial—which, after all, will affect only a small minority—they have had no evidence of the implementation of partnership, which many of us in this Committee have urged as a preliminary to federation, and which their own representatives asked for so strongly at the Victoria Falls Conference. It is for those reasons that we support this Amendment.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Sir Charles? I understood it might be the view of the Committee that the Amendment standing in my name and in the names of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), might be discussed with this Amendment. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) commenced his speech in moving the Amendment there was a great deal of noise in the Chamber because it was just at the conclusion of Questions and I did not hear whether any announcement was made from the Chair or not. I am not sure whether we are discussing only the Amendment which has been moved or the Amendment to which I have just referred as well.
    The Chairman: I did not make an announcement, but I think it might be for the convenience of the House if we discussed the three Amendments standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes)—in page 1. line 5, after "Majesty," insert:
    on a day, not being earlier than one year after the passing of this Act;
    in page 1, line 6, after "provide," insert:
    as from an appointed day, not being less than one year after the date of the said Order in Council;

    47
    and in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
    (i) declare that the Executive Government and Authority of and over "the Territories" shall continue and be vested in the Queen;
    the two Amendments standing in the name of the hon.
    Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—in page 1, line 5, at end insert:
    after due consultation with all interested parties and after making appropriate provision for the hearing of representations from all interested parties by Her Majesty's Ministers;
    in page 2, line 6, after "amend," insert:
    after due consultation with all parties interested and after making due and proper provision for the hearing by Her Majesty's Ministers of all persons concerned;
    and the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in page 2, line 38, at end add:
    (5) No order proposed to be made under subsection (1) of this section shall be submitted to Her Majesty in Council until the opinion of the International Court at the Hague has been obtained on the question as to whether such proposed order is in abrogation or in contravention of the agreements under which the Chieftains of the said territories sought the protection of Her Majesty.
    Mr. John Dugdale: We are indeed faced with a most extraordinary situation. On the face of it this Amendment would seem to me the most harmless and ordinary kind of Amendment one could have. It simply asks that the consent of the inhabitants shall be obtained before certain action is taken. Could anything be more reasonable than that? It is an extraordinary state of affairs to find such a reasonable Amendment being opposed by the Government. I know that this has been discussed at considerable length on Second Reading and that the point has been gone into, but there are two matters to which I should like to refer.
    First, are we right in saying that there is very strong opposition? In a case such as this, it is necessary that the opposition which has been expressed should be put on record in HANSARD, and I therefore propose, if I may, to quote one or two examples of this opposition. I would refer particularly to the opposition in Nyasaland, because although the opposition in Southern Rhodesia is strong I think we may say that the opposition in Nyasaland is, if anything, even stronger.
    48
    What is this opposition? What is the extent of it? How far does it go? Let us take, for instance, the Conference of Chiefs. The Conference of Nyasaland Chiefs must surely be a body of some importance. The Government cannot possibly disregard it; they cannot say it is not representative. It is at any rate representative of the chieftain system. They say:
    "This Conference of Chiefs reaffirms the decision that African people of Nyasaland reject Federation in principle and condemn the propaganda being carried on by the so-called Round Table talks, presided over by responsible Government Officers, directed at persuading Africans to accept Federation and ask that these talks be 'discontinued forthwith'."
    If that is not opposition, I do not know what is. It is opposition by a responsible body of chiefs, not by some vague body of odd politicians who have collected from somewhere. That is the first case, but it is not the only one.
    The Central Body of the Nyasaland African Congress said on 1st January of last year:
    "We the African people of Nyasaland have always been opposed to any suggestion, move, or scheme for a closer political union of Southern Rhodesia and our country.
    We opposed proposals for amalgamation in 1938.
    We now oppose the proposals for Federation, either as embodied in the London Conference Report, or in any other form. And we will oppose any suggestion, proposal, move or scheme for any form of closer political association with Southern Rhodesia."
    I am not at the moment arguing the merits of what they say. I am simply arguing that these people themselves say quite clearly that they are against federation. They are representative people in Nyasaland and it is important that their view should be considered. But they are not the only people.
    I quote again from the African Protectorate Council for Nyasaland— another body of very great importance. Indeed, I think that one can say that it is the highest African governing body. They say:
    "This Council has read very carefully the suggestions contained in the White Paper on Federation of the three Central African Territories and finds that it cannot accept the scheme."
    That is another very definite statement by a responsible body. These bodies state that they are strongly opposed to the scheme and cannot possibly accept it.

    49
    One could go on at great length quoting body after body, but I have only taken some of the most important ones. I should like to quote one statement, not by a representative body but by an individual man, and I do so for a particular reason. It is a statement made by one of the African delegates, Mr. O. E. Chirwa from Nyasaland. Speaking at Church House on 9th May, 1952, he said:
    "I want to start from the fact that we want to remain under the Colonial Office. Some people may think we are fools but I feel that the British Empire and the British Government should be proud of their Colonial Office."
    What does the Colonial Secretary say to that? Here are people who want to remain under the Colonial Office, not just in a vague way through the safeguards proposed to be set up under this Bill, but who want to remain under the Colonial Office in the way in which they remained under it before.
    They say that they are proud of the administration of the Colonial Office. I think that the Colonial Secretary ought to be glad to have this testimony of people who are not asking to break away from British rule but are asking to keep under British rule and, in particular, under the rule of the Colonial Office over which the right hon. Gentleman presides. I ask him, Is he not impressed that they want to continue under the rule of the Colonial Office?
    The right hon. Gentleman may say that these people are ignorant, that they know nothing about it at all, that they have been misled. I should like, if I may, to quote from a letter which has been sent by the Rev. Andrew B. Doig to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). What does he say? The Rev. Doig is a member of the Church of Scotland Mission from Zomba, Nyasaland, and he is a member of the Nyasaland Legislative Council, a man in Central Africa of very considerable distinction. He says:
    "It is sheer folly or worse to suggest that a different approach by the District Administration would have altered the Africans' opinion on Federation."
    That is a suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and which, I think, the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs has also made—that somehow or other if only the district officers had been
    50
    allowed to put the Government's point of view from the start in favour of federation the situation would have been different, and that it was due to the fact that they did not put their point of view that the Africans do not understand federation. That is a point which has constantly been made by the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Doig says:
    "There has been no change in the Africans' attitude towards the question since the time of the Bledisloe Commission. Each time it has been broached there has been an immediate and strong reaction. The district officers knew this only too well and were extremely careful when the later schemes were first brought forward. It was not just that they had been told to put forward the scheme without comment for or against. They felt they should not really have been asked to handle it, many of them realising that they would lose the confidence and respect of the people if they advanced federation."
    That is a very serious statement. It is a statement which says that the British Government by their action have been responsible for the loss of confidence in the district officers and loss of confidence in the civil servants, who for years have been respected by the African people. It is a very serious thing that the Government are so determined to bring in this scheme of federation that they even risk the African people losing the confidence which they previously had in the district officers. I hope that they will think twice about this.
    It is a serious thing they should have caused a state of affairs in which the district officers, who have been previously respected, should be suspect to Africans because they are forced by the Government to put forward a scheme in direct opposition to everything for which the people of Nyasaland—and the same can be said for the people of Northern Rhodesia—stand. Mr. Doig says:
    "The Africans have their own ideas perfectly clear and that opinion has been formed over a period of years."
    It is that they are strongly opposed to federation beause it means an alliance, a joining together, with countries which have a totally different way of life from theirs. We all know how much we should object as a nation being allied to countries with a totally different life to ours. The countries may have a totalitarian way of life and, quite apart from whether that way of life is good or bad, it is something completely different from our own. The people of Nyasaland and

    51
    the people of Northern Rhodesia—and particularly the people of Nyasaland— follow a way of life which is so different from that of the people of Southern Rhodesia that they do not want to be allied to it. The latter have views, laws and colour bar restrictions which are totally different from many of those which exist today in Nyasaland. The people of Nyasaland do not want to be associated with countries so different from their own.
    I would ask that these points be taken into consideration, and I would ask, as my hon. Friend said in moving the Amendment, that we take the same note of the opinions expressed by the Africans as we have taken of the opinions expressed by the Europeans. In Southern Rhodesia we do not say "It does not matter what the Europeans there think." We do not say, "We shall make this decision regardless of what they think." I know that we could not have said so. But even if we could, I think that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the opinion of the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia had he been responsible for them. In the case of the Africans, we do not bother about them. We say, "Here are a lot of people; we do not care what they think; and what we have decided is good enough for them whatever they may feel."
    We on this side do not think that is good enough. We think that these people are individuals whose wishes, thoughts, hopes and fears it is our duty to pay attention to, just as we would pay attention to the hopes, fears, and thoughts of people in our own country. It is said, "After all, they are not intelligent; they do not know what is going on." If I may say so, there are occasionally some people, even in the United Kingdom, who do not know all the issues of an election, and yet we pay attention to their views. We pay attention to the views of people, many of whom have not studied the subject very deeply. Why should we not do the same in the case of the African people?
    I hope that even at this time the Gov-ment will reconsider their decision, and I would ask them this: Will the Secretary of State tell us of any precedent for the imposition of a new constitution, not just under the Colonial Office, but a new constitution a large part of which is to be entirely severed from the Colonial Office,
    52
    upon a people who are unwilling to accept it?
    Mr. Archer Baldwin: The Amendment which we are discussing is very much in line with the action taken by the Opposition throughout the many debates which we have had on federation. The supporters of this Amendment have not, if I may say so, had much practical experience of that part of the world, otherwise they would not put forward the arguments which they have done. I would rather accept the views of the Socialist Members who were my colleagues on the deputation that spent some five weeks in Central Africa, in view of the number of meetings which were held and the views expressed to them by all shades of opinion.
    I want to say a word about Nyasaland. It was in Nyasaland, which was the last of the Territories that we visited, that we had the most unpleasant and what might have been a dangerous meeting with representatives of the Africans. The meeting was held at Blantyre. It was the wish of the provincial commissioner that it should be a meeting with local Africans, but when we arrived the commissioner told us that the African Congress leaders wished to be present and he thought that, for the sake of peace and quietness, they should be allowed to attend. In view of what happened when we met I am sure his advice was sound. The meeting was held in an open shed and outside gathered a number of Africans who were apparently there for trouble if they were stirred up.
    4.30 p.m.
    Therefore, the opposition that we had was mainly from Nyasaland. The African Congress is very strong in Nyasaland. The Congress is ruled by a few Africans who have only one wish and that is to delay federation, for they know that if federation is not accepted now it will never take place and then they will remain under the Colonial Office, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) said. Their view is that in due course the Colonial Office will permit a "Gold Coast" in Nyasaland, which is their only desire. The Congress is out not for federation or partnership, but for domination by the black over the white.
    It is not true that there is no opinion except that against federation. I propose

    53
    to quote three representatives of the church in Southern Rhodesia. The Rev. O. D. Ramnshu, an African Methodist Minister, wrote to the "Buluwayo Chronicle":
    "It is not correct to say that all Africans in this country (Southern Rhodesia) are opposed to federation. It would be true to say that some vocal African leaders are influencing the uninformed African masses to reject federation in toto. … Even among these vocal leaders, very few of them would refuse to stand as candidates for the Federal Parliament. … On the day of the Referendum I voted 'Yes' for federation. Now is the time to look forward; we cannot live in isolation."
    The Bishop of Mashonaland wrote to the "Church Times" on 6th March:
    "I would venture my opinion, based on personal and intimate experience, that here in Southern Rhodesia wrongs have been righted, and other wrongs are on the way to being righted, in a far shorter period of time than it has taken Britain to right its injustices and its failures to fulfil the Charter on Human Rights…. "
    The Rev. Percy Ibbotson, writing to the "Methodist Recorder," said:
    "The vast majority of Africans in Central Africa know very little about federation and are not interested in it, and the reason for this is not far to seek. It is that very few of them indeed can intelligently assess the advantages and disadvantages of federation. … The overwhelming majority of Africans are still semi-primitive in thought and life, even though they may have the outward veneer of more civilised living."
    Mr. Dogdale: The hon. Member has given us examples of people who, he says, are against federation. Can he give us examples in the case of Africans in either Northern Rhodesia or Nyasa-land?
    Mr. Baldwin: I am giving examples of those who are in favour of federation and not against it. I have given three examples from Southern Rhodesia because Southern Rhodesia has been attacked more than either of the other two Territories during all our debates. It is quite unfair that such statements should be made about a territory which has done more to bring Africans from their primitive state towards civilisation than any other part of the Continent of Africa.
    Let us be practical about this. What do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think will happen if federation does not come about now? Shall we not have people like Chief Gomani and the Rev. Michael Scott going around the districts stirring up the primitive minds and shall
    54
    we not have passive resistance and civil disobedience in the years ahead until federation is again put forward? What happens when there is civil disobedience and passive resistance? Eventually, there is bloodshed, such as we have had in other countries. Before they carry this matter any further, I hope that the Opposition will realise what may be the effect of rejecting federation now. If the agitators are not allowed to stir up trouble, federation will come about, and the Africans will accept it and benefit from it.
    I strongly object to the Amendment. The time has come for federation. It is not true that it is being rushed. The matter has been discussed in the form of amalgamation or federation for 20 years, and the present scheme has been before the Africans for two years. The scheme is the result of the advice of a body set up by the Socialist Government, and it favoured federation and said that it should take place as soon as possible. I would sooner accept the views of that body than the views of those who have never been near the Continent and now say that there should be some delay.
    Mr. Hale: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has made three propositions. One of them I always find impressive, and I shall refer to it later. The remaining propositions seem wholly indefensible.
    His second proposition was that it is not right to consult six million Africans about their views but it is right for him to quote three Africans who disagree with the six million. It is an absolute negation of democracy that he should ask the Committee to take note of the opinions of an African Minister, who has written to a newspaper, without knowing who he is or anything about him, and not to favour taking any opportunity of consulting all the other Africans who are concerned, some of them very deeply.
    His next point was a very distressing one. He talked about the Rev. Michael Scott, whose name is respected, I should have thought, wherever peace, understanding and tolerance in colonial affairs are matters of concern.
    Mr. Baldwin: I did not wish to say anything derogatory about the Rev. Michael Scott. I have met him and I know he is sincere, but he is quite unpractical.
    Mr. Hale: I am obliged to the hon. Member; I shall not pursue that.
    The hon. Member used the phrase "stirring up." His definition of "stirring up" is probably "to express a view opposed to his own." That is the sort of view which is held on the Government benches. The view of hon. Members opposite is that one should say to the Africans, "Be good boys and take this, because everything may come all right in the end," adding, for safety, "We have for 20 years been saying that everything will come right and it has not come right because of our preoccupations in Europe with the rise of Hitler, and so on, and it has been difficult for us to carry out our promises." If it is said, "We still believe it will come right" that is all right, but if it is said, "We are not sure that it will come right in the end. We are a little distressed at some of the things that are being said by the whites in Southern Rhodesia," that is "stirring up."
    The hon. Member for Leominster was one of those who said that the Labour Party ought to have taken every opportunity in the early stages of informing African opinion. We now know the definition of "informing African opinion." It is to tell the Africans what to do and that they have to do it and be good about it; it is a question not of consultation or advice but of telling them where they get off and how they do it.
    The hon. Member made one point which I always find impressive. He said that hon. Members do not know enough about Africa, that many of the hon. Members who sit here discussing these questions are inexperienced, that many have never lived in Africa and have never endured the conditions there. I think that is true. Sir Godfrey Huggins, in a rather less elegant form, put the matter in much the same way when he said that these matters have to be decided by people who are more concerned with the drains in Shoreditch than the great territories in Africa.
    It is unfortunate, but it is one of the legacies of a Colonial Empire. It is one of the duties which is thrust upon us. We have to act as good stewards and honest trustees. If the hon. Member suggests that this Parliament should sit in Blantyre or in Bulawayo, I would support it with all my power. It is right
    56
    that we should take every opportunity to get to know more about colonial affairs. It is wrong that little, limited delegations should be sent to Africa to study these things, and often they are organised on the basis of good party men rather than on the basis of hon. Members keenly interested in African affairs.
    If the hon. Member would go further and say that while we are there we should live in the Ashanti huts which are devised for Africans and which are a disgrace to our Empire and under the conditions which Africans have to endure, I shall support him wholeheartedly. I would be very willing to see what is the effect upon our minds of enduring those conditions and thereby achieving a real understanding, because the only way to achieve a full understanding of the position is by enduring, sharing, tolerating and bearing the experiences of these people.
    That is all I wish to say about this feature of the hon. Member's speech, an hon. Member to whom I listen with respect because he speaks with sincerity about these matters. I would only add this, and in doing so I do not wish it to be thought that I am doing so offensively. I have no objection to private enterprise or to private planning in their proper places, but it is unfortunate that many of the speeches to which we have to listen in a debate such as this come from people who have financial interests in Africa.
    Mr. Baldwin: I have not the slightest interest in Africa at all except that some of my relatives are in Government service in Kenya. I have not one penny piece invested in Africa.
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I had not quits finished my sentence. I was not suggesting anything against the hon. Gentleman.
    There is nothing dishonourable about having investments in Africa, and I am not suggesting that there is. It is right, too, that hon. Members who have investments in Africa should contribute from their knowledge to these debates, knowledge gained by having some experience of fanning or business conditions in the Colonial Empire. It is a very good thing to invest money in the Colonial Empire if on the right terms and not in the form of exploitation, but I say it is a great pity that so many of the speeches on Africa

    57
    from hon. Members on the other side come from people with a financial interest in that country and who have only one form of experience, that of employers.
    We one this side of the Committee take the view that it is not always the employer who understands and is best qualified to represent the workman. I do not want to go any further into that, because I have not the slightest desire to make this debate highly controversial. It is very important that we should approach these matters with reserve, but, at the same time, with frankness.
    4.45 p.m.
    The Amendment to page 1, line 5, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend, reads:
    "At end, insert 'after due consultation with all interested parties and after making appropriate provision for the hearing of representations from all interested parties by Her Majesty's Ministers'."
    This Amendment is consequential to the one we are now discussing. Both of them have practically the same meaning although put into the Clause at different stages, but our Amendment raises a separate and complementary issue. It raises one of the fundamental rights of these people and, indeed, the people of all British territories, the right of petitioning the Crown.
    This Bill proposes to delegate the whole of our power to the Privy Council. It will have passed through Parliament before we are acquainted with the terms of the Order to be made by the Privy Council or considered by it. We shall not see it in detail at all except in the sense that we shall have one collective discussion on the document as a whole without the power of amendment.
    In the main, we lose all power over it. We cannot petition against it because we cannot amend it. It is to be an Order against which the people will have no right to petition, and, indeed, there is not any procedure that I know of for petitioning against it under those conditions. The result will be that whatever happens when the Bill passes this House, whatever representations are sought to be made from the Territories, whatever the organisation formed by the six million people concerned to make representations, so far as I am aware we shall have lost entirely any power to preserve their right to represent or any power to hear the
    58
    representations which they wish to make. When the Bill is passed the power is delegated, and we have lost our rights of improvement or amendment. That is the position we are now called upon to face.
    This is a lamentable position, and it is made a good deal more lamentable by something else—an interjection which was made during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). When my hon. Friend was speaking she mentioned the fact that it had been said that we must not go on discussing this matter because it had been discussed so often before. At this stage of her speech there was an interjection from the opposite side of the Committee expressing complete approval with that point of view, and I apprehend that that sort of view will be put forward again in the course of this debate. I think we should consider what it means.
    It is one of the curiosities and difficulties of our Constitution that, in the main, the Crown's power of treaty making is vested in the Cabinet, and this House has only the right to say "Aye" or "Nay." Occasionally, it is not even given that right even when the treaty is made and then the House has only the inherent right to turn out the Government if it disapproves the treaty. It may very well be that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will argue that to some extent these agreements with a self-governing Colony and with the Protectorates are something in the nature of a treaty. But I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not go further and say, as some of hi$ colleagues and some of the Press have been saying, that they should not be discussed further.
    A periodical called "Time and Tide" has suggested that the Opposition are wasting their time putting down Amendments to this Bill because this matter has been discussed already, agreement was been come to, and we have to go forward. What is the duty and what is the function of Parliament in relation to six million people for whom we are trustees? I would say here and now that one of my difficulties has been that trustees have no right to retire from their trusts and appoint new trustees to act in their stead unless the original trust's duties are carried on.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: And I think my hon. Friend would agree that they have no right to retire from their trust and appoint another trustee without the consent of the people for whom they are acting?
    Mr. Hale: That is substantially true and subject to the limitation of the Trustee Act, 1925, I will accept my hon. and learned Friend's opinion on the law with more alacrity than I usually do.
    I would say, further, that there is a legal maxim relative to that, delegatus non potest delegare. In this case the delegates, who are being entrusted with this matter, have hardly shown that they approach this fundamental problem in that spirit. No one who has read the recent utterances or heard of the recent actions in these territories can feel that this trustee spirit is being shown by those who are to take over our heritage and administer it.
    There are many other matters which arise on this Amendment, and although I understand that we are discussing several Amendments together, I am not quite clear just how many we are now considering. I gather that among the Amendments which are being considered is that in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), which reads:
    Clause 1, page 2, line 38, at end, add:
    (5) No order proposed to be made under subsection (1) of this section shall be submitted to Her Majesty in Council until the opinion of the International Court at the Hague has been obtained on the question as to whether such proposed order is in abrogation or in contravention of the agreements under which the Chieftains of the various territories sought the protection of Her Majesty.
    I hope it will be in order to refer to this Amendment because it is a very important Amendment. It is always a pleasure for me to express agreement with the Liberal Party, to which I once belonged. Regarding myself as one of the four surviving Liberal Members of this House, two of whom at least are Socialists, I would like to express a liberal point of view. This is an important point.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery says that here is a matter which is likely to go to the International Court at The Hague; here is a matter which, for all practical purposes, is sub judice; here is a matter upon which it is quite possible that this
    60
    august tribunal will pronounce a view hostile to the view expressed by the House of Commons. The whole history of our battles for liberty has been the effort on the part of the House of Commons to avoid a conflict with the courts. Indeed, the times when our Constitution has been in peril have been in moments of conflict on grave issues such as in the time of Chief Justice Holt and others.
    We have Mr. Speaker's warrant for arresting lawyers who were pleading before the House of Lords and for preventing the House of Lords from taking action against the House of Commons. It was resolved then that this House would seek in future to avoid a conflict with the courts and that the line of demarcation should be strictly observed. Indeed, it has been the habit of the Chair in the last few years to rule that where a matter is before the courts, it is not proper for us to discuss it, let alone to act on it, let alone to take a decision in advance of the decision of the courts, in order to avoid bringing about what would be an inevitable, an undignified and difficult conflict if the decision of the courts were adverse to it.
    This matter is literally sub judice at the moment because of the proceedings which are before the courts to test the validity of some of the proposals, and they may come to Her Majesty's Privy Council for a final decision. There will be an internecine conflict if the decision which comes to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council is contrary to the decision of the Privy Council as a whole. In such a case one can visualise the possibility of a conflict much more grave and much more serious in its consequences than any which have preceded it in the past.
    These are not matters lightly to be cast aside by the House of Commons saying, "This is an Amendment tabled a day or two ago. Let us vote it down because we have had discussions before." I think, and I certain the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will insist, that the right hon. Gentleman should tell us what information there is at the moment about these proceedings. What is the chance of this matter being raised before the International Court? What is the possibility of the International Court considering that they have a right to adjudicate upon the matter? Certainly, the case

    61
    is not without precedent. There was a time when it was said that the internal affairs of each community were not the concern of the International Court, but that rule has been abrogated in these last few years in many directions. There is the further point that this matter has also gone to the United Nations on the ground of the abrogation of the treaty rights of chieftains, so these are grave matters upon which we ought to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
    Now I want to return to the Amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). It is an important and fundamental Amendment and it is right that the Committee should approach it from that point of view. Every time that a developing civilisation has made an appeal for an extension of democratic rights, the argument has always come from those who are resisting it that the people are not ready for it. In this country it started with the theory of the Normans that the Saxons were not intelligent enough to vote. Indeed, long before votes were available it was said that the Saxons were not intelligent enough to exercise the rights of citizenship or to have the right of promotion to office.
    I believe it is said that St. Thomas was the first Saxon to occupy a high office and, by that occupation, began to break down the rule—although his parents came from Normandy and the fact that they were of Saxon origin possibly was not noted in time for the Whips to take the necessary action. But there it was, and from that time onwards, for century after century, every application for an extension of the right to vote, for an extension of the franchise, for reform and progress, was resisted on the ground that the ignorant country yokels did not understand political matters, that the workers in the factories of Lancashire had not yet developed sufficiently or fast enough to be able to judge of their interests and that the landowners, the people who fanned the land, the people who put up the capital, alone were capable of judging.
    I have not suggested that there are not difficulties in this matter and neither have my hon. Friends. Judged from the point of view of our own beliefs we think that many of the religious beliefs of some of
    62
    the tribes in Rhodesia are backward or, indeed, are barbaric and that in some cases they believe in a mystic which we have long dismissed as witchcraft. I am not an expert on comparative religions and I find the mystic of many of them incapable of being understood. I try as far as I can to respect them all. I try to think it is the right of every man to adopt his own faith, to live in that faith and to accept such mystic as he himself finds essential to the maintenance of that faith.
    This is not now a question of giving the vote to six million people or not. It is a question of whether we try to ascertain their views and act upon them. It is a question of whether we give weight to them. It is a question of whether we use the ordinary consultative machinery that we have ourselves devised for this purpose by consulting the council of chieftains. It is a question of whether we go to those people who themselves, on a democratic basis in many cases, have become the chieftains of the African tribes and to whom the Africans look for counsel and guidance in times of emergency, who still exercise, in many cases, rights of justice and adjudication on land disputes, who are the fathers of the tribes or the leaders of the councils of the tribes. It is a question of whether we should not now consult them, try to put all the basic facts fairly before them, before we delegate our powers by taking an action which, at the moment, is suspect by the majority of African people and which they regard as inimical to their interests.
    The powers that we are delegating are large powers. They are powers that the House of Commons, in all its debates, has never had fully and adequately defined. We have never been told, as we have sought to be told, what are the limitations of the power that we may exercise when this Bill is passed into law. We have sought by Question and answer and by debate to have an elucidation of this matter. Certainly, it seems that we are giving powers that it will be difficult to withdraw once they have been given. We are giving powers, at any rate for a period of years, which, if we ever sought to withdraw them, might mean that the House of Commons would find itself in a singularly unhappy situation.
    After all, our own law recognises a locus poenitentiae clause in a contract

    63
    which gives an opportunity for further discussion and consideration where there is misunderstanding or misinterpretation. That is why there should be an opportunity in this case for further discussion and consideration. It need not mean much delay. The House of Commons is proposing to adjourn soon for two months, which will leave many hon. Members available to serve. No one has given a single authoritative reason why, in this modern world with its rapid transport facilities, we should not take a last opportunity of trying to consult and to inform African opinion and then take into account the result of those consultations.
    That is why I think these Amendments are of supreme importance and I hope, but do not expect, that they will be accepted.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. George Wigg: I have added my name to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) because, even at this eleventh hour, when it is hoped that this Bill will become law within a short time, I want to make it plain that in my judgment the Measure the Government are forcing through is misguided and wrongheaded.
    I have had my differences with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and will continue to have them. I believe he speaks the same language as I do, but I am quite sure his methods are wrong. They are wrong because his appreciation of the situation in the Colonial Territories is completely mistaken. He believes that in the modern world government can only be carried on by consent—it does not matter very much whether it is through the ballot box, or by the rubber truncheon or the concentration camp, but consent there has to be. The right hon. Gentleman has to believe that——
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): If the hon. Member thought that I subscribed to the astonishing doctrine that it does not matter how we got consent and that it could be got just as much by the rubber truncheon as by the ballot box, he must have a mistaken view of my political opinions.
    Mr. Wigg: I judge the right hon. Gentleman not by what he says, but by
    64
    what he does. In every situation with which he has been faced his instinct has been to use force and he uses force because he thinks he can be successful. I oppose the use of force because I am quite certain that in the long run the steps taken by the right hon. Gentleman are foredoomed to failure. Political prophecy is a dangerous occupation, but I judge of the success of his policy, not by what he says, nor by the distinguished officers he appoints, but by the number of troops he has in those areas.
    I see that even "The Times" has come to that point of view this morning —that one may judge of the success of the Malayan situation by the fact that we have still two divisions there and we can judge of the success of what is happening in Kenya by the fact that we have nine battalions while the test in Central Africa will be not by any paper facade or facade of words and statements made in this House but by how much force the right hon. Gentleman will have to use to back his policies in the months and years that lie ahead. The alternative to the use of the police forces and the sending of British troops is to get the consent of the Africans.
    We on this side of the Committee have said of Measures of which we approve that the pace at which we can go is determined by the degree of persuasion we can use on the African and the acceptance we can get of our point of view. It may be that by rubbing a magic ring we could bring federation to Africa overnight. I think the economic argument here is unanswerable, but on this side of the Committee we have always said that the pace at which we can go is determined by the degree to which we can persuade the Africans to accept that policy. It is of paramount importance to those of us on this side of the Committee to make it quite clear that we stand 100 per cent. behind the policy of persuasion in order to secure the cooperation of the Africans.
    I know that from time to time on both sides of the Committee we hear the argument that the African is only a few years away from the barbarisms of prehistoric times, that only recently he learned the use of the wheel, that he is illiterate and knows nothing of sanitation, or hygiene, and is completely incapable of running his own affairs. I quite agree that there

    65
    are many parts of Africa where the state of backwardness is such that the African, if left to himself, could not manage his own affairs. But what the right hon. Gentleman and those who support him do not realise is that we have reached a point in African affairs where government cannot be carried on if we are faced with the opposition of the Africans.
    It may be that for the moment the right hon. Gentleman may appear to have his successes. He may appear to have success in Kenya, in Malaya, and so on, but in the long run I am quite sure that a Government which does not believe in domination and in force as the arbiter, but believes in the method of persuasion, the method of education, will have to go back and try to build the bridges that the right hon. Gentleman—because of his wantonness—has broken down. The Minister has looked at the problem and been persuaded by the obvious advantages of federation. He has said, "Federation there is going to be; I do not care twopence what the six million Africans think about it. It is good for them; I know far better."
    The right hon. Gentleman is taking the same attitude towards the African as was taken by his predecessors in this House towards the working classes. The great fundamental mistake of the Tory Party between the two wars was that they thought they could ride roughshod over the trade unions. For a time, in 1926, it seemed that they had been successful, but there was a reckoning and there will be a reckoning here, the reckoning in terms of the use of force. One would think that we had unlimited numbers of battalions and brigades which we could send out. I am sure that we have not. I am sure that before very long the right hon. Gentleman will produce a terrible reckoning in terms of commitments added to our already overburdened defence programme.
    Even more terrible is the fact that it will create in African hearts a hatred and bitterness towards this country and towards democratic institutions which all who want to see the British Commonwealth of Nations developing on democratic lines can only deplore. Even though the right hon. Gentleman is to get his way and has his majority and will not accept any Amendments—even though his Bill is to become law and he will be able to rub his hands and go away saying,
    66
    "That is that" it will not be, "That is that." Tomorrow is also a day. I hope he may remember that if the reckoning is not to be paid by him and his party it has to be paid by this country and the British Commonwealth and Empire.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I shall deal in a few sentences with the agreeable speech made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I should like to dismiss the idea that I disagree with him on all matters. I agree with him very sincerely in believing that without education, social services and wider representation these countries will not prosper, or become peaceable. In fact, all sections of the Committee are agreed that we must try to give an increasing measure of responsibility in all these Territories for the management of their own affairs. That is where the hon. Member gets me wrong and he also gets me wrong on the idea that crime and murder should not be put down by force. All civilised communities see that law is enfored. That is what we did in Malaya and what we are doing now in Kenya. With those few words, it is agreeable to find that on the long-term matter I am in agreement with the hon. Member.
    I want to deal with a matter which was mentioned rather late in his remarks, by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). Although this perhaps goes fairly wide of the Amendment, I would not be creating any new precedent as many of the speeches—I am glad it is so, for reasons I will explain—seemed almost indistinguishable from speeches on Second Reading. I welcome that for reasons I will make plain. I say, frankly, that I am in a difficulty over this matter. If we were to incorporate in the enabling Bill certain provisions which are not in this scheme or to introduce modifications into the scheme, it is quite obvious that we should be going back on the decision we had taken during the course of these negotiations.
    It is a perfectly understandable argument, which will be advanced, that since the Order in Council is not amendable but can only be accepted or rejected, this debate today is the last opportunity to introduce modifications. I must accept that, and I trust the Committee will realise that even with every wish to explain and argue these matters again I am under very strict limitations. If we incorporated modifications, we should

    67
    be resiling from a position which we took up during the course of negotiations. On the other hand, I do not think anybody can say that the subject has not been fully ventilated in the House. Apart from two statements, one by my predecessor on 13th June, 1951, and one by myself on 21st November, 1951, it has been debated no fewer than six times. However weary some hon. Members may have become of the subject, nevertheless I am mindful of the advantages which Her Majesty's Government have obtained from some of these debates.
    There are many things and modifications in the present federal scheme which were put in to meet views expressed by hon. Members opposite and on this side also. In our view, the scheme has been greatly improved and strengthened in several important particulars as the result of those debates. There are two that I have in mind. One is the power of review laid down in the Constitution, and the other is in the Order in Council procedure for alterations in the Constitution. I can, therefore, claim two things. Every provision in the scheme has already been under the scrutiny of the House, and when the Second Reading of the enabling Bill was carried the scheme was, in the main, approved.
    It is quite obvious—I say this with apology to the Committee—that the Government cannot accept modifications to a scheme by which they had become morally bound to the other three Governments during the course of the negotiations. That is not the same as a treaty position; but anybody would see that we could never engage in negotiations in external matters if it was thought that after we had appended our signatures we would only vary the position which we had taken. That is impossible, and, therefore, the Committee must recognise that I am today rather in the position of saying that Amendments are impossible. I am only too willing to discuss them in detail—that is why I welcomed the Second Reading nature of the speeches that have been made; but I cannot be asked to incorporate modifications which alter those matters upon which Her Majesty's Government have taken up this position.
    These schemes are not treaties—the hon. Member for Oldham, West is quite
    68
    right: they are like treaties—but they have to be dealt with in rather the same manner. Otherwise, the Executive or the Government would be powerless to negotiate anything external in which other Governments were involved if we were then to feel ourselves free to incorporate in the scheme modifications of detail and of principle. I suggest that in this matter the function of the House and of the Committee is, after exhaustive discussion, to act as an arbiter and not as an author of new things. That preliminary I must make quite clear, and I ask for the tolerance of the Committee on this matter.
    Mr. Paget: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has observed that a good many of the Amendments, and particularly the new Clauses, are simply attempts to put into the Bill that which is already in the agreement.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Member has put his finger on a matter of which I am very conscious. I had made some notes on the subject of incorporating in the enabling Bill matters which are now in the Orders in Council, but I did not deal with that subject because I thought the remarks were getting a little wide. I shall, however, be ready to do so when opportunity occurs and when the arguments are different to those now being adduced. [Interruption.] I am dealing with the Amendments which in the main deal with the wish to delay the coming into force of federation. I will deploy the other arguments when it becomes clear that federation is to be put into force—for example, whether parts of the Order in Council should be incorporated in the enabling Bill. I thank the hon. and learned Member for mentioning that.
    5.15 p.m.
    Listening to the debate this afternoon —I do not criticise it—most of those who spoke hardly disguised the fact that in proposing delay, they were really proposing that federation never came about. This does not apply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, but it was rather sad to hear speeches like those made by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), neither of whom, I am sorry to see, is now present. Although not wishing to do so, they came very near

    69
    to expressing sympathy for an attitude of passive resistance in Nyasaland, at least, and possibly in the other Territories. I know the difficulties under which they laboured, but all I can say is that those speeches will have done considerable damage to the cause which, I think, we all have at heart.
    After all, federation has been espoused and sponsored by the party opposite. The main difference with which we are concerned now is whether we should proceed in the face of African opposition, or in face of what measure of it we should proceed. It is particularly unfortunate that remarks should have been made such as, "One hundred per cent. of African opinion is against this," which is more or less what the hon. Member for Rugby said. He also expressed great sympathy with those who resisted paying taxes and things like that—non-violent methods—if federation was under discussion. Those two speeches, although sincerely meant, will do a lot of damage.
    I want to deal, as far as I can, with the dilemma which we are in over subjects like the referendum, which is referred to, for example, indirectly in the first Amendment. How are we to determine "a majority of the inhabitants"? That would raise a question of either the referendum or the franchise that was to be used to determine that majority. Clearly, if we were to get on to a system of universal franchise in the two Territories, we would completely swamp the 200,000 Europeans, upon whose efforts the future development of these countries very largely depends.
    The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was right in saying that we must ultimately get the co-operation of the African in all the industrial and agricultural work that we do. He omits, however, to say that the future of African agriculture, as the future of African industry, depends upon the Europeans. Remarks were made by the hon. Member for Dudley about the Africans in certain parts of Africa not knowing the wheel 50 years ago. That is true, but the enormous strides that have been made in African agriculture, industry and standards of life during the last 50 years have been due to the Europeans.
    Therefore, if we put in a franchise which has the effect of completely swamping the 200,000 Europeans, we are putting
    70
    an abrupt stop to that development. If, on the other hand, we seek to perpetuate a system where all the power rests in the 200,000 Europeans and none in the six million Africans, we are laying in store for ourselves a situation which is bound to break down, because we would have to continue to rule under that system without sufficient consent of the Government.
    We tried to do it, and all parties have been agreed on it, by making an illogical type of Constitution which seeks to give to Africans representation in the scheme, which we will be discussing later—about one-quarter of the Federal Assembly— which they would not get upon any property qualifications. On the whole, that is a sensible way. Obviously, we cannot go in for universal franchise now and expect that it will do the African any good. Nor can we go on, by means, for instance, of a property qualification for a vote, concentrating all the legislative power in the hands of Europeans. Therefore, we have to work towards keeping the European busy upon his development and towards gradually giving the African a greater part in his affairs.
    Mr. Hale: It has been said that the qualifications for the Africans were actually increased in Southern Rhodesia in the Act passed in 1938, and that it has been made more difficult for they African to vote instead of less difficult. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with that point?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have not the figures in my mind, but the property qualification was increased. That was done on the grounds—I am not saying whether they were right or not—that the purchasing power of money had greatly fallen.
    I was trying to deal with the general matter, and I was saying that I think we are in a dilemma. It is quite easy for those who make speeches which are no doubt quoted with approval in the "Tribune," and so on, but if there is universal franchise or any system of referendum it will lose for the African the one force likely to accelerate his progress socially and politically.
    I wish to deal with the next question which was raised by several hon. Members—the matter of African opposition. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) quoted, among

    71
    others, two unofficial bodies whose opinion has, I know, been greatly influenced by Congress activity. The Congress is a handful of people. We have in the Colonial Office a great many instances of intimidation. On the question of African opinion, there is no doubt that there is considerable opposition, particularly in Nyasaland, and particularly among the vocal section of the population. I say with every sincerity to those who, like the hon. Member for Rugby, use phrases which we hear in all these debates—"solid African opinion," etc.—that I am surprised at the very small scale of reaction there has been to federation since the enabling Bill received its Second Reading in this House; it has been very small indeed.
    It is quite possible for the right hon. Gentleman to pull out of his pocket a letter from the Reverend so-and-so and one from a chief and use arguments ad hominem of that kind.
    Mr. Dugdale Mr. Dugdale rose——
    Mr. Lyttelton: No, I cannot give way. I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.
    There has been great intimidation; Congress has been active. It is extremely easy, in a very primitive and very conservative society, to put about things which frighten the Africans—I have heard some this afternoon out of the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he said that the Colonial Office was going to be cut off for ever from Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and were we not proud of the fact that these two Territories wanted to look to the Colonial Office.
    In all the matters that affect the daily life of the African they will continue to look to the Colonial Office; their status is completely unchanged. That is the kind of argument put out, not by the right hon. Gentleman, because he seems to have an idée fixe, but by others, to misrepresent the views of the African population.
    That is the reason why we get this reaction: we see very often in African statements against Federation the actual words of propagandists and opponents of Federation in this country, and what is cooked up in Bloomsbury often comes
    72
    out as an indigenous opinion in Blantyre. That particular process is worth watching. I can quote——
    Mr. John Rankin: Do so.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have not got it here, but I am quite willing, if the hon. Member is interested, to produce an actual instance——
    Mr. Rankin: I will give the right hon. Gentleman a better one than that.
    Mr. Lyttelton: There is a section of African opinion that is opposed and continues to be opposed to Federation. The hon. Member for Oldham, West went on, in his speech, to which I listened with great interest, to matters of trusteeship, and engaged in an agreeable interchange with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). What neither of them touched upon, I think very wisely, was the fact that the duty of the trustee occasionally is to do things which the beneficiary would rather have done otherwise. That is what has happened here. I regret very much that I and the Government will have to assume these responsibilities, but they cannot be brushed aside because the beneficiary does not like it.
    "We are their leaders provided we follow them" is the motto of some hon. Members opposite, but we cannot govern by that principle. Nor has anybody ever suggested that government is necessarily entirely a popular function. To follow that argument, we should never impose Income Tax because a lot of people dislike it; I have never yet met anyone who does. Yet hon. Members say, "How shocking to think of imposing income tax on a population which does not like it."
    Mr. Paget: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has missed the whole point. He is not assuming a responsibility, he is parting with one, and that is what he has no right to do.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Member is dragging one of those agreeable Northampton red herrings across the trail by saying that we are parting with responsibility. Into every line of this scheme it is written that Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia remain Protectorates. How can the hon. and learned Member say that we are parting with something

    73
    when it is specifically reserved and enshrined in the Constitution.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West raised another point at the end of his speech—I refer to the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 38—relating to the non-submission of proposed orders to Her Majesty in Council until the opinion of the International Court at The Hague has been obtained on the question. I apologise for making these references, but I have to refer to different parts of the Order Paper to cover the points made. This is an attempt to evade the question of the treaties with the chiefs. There is no provision in the Statute of the International Court or any international instrument whereby the International Court could discuss the Federation proposals.
    The question raised in the Amendment can just as well be settled by United Kingdom lawyers as by international lawyers. In the opinion of my legal advisers—and I have taken great pains on this point—and not only of my legal advisers but the legal advisers of Her Majesty's Government as a whole, there is nothing in the proposed federal scheme which is an abrogation or in contravention of any of the agreements referred to. I wish to make that quite clear.
    I have tried to deal with all the points raised. I would, in conclusion, say that although Her Majesty's Government must reject this Amendment, they will continue, by every means in their power, when this Bill becomes law, to educate public opinion in Africa to the advantages of Federation. That is not a matter which could ever be let drop. I should not like hon. Members opposite to think that if this Bill becomes law we shall cease trying to show to the African the advantages which will accrue to him from Federation. Indeed, I think it is quite clear that when Federation has been in being for two or three months any passive resistance, if there has been any, will very soon die away, for two reasons.
    The first is that the ordinary African, tilling his field or harvesting his crop, will be unaware that Federation has taken place. It will be a year or two later before he discovers that he has great economic advantages. At the moment, his daily life will be unaffected, and if political experience is any guide it is very unusual to be able to work up great political agitation when, on the surface,
    74
    nothing has happened. The other reason is that I do not think that the political boycott against the Federal Government will last for long. I think that the Africans will see that in the Federal Government they have another opportunity of expressing African opinion; that the proportion which they may not regard as sufficient now will be able to make a contribution to the deliberations of the Federal Assembly. Nothing could be more fatal than to advance the argument, as some hon. Members have, that this scheme will be boycotted, and that they desire to see the African proportion in that Federal Legislature increased. If we wish to keep a country backward politically the surest way to do it is to boycott the democratic institutions which are set up.
    I would point out that in this Parliament, or in this Federated Legislature, if hon. Members prefer those words, the nine members who will look after African interests out of the total of 35 do have great opportunities for participation in the affairs of the Federation. Their attitude should be that of trying to support federation, and, if possible, to increase their representation, rather than attempting, upon the instigation, however unwittingly, of people like the hon. Member for Rugby, to wash their hands of the whole affair. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. James Griffiths: My intervention is not intended to close the debate, or to give any justification or excuse to the Patronage Secretary for moving the Closure. I would remind him that we are discussing a number of Amendments covering a wide range, and I hope he will not regard my intervention as an opportunity or justification for moving the Closure, if he intended to do so.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): I had no such intention.
    Mr. Griffiths: I accept that assurance.
    As the Colonial Secretary has said, the issue raised by the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) is one which we have discussed on many occasions. It has formed the major issue of the debates in which we have discussed the scheme for

    75
    federation, and its merits and demerits. Running through the whole of those debates has been the central theme whether we shall proceed in the absence of consent by the Africans and, indeed, in the face of African opposition. I agree that there is scarcely anything new which any of us can say upon that aspect of the matter.
    I want all hon. Members to realise that we are discussing this matter against the background of the present situation in Africa. That is most important. We find that both in Nyasaland and in Northern Rhodesia there is continuing opposition to this scheme. The Colonial Secretary referred to the North African Congress. I do not know how many people are members of the Congress in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. All I would say is that it is the first major political organisation to emerge in Central Africa, and it includes among its members practically all the young educated Africans.
    Whatever we may think of their views now, and their opposition to this scheme, we must remember that they are the representatives of the Africans; they are the leaders who are emerging. They are comparatively young men who have been to school, to college and to the universities. Let it be said to our credit as a country that most of them have been educated because of the increasing facilities for higher education that we are providing in the Colonies and the facilities for enabling these young men to be trained in our own universities and colleges. We shall be making a grave mistake if we ignore these people because their numbers are small and their influence may not be so great as they imagine at this moment. They will be important in the future.
    This new force, this growth of nationalism—we may call it that for lack of a better term—in all the colonial territories and other territories is a great dynamic force in Africa, as well as in Asia and elsewhere. We have the choice of being friendly, or regarding it with enmity. The success of the policy in the dependent territories—to which all parties are agreed—of working towards responsible democratic self-government within the British Commonwealth of Nations, depends for its implementation upon
    76
    keeping the confidence not only of the people in general but of these new leaders who are emerging. At the moment they are opposed to it, particularly in Nyasaland and to a lesser extent in Northern Rhodesia. The Congress and the chiefs have met and are making common cause against it.
    It is against that background that we are discussing this matter. As the Colonial Secretary has said, we have argued about it and discussed it before, and I have no doubt that later on tonight we shall vote on it. I would say to those who do not share our view about this problem that everyone who has any knowledge of Africa, whether his knowledge is cursory like mine or whether it is extensive, is deeply disturbed about the present situation. I hope that hon. Members have read the letter which appeared in "The Times" this morning. Everyone who takes an interest in these matters would agree with it. I look at hon. Members opposite who have long personal experience of Africa, who understand its problems, who know its peoples, who have spent a life-time seeking to understand and to serve the people of Africa.
    I believe that all of them would accept the views put forward in that letter by Miss Margery Perham. Whether we agree, or disagree, we must respect her views. Her knowledge and experience is such that we ought to listen to her views and respect them. Her letter says frankly that at this moment we are confronted with a situation in which confidence between the African and the Government is at a low ebb. It has been ruled that the time to discuss the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) is when we discuss the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Therefore I shall not now discuss the incident to which she referred, but I hope that at the proper time we shall get a full answer on that very important matter.
    It is quite clear that the relationship between Africans and administrative officers is not the kind of relationship which any of us would desire. The relationship between them and the Government, both in the Central African Territories and here, is one which causes concern to all of us. African opposition arises from fears. Those fears may be

    77
    groundless. I confess at once that some of them are, but they are there. The Africans are afraid. They are afraid that they will be taken out of the protection of the Colonial Office. They are afraid that the safeguards will be inadequate. They are afraid that the safeguards will be brushed on one side.
    All of us agree that if the Africans are resentful and distrustful, the scheme will begin in the worst possible atmosphere with all the dangers of a breakdown. The editorial in "The Times" today has something to say to the Colonial Secretary about today's debate. The Government may reject all the Amendments we put forward, even though most of them are designed at this stage to reassure the Africans that the safeguards are real safeguards which will be embodied in an Act of Parliament in this country.
    I understand that the Colonial Secretary will have to leave the Committee later during our proceedings to fulfil an engagement which is a duty. I am sure that my hon. Friends will understand. But I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if these Amendments are to be rejected—even those that would help to reassure the Africans and regain their confidence—the Government will be making a great mistake.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily. I had an interchange with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). So far I have only dealt with the reasons why we could not accept Amendments which varied the scheme to which we were bound. I have not addressed myself yet to the other point which the right hon. Gentleman is making and which I do not think arises particularly on this Amendment, but I will deal with it at an early opportunity on another Amendment.
    Mr. Griffiths: I may have been slightly out of order, but the right hon. Gentleman will be absent later when that Amendment may be before us. I put it to him that it is of the utmost importance that the Government should give serious consideration to writing into the Bill, by accepting some of the Amendments we have put down, a reassurance to African people. At the moment they are distrustful. Surely we all agree that, if we can, we must regain their trust and confidence. How are we to do that?
    78
    This is the last opportunity we shall have, because the best way to do it is to write into this Bill some of the safeguards. Even though they are in the scheme the fact that they are put in the Bill and will eventually be part of the Act of Parliament is the best way in which to reassure the Africans.
    There is another reason. Please remember that all kinds of safeguards in Africa are discussed in the background of what happened to other safeguards in the last few years. If we can say that this safeguard is a real safeguard in a Bill which will receive the Royal Assent and be the word of the British Parliament which cannot be changed in any way except by another Act of Parliament, that will be an assurance.
    I urge the Secretary of State to consider these Amendments, especially those which are in conformity with the major outline of the scheme? I ask him to consider them on their merits and to accept them for the reasons I have put forward. The majority of hon. Members are in favour of this scheme. At this stage the major consideration is that the Africans are still afraid, still anxious and distrustful of us and of the scheme. It is our paramount duty to do what we can to reassure them and to regain their confidence.
    I hope that the Amendments will be considered from that point of view. They offer us the opportunity of speaking again to Africa and to the Africans and reassuring them and, it may be, regaining their confidence in the Government upon which the hopes of everybody in Africa depend.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: We have listened to only two speeches from the other side of the Committee today, and they were very different in quality. The speech of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) was narrow, confused and bigoted. It seemed to be inspired by the fact that, as he announced, he had a few relatives in Africa. I was glad to note that the speech of the Secretary of State was more detailed in its treatment. He attempted to foresee in advance some of the arguments that he expected would be adduced and he also dealt with some of the arguments which had been advanced.

    79
    But his speech was singularly unper-suasive. He failed to realise the worldwide importance of this topic. Nor did he apparently realise how false and antidemocratic is the doctrine on which he relies in seeking to enforce in this year of grace 1953 upon a people a new constitution which they do not want. I beg the Committee not to approach this great topic in an insular, parochial or narrow way, but to realise that the matters we are discussing under these Amendments are of world-wide importance with vast repercussions throughout the whole British Empire, the British Commonwealth of Nations, and indeed throughout the whole world, wherever black and white or other coloured races intermingle.
    The doctrine on which the Government seek to rely in forcing this Bill on unwilling peoples is inconsistent with the history of British Empire development; with the history and traditions of the Commonwealth and indeed, with democracy. It is inconsistent with the great principles on which the great brotherhood of nations of which we are part was built up. I beg the Committee to bear that in mind and to consider the matter upon a higher and nobler plane than that enunciated by the hon. Member for Leominster and, indeed, to consider it upon the plane which has been advocated by speakers from this side of the Committee.
    I support the first Amendment in line 5 and also the one which is in my name. They are complementary. Let us get back to the facts of them and see what they really mean. If both Amendments were approved, Clause 1 would read:
    "As soon as a majority of the inhabitants of all races within each of the Territories concerned has decided in favour thereof Her Majesty may on a day, not being earlier than one year after the passing of the Act, by an Order in Council…"
    do certain things. What is wrong with that? There are in the Bill gaps which require these improvements. I hope that the Minister will change his mind and accept these Amendments. They involve three simple considerations which civilisation regards as elementary. First, understanding by the inhabitants of the constitutional change which is presented to them; secondly, approval by the majority of inhabitants of the constitutional change and, thirdly, an expression of that approval.
    80
    What is wrong with that? I submit to the Committee that that is an expression of democracy which the Government should be ashamed to oppose. Before this idea of federation was mooted in Africa, the inhabitants of these Territories lived under British protection, and now this new constitutional idea is not only presented to them but thrust upon them in a way which is inconsistent with democracy, and which would, indeed, be likely to invite resistance by force, though I hope it will not have that effect. I say that it would be utterly wrong in morals, in constitutional practice and in history to impose it in this way upon an unwilling population.
    I put forward my Amendment because I am in favour of some form of federation which will do justice to the African peoples. I do not wish to see federation wrecked by being forced on unwilling peoples in a premature and precipitate way which will excite resistance of a passive, and quite possibly of a violent, kind. My Amendment is designed to obviate that unhappy possibility, which may, indeed, even be a probability, and would postpone federation, not merely for the year which my Amendment suggests, but perhaps for generations. My Amendment would allow the Bill to pass, but would postpone its operation for a year until the people decided whether or not they were in favour of it, and to enable them to realise and to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of federation.
    This Amendment is in complete accord with the spirit of the White Paper (Cmd. 8233), paragraph 35 of which says this:
    "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 also to be acceptable to the inhabitants and to the Governments and Legislatures concerned."
    I am not alone in taking this view. I rely upon words used by the Secretary of State himself in speeches and in answers to Questions put to him by me in this House. I rely upon speeches and resolutions passed by the Christian churches, and particularly the Kirk in Scotland. I rely upon declarations by other humanitarian and social philosophers. My right hon. Friend referred to the letter in "The Times" today by Miss Margery Perham,

    81
    but he did not quote it. Let me quote the end of it. She says this:
    "May we also hope that in this debate some of the oft-repeated clichès will not be used again? It is no deformation of our 'kith and kin' in the Rhodesias to believe that no small, local minority should be given such wide powers over a subordinate race and class without Britain retaining the fullest possible rights to influence and revise. As for rejecting either 'white or black domination,' it may be asked whether power can be indefinitely suspended between the two. This Bill legislates for white domination now, but, unless the experience of history and all British policy and principles are to be reversed, there must one day be black domination in the sense that power must pass to the immense African majority.
    Whether it passes peacefully, without destroying the influence of the European minority and the great contributions they and their nation have brought to Africa, may depend upon the deliberation of Parliament tomorrow and the spirit in which this hazardous constitution is instituted."
    There are the words of a lady whose knowledge is acknowledged on all hands, and whose integrity and high principles are realised. I ask the Committee to take warning from those words and realise that our decision today may affect not only the three territories involved but the whole of Africa, and, indeed, the whole of the British Commonwealth of Nations. All these things make clear that a little time is necessary to explain the scheme to the people, to make the scheme acceptable to them, and to avoid any appearance of haste, which may easily excite resistance not only of a passive character but perhaps of a violent one.
    It has often been said that force should be avoided, but is it not likely that, if the scheme is forced through in this way, the resistance may involve the use of force, not only on the one side but on the other, and we may have a repetition— though I hope not—in these Territories of what unhappily we now see in Kenya. The Secretary of State himself indicated the dangers in reply to a Question put to him by me in this House on 19th March last year, when he said:
    "At recent Congress meetings in Northern Rhodesia suggestions have been made that federation should be opposed by such means as a general strike, weekly paralysis strikes, mass exodus from towns and non-payment of taxes. The Attorney-General therefore judged it expedient to draw the attention of the Africans, through the two African Members of Legislative Council, to the legal position and to warn them of the limits beyond which they could not lawfully go, particularly as regards political strikes."
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is going far beyond the Amendment. I have given him a lot of latitude but he is now going far beyond the Amendment.
    Mr. Hughes: That was said on 19th March last year, so that I think I am within the rules in quoting it.
    The Temporary Chairman: I am not challenging the hon. and learned Gentleman about the date. All I am saying is that his speech is going far beyond the terms of the Amendment.
    Mr. Hughes: I am quoting this in order to show that time is necessary to avoid violence, and here I am citing the Secretary of State to show that even the right hon. Gentleman himself envisages the possibility of violence in certain circumstances in these Territories. Therefore, with great respect, I submit that my observations and my quotations are dead on the argument which I am now presenting to the Committee. I do not wish to transgress in any way, I am entirely in your hands, Sir Gordon, and I accept your Ruling, but, if you would allow me to finish the quotation, I should be very much obliged. The quotation ends:
    "He did not threaten the use of force and made it clear that the Government wished Africans to have the fullest freedom of speech. This action, though taken without consultation with me, has my approval, as it also had that of the Governor."
    I then asked the Secretary of State, by way of supplementary question:
    "Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to all concerned that persuasion and not force is the only way to facilitate constitutional development in Africa, towards which the former Colonial Secretary took such sympathetic and energetic steps?"
    The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was this:
    "That has nothing to do with the Question which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2305–6.]
    That interchange shows that my Amendment by delaying the operation of this Bill for 12 months would improve its prospects of success. It also indicates the fact that the Secretary of State refused to give an assurance that opportunities for persuasion should be sought. We now give him this further opportunity by prolonging the time for the use of persuasion rather than of force.

    83
    6.0 p.m.
    I believe that Federation would do much good if fully understood, fairly administered and well developed on democratic lines. There are numerous examples of the beneficence of federation in Canada, Australia. New Zealand and the United States of America. It would be a fine thing for the British Commonwealth of Nations if this Federation could go through with the will of the people.
    Two final points. At present, there is grave unrest in other parts of Africa. In Kenya death stalks abroad, in Nigeria there is trouble, in South Africa there is trouble, and in Bechuanaland there is strife. Why should the Government do anything to precipitate strife in these Territories where up to now the people have lived peacefully?
    Secondly, it is significant that in the case of earlier Federations within the British Commonwealth of Nations, and, indeed, throughout the world, federation has come about because the people wanted it. It succeeded because the people asked for it, but it has never succeeded where it has been forced upon the people. I venture to hope that the Government will not persist in this course, which will not only ensure the failure of federation in these territories, but may also bring violence and unhappiness to the people.
    Mr. Clement Davies: In his opening remarks this afternoon the Secretary of State for the Colonies called attention to the fact that this House had now debated the principle of this matter on six occasions. He also suggested that some of the speeches were in the nature of Second Reading speeches dealing with the principle. I think, subject to the rules of debate, that is almost inevitable, and one makes no apology for dealing again with this matter on general lines. We are dealing again today with the fate of 6 million people in Central Africa, and not merely with their fate economically and politically for certainly the next 10 years, but possibly with matters which will have repercussions throughout the whole of Africa, a continent which is developing at an enormous rate thanks to modern teaching and modern methods.
    The Secretary of State referred also to two matters with which I wish to deal
    84
    before I come to the actual Amendment. One was that it would be impossible for the Government to accept any Amendment which departed in any way from the agreement made between the Governments of the two Rhodesias, Nyasaland and this country. Surely that is assuming a power by the Government of doing matters on their own account without the cognizance and the right of the House in any way to amend what they have already decided to be the best in their interests.
    Every one of the parties to this agreement, so-called, knew perfectly well that this matter would have to come before the House and the other House and that both Houses were perfectly free to deal with the matter in their own way. What is more, one of the countries involved, Southern Rhodesia, went so far as to hold among the European section a referendum in order to find out whether they approved of this. It might well have happened that the European section could have said, "Our approval is subject to certain changes being made." Therefore, my answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that the House, and this Committee in particular, are perfectly entitled to put forward any Amendments which they may think proper for inclusion in the new Constitution.
    Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman again referred to a matter, to which he has referred before, namely, that any reference made by hon. Members to difficulties that may arise in the administration of Africa in the future are matters which ought not to be referred to by hon. Members, that they cause a good deal of damage and also danger. I, like other hon. Members, have heard that kind of statement made time and time again. It was made in regard to India, Pakistan and to every country where the great question of its democratic constitution arose.
    One quite agrees with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that if there is illegality it must be put down. Surely, we are entitled to visualise circumstances where illegality may arise as a result of action taken by the Government, who then put into effect the force at their disposal.
    I understand that we are to debate not only the first Amendment which has been called, but the Amendment standing in

    85
    my name and that of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), in Clause 1, page 2, line 38, at end, add:
    (5) No order proposed to be made under subsection (1) of this section shall be submitted to Her Majesty in Council until the opinion of the International Court at the Hague has been obtained on the question as to whether such proposed order is in abrogation or in contravention of the agreements under which the Chieftains of the various territories sought the protection of Her Majesty.
    The only common ground that I can see between my Amendment and the Amendment which has been moved is that both involve delay.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman can discuss his own Amendment as it is out of order.
    Mr. Davies: I am in rather a difficulty, Mr. Hopkin Morris, because your predecessor in the Chair announced that the debate would take a general line covering not only the first Amendment, but certain other Amendments, and mentioned last the Amendment standing in my name.
    Mr. Hale: On a point of order. I specifically rose and put the point to Sir Charles MacAndrew, and he thanked me for calling his attention to it. He said he had forgotten to mention that the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was to be discussed with these other Amendments, and was to be moved.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think that reference can be made to it in connection with the Amendments under discussion, but the Amendment itself is strictly out of order.
    Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. No reference was made to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment and, because of that, I rose to seek the guidance of the Chair because we had had intimation that it might not be discussed. Therefore, I asked the Chair to say what Amendments would be called, and, indeed, at a later stage while Sir Charles was still in the Chair, I ventured to refer to the fact that his statement had been made at a time when the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was not in the Chamber and
    86
    had not, therefore, been apprised of the fact that his Amendment was not going to be called.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am not in a position to discuss that point. If that has been the Ruling, I am in the hands of the Committee.
    Mr. Davies: May I add that I was in the Chamber when the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was raised. The hon. Member went on further, with the assent of your predecessor in the Chair, actually to discuss the terms of my Amendment and what might happen in the future unless the Amendment were adopted. At any rate, the basis underlying each of the Amendments now being discussed together, with the consent of the Chair, is that they have one common feature, and that is that the Order in Council should not come into effect until certain events had occurred; in fact, to delay it.
    I would deal with the first Amendment first, which proposes that the Order shall not come into effect until the great majority of the inhabitants of all the races in the Territories concerned have decided in favour of the proposed new Constitution. The views must have been obtained of all the races in all the countries; they must have found that they were in favour of it. What objection can there be to that proposal? Federation must, of necessity, be done by agreement, that is, by consent. If a territory is taken without consent under a Government other than its present one, that is annexation. It is proposed that this Federal Government should be set up without the assent having been obtained, or even the views ascertained, of the great majority of the people in these three Territories.
    There are something like 6 million Africans and only 200,000 Europeans. Is it right that a Constitution should be forced upon these people without first ascertaining the views of the 6 million? All kinds of arguments have come from the right hon. Gentleman. One is that the Africans who are opposed to Federation are a small but vocal section. It is not known at all whether they are more than a small number. If that is so, why not take the step that was taken in Southern Rhodesia? If the right hon. Gentleman is so sure that the Africans

    87
    are all in favour of the scheme, what is the objection to asking them whether they are or not?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman gives me the impression that he wishes me to reply to that question now. The main reason is that the referendum in Southern Rhodesia, which was a very complicated constitutional matter, was referred to people who were essentially literate. A referendum in the other Territories would be to inhabitants who are essentially illiterate. I am not making any derogatory reference.
    Mr. Davies: That is not the difficulty. The vast majority of the inhabitants in this country in 1832 were illiterate. What is more, in another part of Africa, the views of the people have been taken and no question has been raised that they ought to be able to read and write before they vote. This is something entirely new. We are now to have not only what they have in Southern Rhodesia, a property qualification, but an educational qualification as well. Surely that is a new form of requirement with regard to these matters. If we are so sure that what we are doing is in the interest of the Africans and will be welcomed by them, and that all fears at present in the minds of Africans will be abolished, I do not see why we do not ask them to say so. That would be true federation. At the present moment, it is not.
    Before we entered into Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia, or even Southern Rhodesia, agreements had to be made. Those agreements were made with the leaders of the people. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not contradict this.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not try to carry what I said far beyond the point which he raised. He asked me about a specific point, why a referendum had not been carried out in these two Territories. I explained that it was very difficult to have a referendum with an illiterate population.
    Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is in a dilemma. When I follow on his argument to its logical conclusion he protests that I am putting words into his
    88
    mouth or that I am carrying the argument too far. An agreement had to be made, and was made, between Her Majesty's Government in the reign of Queen Victoria and the then chiefs. First, in regard to Nyasaland, agreement was made somewhere about 1891. It is referred to in an Order in Council of 14th May, 1891, as follows:
    "By virtue of an agreement made with the chiefs of Nyasaland … the land has now become a Protectorate of Her Majesty Queen Victoria."
    We sought the consent of the people at that time in order that we might throw our protecting arm around them. Why is it now not necessary to seek that consent again when a new form of Constitution is being set up? The right hon. Gentleman said that as we were now trustees we were always entitled to do what we, the trustees, liked, although it was something which the beneficiaries or cestui que trust did not like. In stating that, the right hon. Gentleman is contradicting his own statement that all the Africans are welcoming this new Constitution. If this is being done by the trustees because they alone are satisfied that it will be in favour of the Africans, then those two arguments cancel one another out. Surely if we made an agreement with the chiefs as to the kind of Constitution they were to have, we should make a new agreement when we propose to change that Constitution.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman again. It is always enjoyable to leave these matters for general discussion, and also to erect arguments which I never used and proceed to knock them down. It must be very agreeable. The main point why these proposals are not in abrogation of the Treaty is that the Protectorate status is preserved and is enshrined in the Constitution, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see if he will read the scheme.
    Mr. Davies: The memory of the right hon. Gentleman is very short. He does not even remember that he used Income Tax as an illustration of his argument. He said, "I do not suppose that anybody is in favour of Income Tax but we, as a Government, have to impose Income Tax." Has he forgotten that he mentioned that?

    89
    Let me pass on to another matter which bears precisely upon this very point that consent is necessary. That is involved in the Amendment which stands in my name. These chiefs have now been ignored. One of them is under a sentence. They are not being asked for their consent to this new Constitution. I understand that they have been advised that they can bring this matter before the International Court at The Hague and challenge the right of Her Majesty's Government to force upon them a form of constitution to which they are not a party.
    If that is done it will put this country in a very serious position. We have prided ourselves upon the fact that we have always done our best to work in conjunction with the peoples of the various countries who have been under our protection or peoples who have been the subjects of a Colony. We have prided ourselves that we have done our best at all times to ascertain their views and to do everything in accordance with their wishes. Here for the first time we may be dragged before a tribunal to answer for doing something which in the view of the people themselves is done against their wishes.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Since when have the Liberal Party adopted this doctrine? Did they consult the coloured races of South Africa before the Bill which set up the Union of South Africa became an Act?
    Mr. Davies: They did not, but if the hon. Member really wants to know how necessary it is that particular care should be exercised in all these matters I would refer him to the Order in Council dealing with Southern Rhodesia itself.
    Mr. Nicholson: I was not dealing with that.
    Mr. Davies: The same thing applies. In Section 28 of the Order in Council of 1st September, 1923, giving a constitution to Southern Rhodesia—which is now going to be part of the new federation— there was no power whatsoever to pass laws.
    "… save in respect of the supply of arms, ammunition, or liquor to natives, whereby natives may be subjected or made liable to any conditions, disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European descent are not also subjected or made liable."
    Mr. Nicholson Mr. Nicholson rose——
    Mr. Davies: I want to end on this note. It is absolutely essential that the House of Commons should take the utmost care in seeing that the proper safeguards—and it is only by Act of Parliament that we can have those safeguards— are provided to defend these people and to prevent their being subjected to laws to which they do not consent and which differentiate between them and Europeans.
    Sir Richard Acland: I should like to take up first one point with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, from that part of his speech where he said that the raising of the property qualification in Southern Rhodesia was due to the falling value of money. I suggest that it is much more likely to be due to such sentiments as were expressed by Sir Godfrey Huggins in a debate in the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly on 27th, 29th and 30th November, 1944. Discussing this matter he said:
    "Of course I do not mind leaving the common roll for a time, but hon. Members must realise that the time will come, and it will not be so very long, when if you leave matters exactly where they are, the African members of this country will control this House … The time will come when the common roll has to go."
    That is much more likely to be the reason why the property qualification is raised. If Sir Godfrey Huggins had his way, as events moved on he would progressively alter or if necessary, as he said, dispense with the common roll in order to make sure that, contrary to the necessities of history of which Margery Perham has written, the African majority would never exercise control over their country.
    The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) suggested that we on this side of the Committee who have never been to Africa did not know anything about the African, whereas he and his friends who have been there, and many of his uncles and aunts out there, knew all about them. I acknowledge very frankly that I who have never been nearer Central Africa than West Africa wish I had been there. I think that it is a shame that an enormous number of Members of Parliament, particularly on this side of the Committee, though by no means exclusively on this side, who would wish to

    91
    go to see colonial conditions on the spot are prevented from going by nothing else but the cost. I believe that the time will come when the British taxpayer will have to put this matter right.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is very remote from the Amendment.
    Sir R. Acland: We were being abused on this side of the Committee that by reason of the fact that we have never been there we were ignorant of the subject, and I felt that I was justified in saying that there is a manifest reason for our not having been there which is quite different from our will, that the reason was not our will and that we would go there willingly if we could.
    But I wonder whether the hon. Member for Leominster and his friends who live there really get to know what is happening and what the Africans are thinking. The Africans are peculiarly quick to assess the sincerity and the outlook of the Europeans with whom they come into contact, and when they do not like the outlook they do not talk. Therefore, the suggestion that millions and millions of Africans know nothing about the proposals because they cannot answer questions put to them by Europeans is quite wrong. Information on that point was given by the Reverend A. B. Doig in a debate on Federation in the Nyasaland Assembly, which was reported in the "Nyasaland Times" of 29th December, 1952. He said:
    "It is not always true to say that where they will not discuss things with us they do not understand, they do not know. It is a well-known procedure of the African to affect ignorance if he does not wish to be drawn into a discussion."
    Therefore, the answer to the suggestion that the hon. Member for Leominster and his friends who may have been in different parts of Africa and who say that they detected that the Africans knew nothing about this scheme, may be that the Africans had detected the outlook of the hon. Member and his friends and did not choose to discuss the scheme with them.
    Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Member should realise that not only my friends but hon. Members on his side of the Committee accepted that view.
    Sir R. Acland: If I may, I should like to quote from a man who has had the
    92
    opportunity of having confidential talks with all kinds of people in Nyasaland, namely the Bishop of Nyasaland who, writing on the subject of Federation, states:
    "I had discussed it with Africans at all levels, from the educated civil servants, through the African clergy and teachers to chiefs and village headmen as well as ordinary farmers and fishermen, and I certainly never met one who was in favour of it, with the exception of one aged priest of my diocese living in retirement."
    I prefer that judgment to that of the friends of the hon. Member for Leominster, or even to the views of one or two of my colleagues who have gone out to Africa for a fleeting visit.
    I want to ask a particular question on this Amendment, arising from things which have been said in our earlier debate on this subject and arising from an answer to a Question which I put down on the Order Paper. Although the Colonial Secretary is absent at the moment I hope that one or other of the Ministers present may be able to give me an answer on the spot, either by a nod or perhaps by a brief intervention for which I am prepared to give way. If not, I hope that the matter will be looked into, so that an answer may be given before we part with this Amendment which asks for delay.
    It appears from statements recorded in HANSARD, to which I shall call attention, that there is grave confusion as to what is the constitutional power to amend this Federation. This is very relevant to the question of delay, because if it is possible to amend quickly and by the action of this House, then indeed—let me give this point to the Government—the arguments which we are putting forward in favour of delay are much less powerful than if there is no power in this House to amend the Constitution after it has been passed.
    6.30 p.m.
    That is why I want to ask this question and to draw attention to a contradiction between different Government statements. On 24th March my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) interrupted a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary to ask:
    "When this conference takes place, supposing either the British Government or African representatives want a change by which there

    93
    should be further African representation, could such a change come about without the agreement of the white populations of both countries, or is it quite impossible for that to come about?"
    The right hon. Gentleman, resuming his speech, said:
    "Any changes in the Constitution would have to go through the constitutional machinery which I have outlined"—
    that is to say, the machinery which is provided in paragraphs 144 and 145 of the Report on the federal proposal.
    That same interpretation of the position was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in the course of an interchange with the Colonial Secretary, and apparently with his assent, when on the same date my right hon. Friend said:
    "All I am saying is that in the territorial Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland we retain our rights, but in the Federal Constitution our rights to secure that there will be a bigger proportion of Africans in the Federal Legislature is no longer ours. That is why I say that our power for the advancement of the Africans within the Federal Constitution is now surrendered."— [OFFICIL REPORT, 24th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 669 and 689.]
    That was said in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman——
    The Deputy-Chairman: I find a little difficulty in connecting the argument of the hon. Baronet with the Amendment on the Paper. The Amendment relates to delay as soon as there is a majority in favour. I do not see how that can bring in a discussion on the Amendment of the Constitution.
    Sir R. Acland: If you press me, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I will postpone this until the Motion "That the Clause stand part," but, having gone so far and having come so near to the end of my point which is relevant to the Amendment, I would be reluctant to postpone these remarks. My point is relevant to the Amendment in this way. The arguments for delay, which are very strong indeed, if we are passing this Constitution with no power whatever to amend, become somewhat weakened if there is a power in this House to amend——
    The Deputy-Chairman: That might be an argument to adduce on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but one has got to keep this debate related
    94
    in some sort of way to the Amendment which is before the Committee. This Amendment merely deals with majorities.
    Sir R. Acland: It is a pity, because when we come to the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" it will take me twice as long to put the part of the question which I have already put and will have to put again as it would now take me to put the remainder of the question to get an answer to it. But if you insist, Mr. Hopkin Morris, it will have to be taken that way. I hope that you will be in the Chair when we come to debate the Motion "That the Clause stand part" so that there will be no question about my being out of order in raising the point at that stage. I think the Ministers concerned are apprised of the point which I am going to make and they may be able to give me some satisfaction during the days which will intervene before we come to the Question "That the Clause stand part."
    May I come back to the point about delay? There was a letter in "The Times" today by Lord Tweedsmuir who scoffed at this idea of delay. He said "What is the use of further talking? If nobody has been convinced by all the talking we have had so far, there can be no advantage in more talking." I am, of course, paraphrasing his letter. We do not want delay in order that there may be more talk. We want delay in order that there may be some deeds which will satisfy the African majority as to the good intentions of the white minority.
    Given 12 months delay during which, under the dynamic leadership of a Colonial Secretary—if we had a Colonial Secretary capable of dynamic leadership— the leaders of the white minority were inspired and urged on to take those steps which are necessary to win African confidence, 12 months hence this scheme could be introduced in a totally different atmosphere.
    I shall be interested to know what line the Archbishop of Canterbury will take when this Bill is passed through this House and goes to another place, because he wrote, as I thought, a very powerful letter to "The Times" on 4th March in which he was joined by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council. One paragraph

    95
    of this letter is so important that I would like to read it:
    "There seems to us, therefore, to be an urgent need, before federation is inaugurated, for imaginative action promoted by trust and understanding, to demonstrate to Africans that the intention behind the federal scheme is to provide the necessary political and economic framework within which all races can progress in effective co-operation. Nothing could so effectively demonstrate this intention as the removal of some discriminatory legislation and of some day-to-day practices which destroy racial harmony. The widespread fears of Africans will not be removed by constitutional safeguards alone, but rather by good will made effective in action."
    That is what we think should happen in the next 12 months, and then we could see whether the atmosphere towards federation has not been improved.
    What sort of action might be taken? Once again, to come to practical suggestions, I go to a source the authority of which will not be denied—a pamphlet written in February last and published on the authority of Mr. L. B. Greaves, who is the African Secretary of the Conference of Missionary Societies in Great Britain and Ireland. He made no less than six suggestions of definite action which could be taken now in order to assure African opinion of the good intentions, the real sincerity and genuine earnestness of the white authorities here and in Africa that this federation will be used for their well being.
    Let us look at these six suggestions. The first was this:
    "That, in order to prove that there will be no barriers to Africans who have reached a high cultural level, an early statement be made by the Government of Southern Rhodesia that the proposed Central African University shall be interracial socially and academically."
    Out of the six. this is one on which something has been done. They have made the announcement and we are all delighted. But it seems to me that Miss Margery Perham's letter on this very point is extremely relevant. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that there will be no disturbance because the ordinary African will not find that the tenor of his life has been much altered by the introduction of Federation, but the ordinary African will not find that his life has been altered very much by the announcement that this university
    96
    is to be inter-racial when in fact it is not going to be built for some time to come. As Miss Perham says in her letter:
    "Even if the problems—and they are many —which beset the proposed inter-racial university are quickly settled, it will take at least five or six years"——
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have difficulty in connecting the hon. Baronet's argument with this Amendment. I cannot see what this university has to do with the question of delay.
    Sir R. Acland: Surely I am in order in asking for delay so that action may be taken to satisfy the African majority of the good intentions of the white people? The very next sentence to that which I was in the middle of quoting is one which shows why this announcement of the inter-racial character of the proposed university—welcome as far as it goes—is not going to have much effect within five or six years, but if we had a delay of 12 months we could carry out her next suggestion. She says:
    "Nothing could do more to overcome that deep suspicion of the white man's intentions which blights co-operations in Africa than the announcement by the Government of a generous and immediate provision of scholarships and grants for travel and study to cover the interval"—
    before the university gets into full swing—
    "and to expedite the training of Africans for political leadership, for the Civil Service, and for industry."
    We cannot get a university set up for about five years, but a suggestion such as this could be announced forthwith and carried out within 12 months.
    To revert to the pamphlet written by the Africa Secretary of the Conference of Missionary Societies in Great Britain, I come to another small point which is on the side of the Government. The fourth of the six proposals for action is:
    "That industrial legislation in Southern Rhodesia and trade union colour bar rules in the Copperbelt restricting the acquisition of skills be withdrawn."
    A little something has been done about that one, but it is no more than an announcement that the owners of the mines in the Copper Belt would like to discuss the matter with the trade unions.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not want continually to interrupt the hon. Baronet,

    97
    but this Amendment provides that there should foe a delay until
    "As soon as a majority of the inhabitants of all races within each of the Territories concerned has decided in favour thereof."
    It has nothing to do with the subjects which the hon. Baronet has raised.
    Sir R. Acland: If we look at all the Amendments which are being taken together we find that the one which stands second on the Order Paper suggests that there should be a delay, and federation should come into effect,
    "on a day, not being earlier than one year after the passing of this Act."
    My arguments are relevant to that Amendment, because if we are asking for a delay and are facing the criticism of the Committee that nothing would be gained by further discussion, it is perfectly proper for us to say that we want not further discussion but some action, and to meet the challenge of what sort of action could be taken within 12 months which would make any difference by giving examples. What would be the use of the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) unless something were done in that year which would be likely to alter African opinion?
    6.45 p.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Whatever is done within that year it cannot come into effect until "As soon as a majority of the inhabitants" and so on.
    Sir R. Acland: I was not speaking of that Amendment but of the second one on the Order Paper.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is also an Amendment dealing with time.
    Sir R. Acland: True, but it does not have the particular disadvantage of being attached to the will of the majority. When I am supporting an Amendment asking for one year's delay it is relevant to show that there are things which could be done within a matter of 12 months—if there is good will amongst the white rulers of Southern Rhodesia—which could revolutionise the attitude of the African peoples towards this proposal. I should have thought it was in order, if not the ordinary thing, to refer to these suggestions. The one which I have touched upon is the question of equal skills and equal treatment in the Copper Belt. In
    98
    that connection a conference has just been mooted, but within 12 months, with a vigorous and driving leadership from here, that conference could be leading to results.
    The four other points mentioned in this pamphlet as standing in need of action are points on which no action whatever has yet been taken. They are:
    "That the pass-laws in Southern Rhodesia and the Copperbelt be modified to exempt many more Africans.
    That a statement be made with regard to the stages by which the franchise will be extended to more Africans.
    That African membership in the Legislative Councils of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland be increased to equal that of the European non-official members.
    That a scheme of training be inaugurated to prepare Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to occupy official posts now held by Europeans."
    If we could have action on all those points within 12 months we should indeed be getting somewhere.
    This is the real difference separating this side of the Committee from the other side. If we had been in office these last two years all the points I have mentioned as things which could be done in the future would have been done in the past. If anybody looks at the stage which negotiations had reached at the time of the Victoria Falls Conference he will see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly had brought representatives of African opinion in Northern Rhodesia into discussions on the grounds that there would be a parallel and simultaneous advance towards partnership and towards federation.
    It is precisely in putting into effect such proposals as I have mentioned that he would have embarked on the next stage of his activity. If that had been done we might by now be considering the introduction of federation and partnership simultaneously, in an atmosphere of goodwill and co-operation, but as things now stand—there having been a different Government in power in these last two years—we have, undeniably, an atmosphere of ill will and suspicion.
    I join with those who press for delay— as suggested by no less a writer than the Archbishop of Canterbury—before federation is inaugurated, until action demonstrating the good will of the white leaders has had a chance of taking place.
    Mr. Rankin: I shall do my best not to cover too closely the points which have already been made, though I admit that that is a somewhat difficult undertaking. Reference has been made to the letter of Miss Margery Perham in "The Times" today. I want to refer briefly to one of the closing sentences, which reads:
    "This Bill legislates for white domination now but, unless the experience of history and all British policy and principles are to be reversed, there must one day be black domination in the sense that power must pass to the immense African majority."
    When I read that letter it seemed to me that that sentence was a very important one, if not the most important.
    It is not denied that we are trustees of the African Territories. It is our purpose at some date to hand these Territories over to the care and administration of the indigenous people. Where we disagree is perhaps in the speed at which we shall progress towards that culmination. But here it seems to us that the party opposite, as Miss Perham has said, are reversing the whole of the progress which we thought was developing in the British Colonies. They are putting the clock back. If they mean at some future date to hand over these territories to the Africans, then why should they take this intermediate step of creating a white domination now? Why do that, if they agree with the principles which have been enunciated in the past by the late Oliver Stanley that, ultimately, there will be black domination in that part of the world?
    We therefore press this Amendment in order to give the Government time to pause and reflect before they take what, in the opinion of many of us, will be a step which might almost be fatal and which at least will be difficult to reverse. I do not think it will be denied in any part of the Committee that there is opposition to this step—widespread opposition —but there is disagreement as to the force and volume of that opposition.
    The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), who, I am sorry to say, is no longer in his place, has a knowledge of and an interest in Africa which is appreciated by every one of us, and he sought, as I am certain the Colonial Secretary also seeks, to show that this opposition is not very strong. The right hon. Gentleman made that statement in his speech today and the hon. Member for Leominster sought to denigrate the ability of
    100
    the African to carry on his own Government. He minimised the influence of the African Congress.
    All that rang a bell in my mind, because his predecessors on that side of the Committee said those very things, within my lifetime, of the Labour movement in this country. They were not talking about Africans then. It is not very long ago since the present Prime Minister said about the British working class what the hon. Member for Leominster said today about the African working class— that they were not fit to govern.
    The Colonial Secretary disregards all the evidence for delay offered to him. There is political opposition in this country; it is widespread; but the Colonial Secretary disregards it. There is non-political opposition in this country; again it is very strong; and again the Colonial Secretary disregards it. He is entitled to do so, but I wonder whether he will disregard the proof, which I should like to give him, furnished by the recently constituted East Africa Command. In my opinion there is a link between the constitution of that command and what is happening today in this House. I am sorry to say it, but in my belief the right hon. Gentleman has to be inflexible about this Bill. He cannot pause and reflect, as we want him to do. He has to get this Bill through because the Bill, and he as its guide in the House, is the instrument of a deeper design—and he must know something about that.
    The recently constituted East Africa Command issued an explanation—and I am quoting from the "East Africa and Rhodesian Standard" of 28th May, 1953 —of why the General Officer Commanding had not been given charge of the operations against the Mau Mau terrorists in Kenya.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not see how that can in any way be related to the delay proposed by this Amendment.
    Mr. Rankin: I am trying to use it as a piece of evidence in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has disregarded——
    The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out that all this Amendment proposes to do is to see that the scheme shall not be brought into operation until such time as a majority of the inhabitants of the territories concerned vote for it.
    Mr. Rankin: I assumed that one reason why the right hon. Gentleman was not yielding to the advice which we are giving him was because he was not convinced of the strength of the case that we have put forward. He has disregarded the evidence produced from political sources. He has disregarded the evidence produced from non-political sources both in this country and in the Territories affected. I therefore propose to offer him another piece of evidence to which I hope he will give his attention. As I said, this is a quotation from the "East African and Rhodesian Standard" of 28th May, 1953, which pointed out that the area which the command covers ran from the Zambesi right up to the frontiers of Ethiopia. Then it continues, and here I quote——
    Mr. Lyttelton: May I interrupt to ask how this bears on the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman is now supporting?
    Mr. Rankin: If the right hon. Gentleman will restrain himself a little he will hear the quotation from the East Africa Command, over which I think he has control. The quotation is:
    "Federation is not popular among a portion of the population in the south."
    The right hon. Gentleman does not believe what we say when we tell him that federation is not popular. The hon. Member for Leominster said we had never been there. He asked how we could know. Surely the East Africa Command is there, and they say that federation is not popular among a portion of the population in the South.
    The quotation continues:
    "At present, disputes there are carried out constitutionally, but there are hotheads. The Army has to stand by in case they do something very foolish and help the forces of law and order to save them from themselves."
    Where is the Army coming from? I hope the Colonial Secretary will give some attention to that point.
    7.0 p.m.
    If there is to be an Army there for this purpose, where is it coming from? There is no Army there at the present moment. Is an Army to be drafted in there to make sure that the discontent that may arise from the passing of this Bill will be properly dealt with? If that Army is to be drafted in, whence is it to come? Is it coming from Egypt? Is the
    102
    Bill the groundwork of something which is of far deeper design? Is that the reason why the Colonial Secretary is not able to listen to any of the suggestions that have been made from this side of the Committee?
    The Command statement goes on:
    "East Africa stands between Egypt and the Sudan in the north and South Africa in the south. Both these are going through a very difficult time in their history, and it is sometimes feared that it may spread. The East Africa Command has to help the authorities to see it does not spread."
    Is that the function? That does not come from me. That is a statement issued by the East Africa Command.
    Do we fear that, as a result of this Measure, there is going to be discontent in that part of Africa, and is that the reason why this new Command has been created? Is that the reason why an Army is being introduced into that part of Africa, to see that any discontent or any troubles that may arise from the passing of this Bill are properly dealt with?
    If the Command statement means anything at all it does seem to me that it means that is what they are preparing for, and that is the reason why I, at any rate, am urging upon the right hon. Gentleman that now he ought to pause and reflect before he creates such a situation in East-Central Africa. Instead of seeking to crush people, he should try to win their consent. That is what we are appealing for today, and I hope that even at the eleventh hour he will give consideration to the arguments that have been advanced, and accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Donald Wade: Very much earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) referred to the Rev. Michael Scott. I think his remarks were rather unfortunate. I believe there is a very effective reply, but if I were to attempt to reply it would involve reference to actions and statements by the District Commissioner at Blantyre, which were ruled out of order in the debate on these Amendments; so I can only hope that the matter will be raised at some future stage.
    I do not wish to say anything which would make the situation more difficult than it is already in these Territories, but it is our duty to discuss this Biil

    103
    frankly and realistically, and I hope that as a result some Amendments may be made to the Bill which will help to lessen the distrust and disquiet in the minds of many Africans.
    The purpose of the first Amendment is that the proposed Federation should not take effect until a majority of the inhabitants of all the races within each of the Territories concerned has decided in favour of it. As I understand the comments of the Colonial Secretary, one of his objections is that this is not practicable, because many of the Africans are illiterate, and that it is the duty of the British Government to act as they think fit in the best interests of the Africans. I shall not enter into a discussion of the question of trusteeship which has kept cropping up, except to make this observation. I agree that there may be times when a trustee may have to act in a way that is not pleasing to the beneficiaries, but I do not think there is any precedent for trustees changing the terms of a trust; and it is that to which we object.
    In putting forward the argument that to obtain the opinion of the Africans is impracticable and that the Government must act in the best interests of the Africans, one important factor is overlooked, and it is that this is not the final stage but the first step in a development which is intended to end in the formation of a Dominion. If the Africans are not given an opportunity now of voting upon it, if there is to be no referendum at this stage, one has to consider whether there will at any time be a referendum in which, in the terms of this Amendment, the majority of the inhabitants of all the races will be able to decide either in favour or otherwise.
    The point I am concerned with is that in the proposed federal scheme there does not seem to be any stage when a referendum will be taken on a true democratic basis. I am aware of the clause in the Preamble to the federal scheme, which says:
    "(e) the association of the three Territories in a Federation … would foster partnership and co-operation between their inhabitants and enable the Federation, when the inhabitants of the Territories so desire, to go forward with confidence towards the attainment of full membership of the Commonwealth."
    104
    I think it is clear that the intention is that there should eventually be full membership of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is on an important point. I do not think he is correct in saying that the only way to ascertain the desire of the majority is by a referendum. It may equally be by an extension of the franchise, which would enable the Government of the future to decide whether the majority were of that opinion. I particularly do not want to be drawn into saying that there must be a referendum or a wide enough franchise. In fact, they are frozen out of Dominion status until the Federal Government and the British Government of the day are satisfied that there is a sufficient majority.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: This is a very important point. We shall be returning to it later. It concerns an undertaking given at Victoria Falls that there shall be no agreement except with the consent of the inhabitants, and that means all the inhabitants. Conceivably, there could be no Dominion status in a scheme which includes two Protectorates. Amalgamation and federation in this scheme are in the same category.
    Mr. Wade: I am raising this point on this Amendment because it affects very seriously my point about the advisability of this Amendment. As I understand the scheme there is no really effective assurance that there will be a democratic decision of all the people of these Territories. The words in the Preamble are "when the inhabitants of the Territories so desire," but the Preamble may have no legal effect. We are being asked to rely partly on this Preamble and partly on assurances that have been given by the Government.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with an important point, upon which I am very anxious to satisfy him. It would be impossible to create Dominion status unless there were a change in the Constitution. The Constitution would be subject to all the safeguards which are laid down in the scheme, and when Her Majesty took advice upon the matter she would naturally have to take account of whether the majority of the inhabitants—of all the inhabitants—were in favour of such a thing, which I admit would really, by

    105
    the backdoor, involve amalgamation. In fact, it cannot take place with these safeguards until the authorities of the day are satisfied that the majority of the inhabitants so desire, so there is more than Her Majesty's Government's word; there is something in the Constitution which protects the position.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers): At this stage I must point out that I do not see how Dominion status arises on this Amendment, and I think the hon. Gentleman had better leave that point.
    Mr. Wade: I will pass to another topic, upon which I think I should be in order, or at least I hope so. It affects the question as to whether there should be a referendum now.
    I appreciate the difficulties in taking a referendum. The advisability depends very largely, not on the Constitution but on statements of Government policy and statements of intention which have been made by the Colonial Secretary. I do not question his sincerity for one moment, and I am sure he does not question the sincerity of those of us who have been objecting to his policy; but when statements are made, in all sincerity, by representatives of the Government we have to remember that with the passage of time they become modified and interpreted in a different way.
    Perhaps I might illustrate that by refer-ing to the doctrine of paramountcy, which was formulated in 1923, and summarised in these words:
    "His Majesty's Government think it necessary to record their considered opinion that the interests of the African natives must be paramount, and that, if and when those interests and the interests of the immigrant races conflict, the former should prevail."
    With the passage of years the interpretation of that changed. In 1931, the Joint Select Committee which was considering this whole subject issued a statement putting a different interpretation on those words. On 22nd September, 1948, a Question was asked in the House by Mr. Skinnard, who asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
    "whether he is aware that the Secretary for Native Affairs in Northern Rhodesia has announced in the African Representative Council that the doctrine of paramountcy of native interests is dead; and whether he will make a statement of his policy in this.respect."
    106
    Mr. Creech Jones replied:
    "The Secretary for Native Affairs told the Council that the 1923 White Paper on this question was dead, in the sense that it had been superseded by the report of the Joint Select Committee of Parliament of October, 1931, which reviewed previous statements on native policy and the relations of the Africa'n and immigrant communities. The Report of the Joint Select Committee continues to be the operative document on this question. Paragraph 73 of this Report sums up the matter by staying that the doctrine of paramountcy mearfis no more than that the jnterests of the overwhelming majority of the indigenous population should not be subordinated to those of a minority belonging to another race, however important in itself."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd September, 1948; Vol. 456, c. 868–9.]
    With the passage of time that has been even further modified, and one hears very little today about the doctrine of paramountcy. What I fear is that there will be a similar modification of opinion on the subject of African safeguards as the years pass.
    7.15 p.m.
    My own view is that there are not adequate safeguards in this federal scheme. I realise that there are differences of opinion on that, but I do not myself believe that there are adequate safeguards. I believe that changes will take place, that the time will come when we shall regret what had been done, and we shall be faced with a criticism that at no time has the majority of the inhabitants of these Territories had an opportunity of expressing an opinion. The departure from the doctrine of paramountcy provides a lesson we should learn, and for that reason I feel that this Amendment must be supported.
    If the Government could give the assurance that, if not at this stage then at a later stage, a referendum will be taken, and that there is no possibility of the further stage taking place towards Dominion status without such a referendum, then the need for this Amendment would not be so great. But in the absence of that, I feel that we must vote for this Amendment. To proceed without a referendum now, without adequate safeguards for the future, would, in my view, be a departure from the best principles of colonial administration. I realise that there is much to be said on both sides on the score of expediency, but on the principle, as I said

    107
    in an earlier debate, the position is clear, and for that reason I believe this Amendment must be supported.
    Sir Leslie Plummer: There were three points in the speech of the Colonial Secretary which I think arose from a misreading of the African situation. I am convinced that they result from that misreading—or at least as convinced as anybody can be about anything that emerges from this grim and tangled African picture—and I should like to deal with those three points now. The right hon. Gentleman was asking us to accept his view that the depth of African opposition to the suggested scheme of Federation must be measured by the passive way in which the Africans have up to now acted. Now a great change has come over Africans and their habits in the last few years, and it is absolutely essential that the Committee should appreciate what these changes are.
    Until 20 years ago the African was not a man who acted cohesively with his brother, but in 1945 there was a railway strike in Southern Rhodesia, organised on such a scale that the Europeans were convinced it would collapse, and collapse immediately, for hitherto no Africans engaged in industry in Southern Rhodesia had ever been found who could act in concert for more than a few minutes or a few hours. In fact the strike continued; it was a success; the Africans won the day. There was no bloodshed; there were no disturbances; they behaved absolutely loyally as far as the law was concerned. This had a quite staggering effect on the European attitude towards the docility and tractability of African labour.
    In 1952 there was a strike in the copper mines in Northern Rhodesia, and the people who became panic-stricken at the thought of this strike were the European officials. They took what can now be regarded as extreme measures to ensure that the law was preserved. In fact, not one single African—and there were 35,000 of them—concerned in that strike was arrested. It is also true to say that not one single one of them blacklegged.
    In fact, during that strike, the incidence of crime went down. That was because the Africans had, very largely owing to the tutelage they had from the
    108
    labour officers of the Northern Rhodesian Government and also the advice of the Mineworkers Union of this country, become sufficiently educated to understand that their real strength lay in silent determination and by obeying the law as far as they possibly could. These instances which I am quoting illustrate this—that because the African is not taking extreme action against federation does not mean that he is not opposed to federation.
    The fact is that he is expressing that opposition in a manner entirely different from that which has been anticipated, and because he is doing it in this form it is all the more important that we should be listening to what they have to say. Commenting on the situation at Broken Hills, the "Financial Times," a paper in favour of federation, made quite clear that here was a new situation in Northern Rhodesia—a completely new situation—-where we could have effective action being taken by African workers in a perfectly legal and proper fashion.
    I do not want it to be suggested that I am advocating that the Africans should take untoward action against the imposition of federation. I think that it was unworthy of the Secretary of State to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) were supporting any illegality. I know that such action is as far from their minds as anything can possibly be, but they are entitled to say that if we do take a certain action the results may be grim indeed.
    The second point on which I think the right hon. Gentleman was wrong was in his interpretation of the situation as being one in which the future of these Territories depends entirely on the Europeans Of course it does not. It depends on the Europeans and the Africans together.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I did not say that.
    Sir L. Plummer: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the future of these countries depended on the Europeans.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I did not actually say that. I made it perfectly clear that the development depended on the Europeans

    109
    and upon African co-operation. I think that the hon. Gentleman will see that in HANSARD.
    Sir L. Plummer: I must of course accept that statement. I must also accept Sir Godfrey Huggins' statement that the future of Africa depends on the friendship of the Africans because without the friendship of the Africans Southern Rhodesia and the African Continent would be unable to defend itself from attack from outside.
    It is an odd thing that at this moment, if it is essential to have the friendship of the African people, that we are taking action which demonstrably is not gaining the friendship of the African people and is in fact losing it. I support the right hon, Gentleman absolutely when he says that of course every African does not understand the issues of federation and that most Africans going about their job of tilling the soil and looking after their Shamba's are concerned with the immediate issue of their bread and butter and not with political issues.
    But the fact is that there is nobody in Africa of any importance who represents the African people in a vocal fashion who has come forward and said. "I am on your side where federation is concerned." It is therefore a tragedy to those of us who are anxious that the development of Africa shall not be impeded by any suspicions of European action that at this moment when the Central African countries are trying to carve out for themselves the economic development which they ought to be having, there should be this bitterness of feeling engendered by the imposition of federation.
    Finally the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the reserve Clauses—the powers that are retained by this House of Commons through the Colonial Secretary. I believe that this is really one of the fundamental problems because the Africans do not believe in the efficacy of the powers reserved to this House. One of the reasons why they have no confidence in these powers is clear when they look at Southern Rhodesia and see that this House ought now to be exercising the right which it retained to itself in the 1923 Act to prevent acts of discrimination which are being used against the African people and which it has never used. My right hon. and learned Friend the Mem-
    110
    ber for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was attacked for what the Liberals did in the Act of Union with South Africa in 1906. At least they tried to reserve the necessary powers to prevent the sort of things now being done to the Cape Coloureds and to the African people by Dr. Malan and his associates.
    Lord Lugard in "The Dual Mandate" —a book which has become a text book for every Colonial Office cadet—made it quite clear that once we take the imperial hand off the affairs of a Colonial country it can never be put back. And why? Because we have no sanctions. Lord Lugard quotes in that book an occasion on which a Colonial Secretary—Lord Elgin—tried to interfere in the execution of 16 men found guilty of murder in Natal. He attempted to exercise the rights and privileges which had been reserved to him in trying to postpone those executions and of course he failed. He had no sanction. We shall be equally powerless in this House. That is the fear of the Africans and I must say that I share those fears, that we shall in nine or 10 years time be powerless to use our influence in the direction of improving the Constitution for the protection of the African people because we too will have no sanctions that we can impose.
    These are the fears of the African leaders and of many hon. and right hon. Members of my own party on these benches. It is because we are anxious and because we want to support Central African federation, as enthusiastically as we hope to be able to support West Indian federation that we are asking for this delay so that we can satisfy the Africans and everybody else in the countries concerned that what we are producing is a scheme which will work for the benefit of all the peoples of those countries and a scheme which guarantees by word, by clause and by paragraph those liberties and rights which we think are now missing from the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. Paget: I understand that the Colonial Secretary has another important engagement and, therefore, I will start right away by saying what I want to say to him particularly. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) made what I think were moderate and well-founded criticisms. Throughout our Colonial Empire the Colonial Service has built up a wonderful reputation. It has

    111
    built up a reputation of being a friend of the natives. It is as the protector of the native against the white settler and against the white trader that the natives throughout our Empire have regarded the officers of the Colonial Service as being their friends. Nothing is more vital than that that reputation and trust should be retained.
    7.30 p.m.
    I believe that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman during the time that he has held the office of Colonial Secretary has done much to impair that confidence. The natives of Africa do not now regard the right hon. Gentleman, as they regarded his predecessors, as being their friend. He has put himself into the position of being their enemy. I do not believe that that is a just judgment on the part of the Africans, but it is the judgment which they have been making.
    The Temporary Chairman: I cannot see what this has to do with the Amendment.
    Mr. Paget: We are discussing, Mr. Rogers, whether there shall be postponement of the proposals and one of my reasons for supporting postponement is to give time for confidence to be recreated in the Colonial Service and in the intentions of the Government. Before we part with authority it is essential to recreate the confidence of the Africans which has been so grievously injured. I suggest that that point is very much within the scope of the debate.
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman's approach to the point was rather devious. I hope he will now come closer to it.
    Mr. Paget: One must always lead up to a point if one is putting an argument. My point takes the form of an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to try to make use of the debate for doing something to re-create the confidence which has been damaged.
    The other day the right hon. Gentleman accused me of making a mischievous speech about Kenya. He has never told me what mischief it did, but he has adopted most of the suggestions that I then made. He has today accused my two hon. Friends who began the debate of making mischievous speeches. Nobody
    112
    could have made a speech better calculated to make mischief than did the right hon. Gentleman. He said he was amazed at the smallness of the reaction in the Territories to the proposal for federation. What words could act as more of an incitement to the people in the Territories to take action which would remove his surprise? He also said that when federation comes any reaction will soon recede. What could be better calculated to incite the people to show him that he is wrong? Those are the sort of tactless observations which really make trouble and convey the impression, quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), that the right hon. Gentleman equates force with consent. The right hon. Gentleman must remove that impression.
    Whatever opposition or anyone else may do, the Federation will not be a success unless the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in convincing the Africans that he really cares for their consent, that he really is resolved to win it. that he does not treat their protests with contempt, that he is not surprised at the smallness of their reaction, that he is concerned that they should react, and that he is anxious to do what is good for them, to convince them that it is for their good and to get their consent to what he is doing. Those are essentials and the right hon. Gentleman has neglected them throughout Africa. It is essential that he should change his approach, and he should give himself time to do so and to let its effects be felt.
    My second point relates to the Amendment about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) spoke. We are setting up a Federation which will have power, but the only power it will have will be the power which we give it. If one gives power, it means that one parts with power. What we give to the Federation we take away from ourselves. What power is it that we are giving away? It is not the power of a sovereign because we are not sovereigns in the Protectorates of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. We have not conquered or annexed those Territories. They do not belong to us. They are Territories in which we exercise treaty rights. At one time we exercised treaty rights with the Treaty Ports in China. We exercised treaty rights in Egypt, with consular courts, mixed courts and various other

    113
    rights. But that did not make us sovereign in China or Egypt.
    The treaty rights in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia were given to us by the chieftains. Apart from the rights which they gave, the chieftains remained sovereign; it was still their country, but they entrusted us, as protectors, with certain rights. Those are our rights in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. Since we are giving rights to the Federation, those are the only rights that we have to give. What are the rights? They are the rights of trustees. The chiefs entrusted us with certain rights and duties. It seems to me that we can either perform those rights and duties or give them back to the chiefs.
    As far as I know, we have no right at all, in international law or even in domestic law, to hand over treaty rights to somebody to whom they were never given. Yet here we are being asked to hand over to the federal authority, an authority to which the chiefs have objected, powers which were not given but lent by the chiefs to us as protectors. That seems to me to give away that which is not ours. Whatever the legal position may be, the position in honour seems to me to be that those people trusted us and we ought not to give that trust to somebody else whom they do not trust and never have trusted.
    I would ask that this scheme be delayed as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery asked, so that The Hague Court or some appropriate tribunal—it may be the Privy Council because I understand that litigation has been started to see whether, in fact, these are treaty rights in an area in which we are not sovereign—will determine whether we are entitled to give away these rights without the consent of those who conferred them upon us.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I do not propose to deliver a speech. My name is associated with Amendments which will come up later.
    All I want to do is to intervene for a moment in the verbal duel between the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the issue as to whether a referendum could have been taken of the African population in these Territories. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that it was impossible, but he said it was difficult. I want to submit to him that there are precedents for the taking of referenda among Africans or Asians who are regarded as illiterate.
    I could have understood, though I should not have agreed with, the right hon. Gentleman if he had said it was difficult for them to take part in a general election for a small legislative assembly, because on such occasions the issues are many, but in a referendum they are direct and simple. The United Nations proposed on more than one occasion that a referendum should be taken among peoples who are just as illiterate as those in the Central African Territories. If it is possible for the United Nations to propose referenda in such instances it would have been possible to take a referendum of the African population in Central Africa.
    I came to the conclusion that it is not merely the difficulties of taking a referendum which distinguishes between the approach to the white population of Southern Rhodesia and the African populations of the other territories, but that in the minds of those who are responsible there are really two human values, the white value and the black value. It is only when we recognise the right of the African and the European to be equal that we shall be able to deal properly with the problems which are involved in this Bill.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 231.

    Division No. 180.]

    AYES

    17.45 p.m.

    Aoland, Sir Richard

    Balfour, A.

    Boltomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Albu, A. H.

    Bartley, P.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Bowen, E. R.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Beswick, F.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Braddook, Mrs.. Elizabeth

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Blackburn, F

    Brockway, A. F.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Bryton, W. R.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Saird, J.

    Boardman, H.

    Burke, W. A.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Janner, B.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

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

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Carmichael, J.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Ross, William

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Short, E. W.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Clunie, J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Collick, P. H.

    Keenan, W.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Cove, W. G.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Slater, Mrs. (Stoke, N.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Daines, P.

    Logan, D. G.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    McGovern, J.

    Steel, T.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    McInnes, J.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Deer, G.

    McLeavy, F.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Delargy, H. J.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Dodds, N. N.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

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

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Edelman, M.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nest (Caerphilly)

    Mason, Roy

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mayhew, C.P.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Hellish, R. J.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Messer, F.

    Thornton, E.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mikarde, lan

    Timmons, J.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Mitchison, G.R.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Finch, H. J.

    Monslow, W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Moody, A.S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Follick, M.

    Morgan, Dr. H.B.W.

    Wade, D. W.

    Foot, M.M.

    Morley, R.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Formant, J. C.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Watkins, T.E.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mort, D.L.

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

    Gibson, C. W.

    Moyle, A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Murray, J.D.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D.R.

    Nally, W.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Grey, C.F.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. Hohn

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oldfield, W.H.

    Wheeldon, W.E.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Orbach, M.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Oswald, T.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Grimond, J.

    Paget, R.T.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Hale, Leslie

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

    Wigg, George

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Pannell, Charles

    Willey, F. T.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Parker, J.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Hannan, W.

    Pearson, A.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Peart, T. F.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'H'y)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Hastings, S.

    Popplewell, E.

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

    Hayman, F. H.

    Porter, G.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Winterbottom, lan (Nottingham, C.)

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

    Proctor, W. T.

    Winterbotom, Richard (Brightside)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Holman, P.

    Rankin, John

    Yates, V. F.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Reeves, J.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Royle.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Richards, R.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    NOES

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Braine, B. R.

    Cooper, San. Ldr. Albert

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

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

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

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

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Buohan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Barber, Anthony

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Barlow, Sir John

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Channon, H.

    Donner, P. W.

    Birch, Nigel

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Black, C. W.

    Cole, Norman

    Drayson, G. B.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Drewe, C.

    116

    117

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Duthie, W. S.

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

    Renton, D. L. M

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Fell, A.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Robertson, Sir David

    Finlay, Graeme

    Linstead, H. N.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Russell, R. S.

    Fort, R.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Foster, John

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Fraser, Sir lan (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    McCallum, Major D.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    George, Rt. Hon Maj. G. Lloyd

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Godber, J. B.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Speir, R. M.

    Gower, H. R.

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

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

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

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

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Stewart Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Storey, S.

    Hare, Hon, J.H.

    Marlowe, A.A.H.

    Straus, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Marples, A. E.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Summers, G. S.

    Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.)

    Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Maude, Angus

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Hay, John

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S.L.C.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J.P.L. (Hereford)

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Medlicott, Brig, F.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Mellor, Sir John

    Thomas, P.J.M. (Conway)

    Heath, Edward

    Mellor, Sir John

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C.E.

    Thronton-Kemsley, Col. C.N.

    Hill, Mrs, E. (Wythenshawe)

    Nabarrow, G.D.N.

    Turner, H.F.L.

    Hichingbrooke, Viscount

    Nicholls, Harmer

    Turner, H.F.L.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Turton, R.H.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Vane, W.M.F.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J.K.

    Hope, Lord John

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Vosper, D.F.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Horobin, I. M.

    Odey, G. W.

    Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Watkinson, H.A.

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

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminister)

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles lan (Hendon, N.)

    Wellwood, W.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Osborne, C.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Cnarles (Torquay)

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

    Partridge, E.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Wills, G.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Kaberry, D.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Profumo, J. D.

    York, C.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lambton, Viscount

    Redmayne, M.

    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Mr. Richard Thompson.

    The Temporary Chairman: The next Amendment to be called is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to Clause 1, page 1, line 10.
    Mr. Dugdale: On a point of Order, Mr. Rogers, do I understand that you are not calling either of the two Amendments in my name to Clause 1, page 1, line 5 and line 7? If so, may I submit the reasons why I think they should be called?
    The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be better if the Chairman of Ways and Means deals with that question, as he was responsible for the selection.
    The Chairman: The first Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is out of order because we do not need an Act of Parliament to authorise another Act.
    Mr. Dugdale: Not even when the first Act is so short that it is practically impossible to discuss it with any clarity?
    The Chairman: I do not think that matters. As regards the second Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, the point has already been decided.
    Mr. Dugdale: With great respect, Sir Charles, how has it been decided more than any other point? It was decided on Second Reading that various things should

    119
    be done. My Amendment deals with one thing, the inclusion of Nyasaland. How has that been decided more than a number of other points, many of which can, it appears, be discussed?
    The Chairman: It was decided on Second Reading. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the title of the Bill, he will see that it provides for the Federation of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
    Sir Frank Soskice: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "Government," to insert:
    "including a Federal Cabinet."
    This Amendment paves the way for a further Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 18, on page 1454 of the Order Paper. That Amendment goes, in spirit and purpose, closely with the Amendment which immediately precedes it, also to line 18, and it may be that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if those three Amendments were discussed together. In explaining the reason for my paving Amendment I would desire to indicate the reasons for those subsequent two Amendments. If you will allow me to do so Sir Charles, I will therefore deal with all three in the same speech.
    The Chairman: Yes, certainly. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has also another one to Clause 2, page 2, line 40, which is related?
    Sir F. Soskice: With great respect, Sir Charles, the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 40, deals with an entirely separate topic. Technically, perhaps, it can be said to be an Amendment made necessary by the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 18, in that it explains what is meant by the reference to the Secretary of State there introduced, but the Amendment to which you have just referred introduces an entirely new matter of principle. Speaking for myself, if I were so fortunate as to catch your eye when that Amendment comes up, I would desire to argue it separately and I believe that a number of my hon. Friends take the same view. I hope, therefore, that you will allow me to discuss the paving Amendment and the two Amendments to line 18 on page 1454 together.
    The Chairman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not discuss the
    120
    Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 40 now, there will be no other opportunity because, unless these Amendments are carried, it will not make sense.
    Sir F. Soskice: I see the force of that, Sir Charles, and I will therefore, if I may, discuss that, too, but I hope you will allow us to vote separately on it.
    The Chairman: I cannot call it if it would not make sense.
    Sir F. Soskice: If you please, Sir Charles.
    What we seek to do by the Amendments now before the Committee is to provide for the constitution and membership of the Federal Cabinet. Hitherto, in the course of this debate in Committee, we have been discussing the general matter of principle as to whether this Bill should be delayed or not. That involved, as was evident from the speeches, travelling over a very wide area of debate. The Amendment which we are now about to discuss raises a narrower issue, but is nevertheless, in the view that I take, and, I believe, my right hon. and hon. Friends also take, an issue of absolutely crucial and first-rate importance.
    8.0 p.m.
    What we are seeking to do by a number of Amendments is to cause to be written into the Bill provisions which we think are urgently necessary and, indeed, indispensable to provide any reasonable safeguard for African interests. We do so having in mind the crucial importance of trying in some way to reassure African opinion, faced, as it is, with the prospect of having this federal scheme, which it dislikes, forced upon it against its will.
    That being the situation, we on this side think that it is the proper function of the Committee in the course of these discussions, if the Government are deter-mined to force this scheme down their throats, at least to write into its terms such safeguards as must be regarded as the minimum safeguards demanded for the protection of the Africans. This particular Amendment deals with one aspect of that problem.
    If I may remind the Committee of the history with regard to the suggestions and recommendations of the various conferences as to the composition of the Federal Cabinet, it is this. When the

    121
    London experts met, what they proposed was that there should be a Member of the Cabinet specially charged with responsibility for the protection and furtherance of African interests, who should be both appointed by, and removable only by, the Secretary of State.
    In their Report, the London experts gave detailed reasons why they thought that that was an absolutely indispensable safeguard and why they thought that that was the minimum which it might be hoped would satisfy African requirements and expectations and go some way to allay the fears which they entertained. I have no doubt that all hon. Members have carefully studied that very important Report of the London experts, dated March, 1951, and I am quite certain that the Minister of State, if he is to reply to this debate, will know it almost by heart —at any rate, he should know it.
    If I may summarise what was said in paragraphs 50 and 51 of that Report by the London experts as reason for their recommendation with regard to the Cabinet Minister responsible for African affairs, appointed and removable only by the Secretary of State, it was this. They said, first, that if the Africans were to have reasonable safeguard, there must be some organ of the Constitution which would see to it that in the administrative and executive sphere of Government there was somebody to look after their interests.
    As the scheme stands, in the draft of of it which is at present before the Committee, there is, it is true, an African Affairs Board. There is provision by which legislation—I repeat, only legislation—which can be thought to be disadvantageous, in the sense in which that term is defined in the scheme, to African interests, can be reserved for the pleasure of Her Majesty. That, however, does not touch—I emphasise that, because it is of great importance—the administrative or executive sphere of Government.
    What the London experts had in mind in the first place in making this recommendation that there should be this member of the Cabinet, was that he would be there at the centre of affairs, present as a member of the Cabinet, taking part in the deliberations of the Cabinet and able to watch over and, as a member of the Cabinet, to influence the executive and
    122
    administrative action of the Federal Government so far as it touched African affairs. That is the first point and one, I venture to re-emphasise, of crucial importance.
    It is not enough simply to introduce into the federal scheme some machinery whereby legislative action which is inimical to African interests can be reserved for the pleasure of the Queen. There must be something more, and the London experts, by this device of the Cabinet member, had that in mind; something more which would safeguard African interests so far as administrative and executive action by the Federal Government was concerned. That was the first point which quite evidently, from paragraphs 50 and 51 of their Report, the London experts had in mind.
    They do not make their second point so clearly, but it immediately emerges when one considers the position of this member of the Cabinet. As the scheme as finally drawn up reads, there is, as I have said, a provision that legislative action can be reserved. That provision, however, is only a purely negative provision. It simply reserves to the United Kingdom Government the power to veto legislative measures. It does not go beyond that. It simply results in the position that if the Secretary of State for the Colonies is satisfied that a certain legislative proposal of the Federal Legislature will infringe rightful African interests, he can put a stop on it and say that it is not to pass. That is purely negative in character; there is nothing positive about it. The Secretary of State cannot change or alter the proposal in question, nor can he in any way initiate legislative action which he thinks is necessary to protect Africans.
    This is, I repeat, the second advantage of having a Cabinet Minister responsible for African affairs, occupying in relation to the Cabinet this independent position which he would have, being appointed and removable only by the Secretary of State. That independent position guarantees this safeguard to the Africans. It means that there will be somebody at the centre of affairs as an active member of the Cabinet, taking part in its deliberations, who can initiate proposals, whether of a legislative or an administrative or executive character, which in his judgment he thinks are necessary to safeguard and further African interests.

    123
    Therefore, the presence of the Cabinet member as envisaged by the London experts had this dual advantage. First, it meant that Africans could be sure that in the very large sphere of Government which appertains to its administrative and executive action, there should be somebody on the spot to watch and protect their interests. Secondly, it gave them the safeguard that there should be somebody with their interests at heart who could initiate measures, of whatever character, which he thought necessary to protect them. That is what the London experts proposed and was what they quite clearly said in their Reports; it was what they thought was the minimum that was necessary to safeguard African interests and to calm their very legitimate apprehensions as to the possible form of the scheme, which was then to be involved.
    Of course, through African eyes it was, and must have been, extremely disturbing to find that when the 1952 draft came to light, the Cabinet Minister responsible for African Affairs had been eliminated from the Cabinet—he had gone. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, in announcing that change, described it as a very important change; I think he said that it was the most significant change. But he said that the Africans need not be unduly alarmed by that because, after all, the member of the Cabinet in question had been replaced by an independent chairman of the African Affairs Board. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Africans should not take that too tragically and, therefore, they need not have apprehensions on that score.
    The scheme which is at present before the Committee—the scheme as finally drawn up in 1953—does not even provide for an independent chairman, or, indeed, even an independent African Affairs Board. The African Affairs Board has now become simply a standing committee of the Legislature. In the two previous schemes, it was to be a Board drawn from outside the Legislature. Now there is no longer an independent chairman. There is no Cabinet Minister responsible for African affairs and the Board is no longer chosen from outside the Legislature, but has become a subordinate organ of the Legislature itself.
    124
    There has been that rapid and drastic scaling down of the safeguards originally embodied in the scheme for the purpose of protecting African interests. The Amendment I have moved is designed to reproduce the situation as originally envisaged by the London experts. In the many debates which have taken place on Federation no reason has been given why the Cabinet Minister whom the London experts called an indispensable feature of the scheme should disappear. The Secretary of State for the Colonies used the most unfortunate phrase, which we all remember and which I suppose is constantly repeated in Africa, that he would be a kind of "cuckoo" Minister. That was a serious proposal by the London experts, but out this Minister went and nothing as satisfactory was put in his place. All there is is an African Affairs Board, which is a standing committee of the Legislature.
    I ask the Minister of State to say what answer he has to the question I put to him in this form—what is there now in the scheme to replace the advantages which the Africans originally had under the scheme by having at the centre of affairs a Minister irremovable and not appointable by the Federal Government to protect their interests, and not only to protect them and see they were not adversely affected, but to advance them and see that they are progressively developed as the federal scheme is evolved? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not say the same sort of thing as did the Secretary of State for the Colonies—that he is committed to the scheme and, therefore, could not alter it. I think I am accurately conveying what the Secretary of State for the Colonies said; that was the impression he gave to this side of the Committee.
    If the Minister of State were to say that, I put this to him. The purpose of the debates we are now having will be very little if, whenever we wish to press an Amendment to the Bill we are discussing and want to write something into it which slightly deviates from the scheme of 1953, he, or the Secretary of State, is to say offhand that he cannot accept it because he is committed to the scheme. It was imprudent to become committed to a scheme which has defects in it. If the Government are satisfied as a result of discussion in the Committee that it has defects they ought to have

    125
    the courage to go back to those with whom they negotiated and say that in those respects it should be re-negotiated. I hope that the Minister will see the justice and the common sense of that, will judge the proposal on its merits, and not turn it down out of hand on the ground that the position was altered by subsequent drafts of the scheme.
    The Amendment to page 2, line 18, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and myself proposes that if there is not to be a Cabinet Minister responsible for the protection of African affairs, at least the Cabinet should include some persons who are to be made specially responsible. It will be seen that that Amendment is an alternative to the Amendment which proposes the restoration of the London Conference scheme. This alternative proposal is that the Cabinet should include
    "one or more African members of the Federal Legislature to be specially elected to represent the African population;"
    and one or more European members of the Federal Legislature to be specially appointed. It proposes that those members should
    "be under a special responsibility to protect and promote the welfare and interests of the African population."
    8.15 p.m.
    I shall move the alternative Amendment for the following reason. It has been said—indeed, some of my hon. Friends have said—that it may be difficult from the practical point of view to envisage the working of a Cabinet one of whose members occupies the semi-independent position proposed for the Cabinet Minister in question by the London experts. If that is a valid argument—and I do not personally accept that it is necessarily valid—at least we say that the difficulty can be got over by the alternative Amendment—which simply provides that some of the members for whose appointment or election as the case may be the 1953 federal scheme actually provides should be in the Cabinet charged with special responsibility for African affairs.
    That, I should have thought, was a proposal which the Minister of State would find easy to accept. It has no cuckoo element in it at all, but simply proposes that this Federal Cabinet should contain an element
    126
    of membership specially charged with responsibility for African affairs. At the moment it has not one unless the Prime Minister or the Cabinet specially invest one with functions which can be said to make him specially responsible for African affairs.
    Some such provision is urgently necessary, for this reason. I know that you will not allow me, Sir Charles, to travel over other aspects of the scheme, except in so far as they are strictly relevant to the Amendment I am moving. In that may I refer to the franchise set-up which will return the membership of the Federal Government? The franchise set-up is one which we know, in the case of Southern Rhodesia results in a very small African representation for the very large African population—nearly 2 million— and for a much larger white representation for a much smaller white population.
    If that is the suffrage on which members of the Federal Legislature are to be elected and if that is the membership from which the Cabinet are to be chosen, it stands to reason that it is urgently necessary that there should be some counterweighting in the Cabinet to see to it that African affairs are properly looked after. The alternative Amendment is to try to introduce into the scheme some mechanism which can afford that counterweighting. I hope that the Minister will give this serious and anxious consideration.
    To throw these Amendments aside with a sleight of hand will not recommend the scheme to an anxious African population waiting to see how it ultimately is to be framed. I hope that if the Minister really has reasons for rejecting the proposal he will give them and will not say, in effect, that he cannot bother to accept what the Opposition propose on this occasion. There has been a great deal too much inclination on the part of the Government up to the moment to adopt that attitude to suggestions made by the Opposition.
    That brings me to the other two Amendments. The first Amendment to page 2, line 38, is purely drafting and I need not take up the time of the Committee on that, but the other Amendment which we are considering, to page 2, line 40, provides that the reference to

    127
    the Secretary of State is to be regarded as a reference to
    "the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations … acting jointly."
    It is designed to this end. As the Committee know too well, and as has been rightly stressed by speaker after speaker, it is the great anxiety of the African population, the 6 million people whose destiny we are deciding, that they are to be taken out of the tutelage of the Colonial Office and handed over to other authorities who will not feel any responsibility for the protection of their interests as the Colonial Office does, or should.
    Southern Rhodesia must remain, or at all events is at the moment the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. We desire, in this Amendment, to provide that in dealings with the composite federal community, consisting of Southern Rhodesia on the one hand and the Protectorate countries on the other, there shall be of necessity joint action between the two Secretaries of State who between them combine responsibility for Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland respectively. That is the object of the last Amendment which I am discussing. It is not merely a drafting Amendment; it is one of importance because it is an Amendment designed to stress and underline the continuing responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the protection and administration of the affairs of these two Protectorate Territories.
    That is the case I make for these four Amendments: there are five, but I say four because one is alternative to the other. I hope that the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will carefully consider what I have said, and will agree, even if he cannot accept the Amendments as they stand or either of the two alternative Amendments, that at least in justice and, may I add, in common sense, it is requisite that the text of this Bill shall, if for no other purpose than that of reassuring African opinion, contain some positive requirement as to what the Order in Council is to enact in reference to the composition of the Federal Cabinet. For these reasons, I cordially hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he is able to go part if not the
    128
    whole of the way we desire in putting these Amendments on the Order Paper.
    Mr. R. Williams: At the outset I would say that I am in a little difficulty in submitting arguments in support of the case which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) has just put, if only because that case is so unanswerable that I should have thought that the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs would have leaped to his feet and given an indication that he accepted one of these Amendments and that he did so with enthusiasm. I take his silence so far to mean that he is not at the moment, at all events, very enthusiastic about the proposed Amendments, and if that is so I feel it my duty to draw his attention to certain dangers which I think he and the Government will be in if these Amendments or something in the nature of them be not accepted.
    I think that the Government took a very grave risk from the standpoint of constitutional law when they introduced in their White Paper the proposal that so great a measure of sovereignty should be taken away from these peoples. The Government themselves sought to get out of that difficulty, in my view rather optimistically, by saying that this proposal of theirs was a Federation, not an amalgamation. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman as strongly as I can that the Bill as it stands, without the Amendment which is now proposed, is clearly an amalgamation in fact, however much it might be dressed up by the Government to give the impression that it is a Federation.
    The utmost the Government can do is to claim that it is a Federation de jure, and that that is the end of the matter. That, however, involves them in an argument which makes it extremely difficult for them to put this proposal on legal grounds, and certainly on moral grounds they cannot put their case forward with any power at all because they are overlooking an essential element without which this cannot be a legal act. I refer to the consensus of the people who reside in these Territories. Up to the present the Government have taken up the attitude that that consensus is not necessary and they have given certain reasons for the attitude they have adopted. In taking up that attitude the

    129
    Government are, I submit, taking a very grave risk.
    It is possible to take such a risk in the hope that the African inhabitants of these Territories, although at the moment not in support of Federation, will become enthusiastic towards it and will do their best to work it. I suppose it is in that hope that the Government have pressed forward because all their economic arguments amount to mere nonsense if they have to face the hostility or even the indifference of the African population. Their only hope of carrying the one argument which they have really been insisting upon as unanswerable—the economic argument—depends upon the support they will get from the African population.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that without the Amendment which is now being proposed not only is the possibility of consent on the part of the African so far as the bringing in of the scheme is concerned being eliminated but that the chance of the African to express himself once the scheme is operating is being eliminated? That is to say, the Africans' interests are not represented. The right hon. Gentleman and his Government, and I weigh my words most carefully, are, in this Measure, turning, or attempting to turn, the Africans into spectators and nonentities.
    If the right hon. Gentleman does that he can hope for the support of the Africans, but it is certain that he will not get it; and it seems to me that there is no particular reason why he should get that support if, when he is faced with constructive Amendments within the scheme itself, such as these, he is not prepared to give a favourable response to them. After all, the Amendments now being considered accept by implication the scheme as it is set out in the Bill except that it is suggested that Africans, who themselves are the persons most affected by the scheme, should have representation in the manner proposed. Even at this stage I submit in the strongest terms to the right hon. Gentleman that he can proceed with a much better chance of hoping that he will get the support of Africans if he is prepared to accept these Amendments.
    Mrs. White: I believe that the Amendments we are now discussing are among the most important of those that have
    130
    been proposed to this Bill. I feel that the suggestion made in the Amendment which has been moved is probably the one which, all things considered, is more likely to be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. I most strongly add my plea to those already made from these benches that the Minister will not simply turn down this suggestion, because to anyone who has the slightest experience of government it is clear that African interests cannot be properly safeguarded unless they are represented at the Cabinet level.
    8.30 p.m.
    I am perfectly well aware that in the proposals for an African Affairs Board in the Federation scheme it is suggested that, among other functions, the Board should make representations to the Prime Minister, or through the Prime Minister to the Executive Council, in relation to any matter within the legislative or executive authority of the Federation. That is provided in paragraph 58. At the moment we are not discussing the legislative authority but the executive authority and the administrative actions of the Federation. It would be complete hypocrisy to pretend that the Board, outside the orbit of Government, by its very nature could be aware of executive action until after it had taken place and that such a Board could conceivably be as effective as having representatives of African interests within the Cabinet at the point where the action was to be discussed.
    That seems to be the crucial matter. Once action has been decided upon and put in train we all know how extraordinarily difficult it is to effect its reversal; but if one can be in the discussions at the formative stages there is some possibility of influencing action. It is for that reason that we are most insistent that this Amendment should be given the fullest possible consideration.
    I think that there were arguments in favour of the alternative proposal of an independent Minister, but assuming that we accept the proposal in this first Amendment, which would mean one or more African members and one or more European members appointed to represent African interests, that is at least two in the Cabinet who could take special concern for African affairs, we would reap from the practical point of view the

    131
    many advantages of having a Minister, advantages which were very clearly stated in the Report of the officials.
    As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) suggested, paragraphs 50 and 51 of that Report, and the third annex, show that the officials make it quite clear that by having this representation it would be possible to make proposals in the Cabinet on matters which would affect African interests. It would be possible also to take exception not merely to legislative but to executive action which might appear to be detrimental to African interests and to do so at a point in time at which such intervention might have hope of success.
    It is also made clear that in this case the Minister, or possibly two members of the Cabinet, should not only represent African interests but should play their part in the general work of government. That also is important, because anyone who has served on a committee or a governing body is perfectly well aware that there is a certain amount of give and take which is not necessarily actual bargaining. Where matters are under discussion and one wishes to obtain the support of other members of a committee or council one is often prepared to meet them half way on some matter in order that they may give their support at some future date on some other matter.
    It seems to me that from the practical point of view it would be of inestimable value for Africans to have within a body responsible for policy making and executive action people in a position to make representations, not completely from outside, as the African Affairs Board would have to do, but as part of the general give and take of government. That would be much healthier also for the Government of the Federation.
    I believe that I am correct in saying that in almost all the constitutions in the Commonwealth in which there is an admixture of races, provision is now made for at least one representative of the indigenous peoples. Therefore, surely it is asking very little to ask that this safeguard should be specifically included in the Bill which we are discussing today. I feel that this matter, if it were met by the Government, would go some way at least towards satisfying
    132
    the Africans. If it did nothing else, it would make it very much easier for those of us who feel that we can call ourselves the friends of some of the Africans in these Territories to urge them to give this scheme a chance, because we regard it as being one of the really fundamental matters. We believe that the African Affairs Board, confined as it is to a purely negative legislative procedure, cannot possibly give the kind of safeguard which we could conscientiously and honestly recommend to our African friends. I hope that that argument will not be entirely overlooked by the Minister.
    I should like to turn for a moment to the other Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 40, which hardly seems to be connected with the one that we have been discussing, if I may say so with respect, Sir Charles. This seems to me to be a matter of some substance. In the federal scheme as outlined in Cmd. 8754 there are frequent references to "the Secretary of State" or "a Secretary of State." We recognise that Southern Rhodesia has its own connection with the Commonwealth Relations Office and that it would be constitutionally impossible, or difficult— nothing is impossible constitutionally in this country—to alter that connection.
    There are some hon. Members in this Committee, certainly on these benches and some on the other side, who believe that it would be very much more satisfactory to have a complete reorganisation of the Secretaryships of State concerned with these affairs, that there is something to be said, for example, for a Secretary of State for African Affairs, and that that would be a very much healthier way of dealing with the kind of problem with which we are faced in this Bill. I am one of those who hold that opinion. However, it would not be proper to introduce such a proposal into a Measure of this sort, and therefore, the best that we can do is to make the suggestion which is made in this Amendment that the two Secretaries of State as they now exist should be required to act jointly.
    We do this because we are satisfied that on past and present showing the peoples in the Protectorates would have a far less sure future if their destinies were entrusted entirely to the Commonwealth Relations Office than if they continued to look for assistance to the Colonial Office. The Commonwealth Relations

    133
    Office has primarily quite a different function from that of administering underdeveloped areas. It is primarily a diplomatic department. It has one small piece of administration in Africa, in the High Commission Territories, in which its record has not been a shining success. In previous years those Territories were most sadly neglected and at the present time one still cannot feel entirely happy about the degree of attention which they obtain.
    We had an illuminating experience not long ago in the House when we were discussing the administration of part of Bechuanaland. I grant that I had not given the Under-Secretary of State detailed notice of the economic points which I intended to raise, but I had given him full notice of the political points, and he proved to be quite incapable of giving even general answers on matters of economic policy which one would have supposed any Minister in charge of the administration of the Territories would have been able to do without much difficulty.
    All of this goes to show that the preoccupations in that office are such that it is not really very closely concerned with details of administration. We feel that it would be exceedingly detrimental to remove the Protectorates of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia from the administration of the Colonial Office. We should be glad if the Minister would make perfectly clear what are the intentions of the Government, and we hope that in so doing he will accept the arguments we have put forward.
    Mr. R. W. Sorensen (Leytpn): I should like to add my word in support of the arguments already put before the Committee, particularly in regard to the first of the two Amendments which we are now discussing in page 2, line 18. I agree that it is more likely that the former will be more acceptable to the Minister than the latter, and on the whole I favour the first more than the second, because it contains a democratic element which may be missing in the second.
    I approach this question from a standpoint which has not yet been mentioned, although it is no doubt implicit in some of the arguments which have been adduced. One of the greatest fears of the indigenous inhabitants of Central
    134
    Africa is that the policy of Apartheid may flow from the Union of South Africa into the new Central African area. We have to do all we can to obviate that. It may be that the development in Central Africa will not flow along those lines, but the first Amendment offers one way of removing any apprehension in that respect from the minds of the Africans.
    It is more than purely symbolic. Although I am sure the African Affairs Board will operate very beneficially in the interests of the Africans, it is a separate body, quite distinct from the Cabinet. The impression will therefore be left—possibly it already has been— that the African Affairs Board has been instituted and constituted in order to deal with one race, while the Cabinet exists to deal with another and numerically minor race. It is possible that these two bodies will work harmoniously in the days to come, but we should try to guarantee that no impression shall be left that there is one institution for one type of person and another for another type, who happen to be Europeans.
    This Amendment affords an excellent opportunity of removing that impression. In other words, we should have one or more African members of the Federal Legislature who are specially elected to represent the African population. It would have a tremendous psychological effect and would remove any shadow of doubt about the establishment of a policy of Apartheid if one Member of the Cabinet were elected by the indigenous inhabitants to represent them.
    It may be said that as yet it cannot be proved that there is an African who is competent to deal with the complex measures, proposals and problems which would come before the Cabinet once it is constituted. That may be so; I do not say that it is or that it is not. I agree that it is probable that the European representatives may have more experience behind them because they are European and have had some contact with responsibility elsewhere. It may be that their experience fits them for Cabinet functioning and responsibility, but that is all the more reason why an African should be elected to the Cabinet, in order that he may learn by experience.
    One of the frequent complaints and grievances on the part of the Africans is

    135
    that they do not get an opportunity to achieve the experience which it is said they must possess if they are to exercise full administrative and executive responsibility. Here is one way in which that experience can be provided. They will learn in course of time, if there is not only an African member specially elected for this purpose but a European member who would closely associate himself with the one or more African representatives. In that way they will no doubt learn by experience and discover much that at present they do not understand. They will appreciate the complexity of many issues that at present may seem to them to be very simple.
    8.45 p.m.
    In addition, one other point I would stress is that they may come to realise that although they are elected particularly to look after African affairs, once they get into the Cabinet they must look at affairs as a whole, concerning all human beings, whether African or European. That would not preclude them from paying particular attention to African problems and African needs, and we must all admit that an African is much more likely to understand those needs and problems than one of the Europeans, however well inclined and sympathetic towards African affairs he may be. Although I have great sympathy with the Africans and think I understand them, I am certain that I have not the natural background or the traditional inheritance which an African possesses to enable me to deal with African affairs.
    By having an African in the Cabinet, we provide a man who has the necessary racial and psychological equipment. There would inevitably be more than a probability that these men would come to realise more and more that the interests of Europeans and Africans are intermixed and interlocked. Obviously, they would not segregate themselves or withdraw when affairs other than African affairs were being considered. They would have to consider exercising their responsibility in all matters which came before the Cabinet and, although they had this special responsibility for African affairs, nevertheless, through actual experience, they would learn that the affairs of Europeans are human affairs as well.
    136
    The effects might also be felt the other way round. European members of the Cabinet might in course of time come to weaken in, and ultimately to eliminate, this assumption that there are Africans, on the one hand, and Europeans, on the other hand, with different interests. Ultimately, the interests must be the same. Surely we envisage the time when this may be the case, however necessary it may be, considered objectively, to have a distinction between African and European interests at present. We hope that the time will come when the distinction will be obliterated.
    We have to realise, nevertheless, that it may take some time before that is achieved, and one way to achieve it is for Africans and Europeans to work together in the same workshops. In due course the Europeans will come to realise that Africans are human beings, just like Europeans, and that their interests are the same. On that psychological and very beneficial ground I strongly urge sympathetic consideration of this recommendation. I hope that before long the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will indicate some willingness on the part of himself and his colleagues sympathetically to consider it. What possible objection can there be to this imaginative proposal to try to undermine the suspicions and apprehensions of Africans by appointing an African directly to the Cabinet, even if it be said—and I hope it will not be said —that he will be merely a passenger, for a passenger can learn.
    That being so, I press most earnestly, even at this late hour, that the previous decision shall not bind the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. I hope that because he has come to certain decisions with his colleagues, he will not be stubborn about this matter but will reconsider it, particularly in view of the mental and psychological unrest in Central Africa and because of the grave suspicion by the bulk of the Central African inhabitants. We must remove that suspicion. One way to remove it is as a result of this imaginative proposal to guarantee responsibility to an African, who can share his responsibility with Europeans in the same Cabinet.
    Mr. Baldwin: This Amendment must be resisted because it completely alters the powers and composition of the central

    137
    legislature as set out in Command Paper 8754, and it was upon that agreed White Paper that the referendum was taken in Southern Rhodesia. If this alteration had been made before the referendum took place it is highly probable the referendum would have been against Federation.
    Mr. R. Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting seriously that there is no function therefore to be performed by a Committee of the House?
    Mr. Baldwin: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. All I am saying is that if this alteration were to be made we should be betraying the Rhodesians who voted for Federation, and it would be only fair to give them another opportunity of voting if we altered an agreed scheme. I am sure that if they voted again in those circumstances Federation would not go through. I know that certain hon. Members opposite would be very glad if it did not go through, but there are certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have agreed that Federation is a good thing for the European and the African. The only difference is when it should take place.
    Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman says quite categorically that if this had been incorporated in the scheme it would not have gone through. Is that not really saying that the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia are so opposed to African participation that they have no intention of having a partnership?
    Mr. Baldwin: Decidedly that is not so. The Southern Rhodesians have had their own Government for something like 30 years. For something like 30 years they have been in charge of native affairs, and not once in that time, I think I am right in saying, have the home Government had to take any action against what the Southern Rhodesians proposed to do about their natives. I think it fair to say that the Southern Rhodesians are very sensitive upon this point, and do not want to go a step backwards.
    It would be quite wrong to accept this Amendment. I quite understand the Southern Rhodesians' sensitiveness, because, after all is said and done, their record is a good record. We have heard in our debates about the grim and tangled state of African affairs. Let
    138
    me quote what an African editor of an African township Gwelo newspaper said in his Christmas address. He wrote of the grim period of murders, riots and disasters in other parts of Africa, and added:
    "But we in this country are fortunate because we are looking forward to having a nicer, happier Christmas, free from fear and troubles We are a happy and contented people."
    That is what an African editor wrote as recently as last Christmas on the state and conditions in Southern Rhodesia. It is completely unfair for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to say that the Southern Rhodesians do not know how to treat their Africans.
    The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): I have listened to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides with great attention. We on this side certainly share the desire to give an absolute assurance to the Africans that has been expressed on the other side. We believe that we have in this scheme very largely done so. Certainly speeches made by members of the Government have made our desire clear to preserve the status of the Protectorates and the rights of the Africans. It is in that spirit that I shall seek to reply to the debate on this Amendment.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) started by reverting to the proposal about a Minister for African Affairs. I do not think that the "cuckoo Minister" originated from my right hon. Friend, but I think the Amendment was intended to form something in the way of a nest for a cuckoo Minister. We feel that if the words "Federal Cabinet" are intended to be synonymous with "Executive Council" the Amendment is redundant. We think that the words "Federal Government" which appear in the scheme are quite wide enough to cover it. If it is intended to make the Cabinet a statutory body in addition to an Executive Council, that would be something new, which is not in the present scheme, but I would draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to footnote (23) on page 24:
    "There will be a system of Cabinet government but in accordance with normal constitutional practice the Cabinet as such will not be mentioned in the Constitution."

    139
    That was put in quite deliberately, because it was not thought to be in the British tradition to make a specific reference to the Cabinet in the Constitution itself.
    As for the so-called "cuckoo Minister," our arguments are not changed, and they have not been changed by any of the views we have heard. We are satisfied that from the point of view of collective Cabinet responsibility such an appointment would be quite impossible. I know it was included in the original report of the London experts, but it must be remembered that those experts were officials from the Territories themselves and two Departments of Government, and it was not perhaps expected that they would see the difficulties, as clearly as would Ministers and Members of this House, of a Minister in this position appointed from outside, responsible to somebody outside, and yet sitting in the Cabinet itself. We therefore feel that there can be no question of reverting to the so-called "cuckoo Minister."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to deal with two other proposals. The one he favoured was the inclusion of

    "(a) one or more African members of the Federal Legislature to be specially elected to represent the African population; and

    (b) one or more European members of the Federal Legislature to be specially appointed to represent the interests of the African population,"

    in the Federal Executive, or in the Executive Council as it would be. We feel it would be quite wrong, under any system of Cabinet responsibility, to try to restrict the right of a Prime Minister to select his own colleagues. It is also, as in the case of the previous proposal, contrary to the Federal scheme. In developing his argument the right hon. and learned Gentleman took the line that there was no provision for positive executive measures in the present scheme. I thought he perhaps overlooked the arrangements under which, in Paragraph 58, the African Affairs Board itself is given special responsibility for making "to the Prime Minister, or through the Prime Minister to the Executive Council, such representations in relation to any matter within the legislative or executive authority of the Federation as the Board may consider to be desirable in the interests of Africans."
    Sir F. Soskice: I most certainly have not overlooked the provision in Paragraph 58. What I put to the Committee with regard to that provision is that it is completely and absolutely ineffectual. All it empowers the Board to do is to make representations to the Prime Minister, or through the Prime Minister to the Executive Council. It contains no sort of provision to ensure that the Prime Minister or the Executive Council will pay the least attention to the representations. They can be rejected out of hand. There is all the difference between a provision of that sort and a provision which insures the presence in the Cabinet, in the course of its deliberations, of an active Member of the Cabinet.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Hopkinson: I am afraid that I do not agree on that. I do not agree that there is that much difference, particularly having regard to the fact that both the African and European members of the Board can not only make this representation to the Prime Minister, and not only, of course, take the action which is their right by way of safeguarding the interests of Africans, but they can, under the new arrangements, express their views to the Government on the Floor of the House itself. This is something which did not exist under the original scheme or under the draft scheme of April of last year, and which is, I believe, a very important provision.
    Mr. J. Johnson: If we take Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, they have an executive council and a Secretary for Native Affairs whose job is to safeguard and look after the affairs of the local people. Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the whole would similarly need a Minister?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I see the point, but, the fact is that in two of these Territories —the two Northern Territories—the Secretary for Native Affairs is an official who is part of the Government itself and there is no cabinet responsibility. As regards Southern Rhodesia there is in fact a Minister for African Affairs who is elected and appointed by the Prime Minister in exactly the same way as are his other colleagues in the Cabinet. There is nothing in the present Constitution to prevent the appointment of an African either to that post or to any other post

    141
    which may be designated by the Prime Minister. At the moment, I admit that is unlikely, but there is nothing to prevent it.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the Secretary of State for the Colonies in this country represent special colonial interests?
    Mr. Hopkinson: The Secretary of State, like all of us, is the subject of the decision of his electors. That is one of the reasons.
    Mr. Sorensen: He represents others as well as constituents.
    Mr. Hopkinson: The remark made by the hon. Gentleman emphasises what I was going to say, which is that, after all, the vast number of African interests are still the affair of the Territories themselves. That is a most important point. Over the whole field of African primary education, secondary education, agriculture, veterinary services, land and forestry—all these matters remain under the territorial legislatures. So, even if there were some advantage in going against this very important principle of Cabinet responsibility with the right of the Prime Minister to nominate his own colleagues, in fact, in this particular Federal Government there is not the same need for it as in the Territorial Governments themselves.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman also raised the question of the franchise. He referred to the fact that the franchise as it exists at present made the need for some special African representation in the Cabinet more necessary. On the question of the franchise he said that the Africans at the moment were only represented by a few hundred electors compared with the very large numbers in the country. I think that it is important to emphasise here, and important for the future, when this Constitution comes in, to recognise that there are between 6,000 and 7,000 Africans who would be entitled to register, but of whom only 400 have in fact done so. When we consider that the referendum itself was only determined by a few thousand votes, the fact that these Africans were not on the electoral roll may have played quite a considerable part. My view is that the majority of Africans in Southern Rhodesia voted for federation. I believe that they had every reason to do so, for the scheme contains
    142
    very many advantages for the 2 million Africans in Southern Rhodesia.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman then turned to his Amendment relating to the definition of the position of the Secretary of State. Secretaries of State can perform each other's functions at any time. In practice, the Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies work together closely in all matters. The official channel for communication between the Federal Governments and Her Majesty's Government will be through the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—but on any matter of importance it will be his duty to consult the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and if there were any differences of opinion at any time, the matter would have to be referred to the Cabinet.
    Mr. Dugdale: Who is to decide whether the matter is of importance or not? We have a right to know.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Not only would any Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations who was loyal to his colleague keep him informed on any matter of importance, but copies of all telegrams and despatches would go to both Secretaries of State and there would be continual day-to-day contact on all these matters.
    In the territorial sphere, as before, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will still deal with all matters affecting Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, just as the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will deal with the affairs of Southern Rhodesia. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) referred to the possibility of some re-distribution of functions among the Secretaries of State and others. That point alone would make it impossible to accept any Amendment which sought to bind future Governments or Parliaments about the functions or numbers of the Secretaries of State.
    The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr R. Williams) said he believed the present Bill constituted amalgamation, and that amalgamation was dressed up by the Government as federation. However, the Bill consists to a very large degree of the original report of the officials in London, and that body was set up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) without any instructions

    143
    about the form of closer association, except that the matter should be explored. I do not believe that amalgamation was ruled out originally in the instructions, but it was examined and was found to be totally impracticable. Thus we have come down to federation. I believe it is a genuine federation and that it will work as such. In that lies its great strength.
    The hon. Lady also had some remarks to make about the African Affairs Board. She said that, while it might be able to carry out some useful functions in regard to legislative action, she felt there was nothing that it could do in administrative or executive matters. That point was also made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend. As will be seen from paragraphs 65 and 66 in the White Paper, in the case of any regulation or other Government instrument arising out of legislation the Board has power, within 30 days, to send the matter to the Prime Minister and, in due course, it is referred to the Secretary of State, who can annul the instruments.
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: And if he does not?
    Mr. Hopkinson: We must trust the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has the power today to do these things and he has also the power not to do them. All this range of power exists in his hands in regard to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and the position will not be in any way changed. I have said often to Africans, "You are prepared to remain under the Colonial Office and trust the Secretary of State today. Why cannot you trust him in the future under this Bill?" That is something to which I have never had an answer.
    I have tried to deal with the main points arising out of the Amendments, and I would only conclude by asking the Committee to reject them if any or all of them are taken to a Division, not only because I believe we have put into this scheme far better provisions than are contained in these Amendments, but also I believe that the scheme as it stands is the only scheme that will work efficiently. As has been said before, this scheme is in the nature of a Treaty which has been agreed by the Governments in good faith and to whom we have a moral obligation. It has been submitted to the people of Southern Rhodesia in the form of a
    144
    referendum, and we have a moral obligation to carry out this scheme. In so far as there is any major deviation, we should not be able to accept it and carry out our obligations to these territories which have negotiated with us in good faith.
    Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Does this moral obligation extend to the Secretary of State referred to in the right hon. Gentleman's speech? In other words, has there been any arrangement between the Government and Sir Godfrey Huggins and others as to which is to be the Secretary of State referred to in the scheme? Could we have an answer to that? We have never been told it yet?
    Mr. Hopkinson: It has been perfectly clear to all concerned throughout that the two Secretaries of State will work in unison. That was made perfectly clear to Sir Godfrey Huggins, to Mr. Welensky and to the others who took part in these negotiations.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am sorry to have to press the right hon. Gentleman about this, but it is an important point, and I am obliged to him for having given way. He referred to trusting the Secretary of State, and of course we must trust the Secretary of State. However, I am sure he fully appreciates that it is an entirely different matter whether the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for the Colonies or the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
    In the one case the administration is in accordance with the tradition of the Colonial Office, which is administration for the benefit of the Africans or the natives, while in the other it is administration in accordance with the traditions of the Commonwealth Relations Office, traditions that are primarily concerned with the maintenance of good relations between the members of the Commonwealth, including South Africa.
    It is, therefore, important that we should be clear on this subject. We pressed the Government on Second Reading, but we have never got any indication as to which Secretary of State it will be. It may be that in the discussions with Sir Godfrey Huggins and Mr. Welensky this was made clear to them, but we have never had an answer to this vital question, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman can give it now.
    Mr. Hopkinson: The hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing two points. One is the point I made in regard to the Northern Territories when I said that the Africans in those Territories will be dependent upon the Secretary of State for the Colonies in exactly the same way as they are today. That is the context in which I said that if they trust him today, they should trust him tomorrow if the federal scheme goes through. In the other connection I said that the Secretary of State to whom the Federal Government would communicate would be the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I think this was said by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council in another place.
    9.15 p.m.
    Sir R. Acland: If that is so, it is an integral part of the agreement made with Sir Godfrey Huggins and Mr. Welensky which cannot be altered in the House of Commons without going back on one of the terms of the Treaty.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The agreement made at the conference is embodied in the White Paper, Cmd. 8754. That is the obligation of the Government. Will the Minister please tell me where in this agreement there is an indication that the Secretary of State will be the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations?
    Mr. Hopkinson: Although that point was discussed it was not covered by the Federal scheme and is not in it, but I have given certain valid reasons why it is not possible to make the definition proposed by this Amendment. I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that a full explanation of the position was given by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council in another place on 2nd July, 1952.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Not on this scheme.
    Mr. Hopkinson: The position was not altered as between the two schemes. I was explaining that the scheme as it stands is in the nature of a treaty and I will conclude by repeating what I have said before. We are as anxious as any right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to reassure the Africans in regard to this scheme and to make it work in their interests if it can be done, but we are not
    146
    in a position to make the alteration suggested in the Amendment.
    Mr. Sorensen: I presume it will be competent for an African to be appointed as a member of the Cabinet ultimately to be set up to co-ordinate the affairs of Central Africa. Would that in any way dishonour the assumption on which the Southern Rhodesians voted in their referendum?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I said earlier that there was nothing to prevent an African from being appointed to the Cabinet in due course.
    Mr. Sorensen: I want the second point answered.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am profoundly disappointed. I believe that these two Amendments are the most important of all we have to consider, both on their merits and from the standpoint of doing what I hope we all want to do at this late stage, to reassure the Africans. I know that the last Amendment of this series is contingent upon one or other of the Amendments being carried. It is to be anticipated that the Government will say, "If we accept this Amendment we shall be committing a breach of the agreement negotiated with the representatives of the Central African territories at the London Conference." That, however, does not apply to this, because there is no recorded agreement with the Central African Governments that the Secretary of State responsible should be the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations unless it is some other agreement than the one which has been published.
    In the one that has been published— that is why I asked the Minister, because he made the point; I want to represent him quite fairly—the right hon. Gentleman said it had been decided that the channel of communication between the Federal Government and H.M. Government was to be the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. If H.M. Government say, "We have decided that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is to be the channel," that is a Government decision and we are entitled to argue it on the basis of a Government decision; but we cannot accept it on the basis of a Government decision with the other Governments, because there is nothing in the agreement about it.

    147
    This is the first time it has been said in the House of Commons that the Secretary of State referred to in the scheme without any qualification is to be the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. The Minister said that it had been stated by the Lord President of the Council in debate in another place, but it has not been said here and it is not in the scheme. Therefore, this is a matter which can be argued and debated on its merits, and if the House of Commons accepts it we are not breaking any agreement that has been entered into with the other parties. That puts the matter in a class on its own.
    Let me deal with the merits of the matter. This is a Federation in which we are at pains to preserve the protectorate status of the two Northern Territories; I can discuss that, perhaps, when we reach the appropriate Amendment. There is to be a Federal Government; there are to be three territorial Governments. Under the scheme, Southern Rhodesia is unaffected and maintains its present constitutional status; it is a self-governing Colony. The Preamble lays down that it remains constitutionally as a territorial Government exactly as it is now. It will, therefore, be as it has been under the Commonwealth Relations Office and what formerly was called the Dominions Office since its creation.
    The two Northern Territories are to remain Protectorates and to be under the supervision of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Federal Government and Federal Parliament will have powers, some of them exclusive powers to the Federal Government. A large number of powers are concurrent to both the Federal and the Protectorate Governments, and there is the other list of things which are within the prerogative entirely of the Protectorate Governments.
    Mr. Lyttelton: There is no list.
    Mr. Griffiths: There is no list, but there is all the remainder. It means that the Federal Government and Federal Parliament will at all times be dealing with matters that impinge upon the life of all people in all three Territories and the Africans of the two Northern Territories.
    It seemed to us, therefore, that it was essential that in this matter, in which both are closely involved, the two Secretaries of State would have their territorial
    148
    responsibility. The office of the hon. and learned Gentleman who is Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will still be responsible for the Government of Southern Rhodesia. The Secretary of State for the Colonies will still be responsible for the Government of the two Northern Territories. Since, therefore, they are both ministerially involved in responsibility for the Territories, is it not the obvious thing to make them jointly responsible for the Territories in which they are both involved?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Let me try to clear up the points which the right hon. Gentleman is putting. Surely what he now suggests, which I should have thought was against the general tenor of his argument and that of his hon. Friends, is that the Commonwealth Relations Office should become responsible jointly with the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the Protectorates. That is not our idea at all. If the right hon. Gentleman reads his Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 40, he will see that it says:
    "In this Act, the expression 'the Secretary of State' means the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom acting jointly."
    But it does not mean that at all. In so far as the Protectorates are concerned, they will look to the Colonial Office, as before, and not to the two Secretaries of State jointly.
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, but this is the Act of Federation and we are proposing that the Secretaries of State shall act jointly, and that as far as the Federal Government are concerned they shall be jointly responsible. The scheme provides that they shall be individually responsible for the three separate Territories.
    This, for me, is the most important argument in favour of the Amendment. From the very beginning among the fears of the Africans in the two Northern Territories has been the fear that this scheme would take them out of the supervision and protection of the Colonial Office. That fear has been expressed in every petition and almost every speech. All the time they have said, "We desire to remain under the Colonial Office." If it now goes out to them that under this scheme in so far as all the matters which

    149
    are within the purview of the Federal Government they are to be taken out of the Colonial Office and out of the supervision and protection of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, we shall be missing an opportunity by rejecting this Amendment, if it is rejected. It is the best opportunity we have in the course of further consideration of this matter to assure the Africans that we do not intend to let them be without protection.
    The important thing is what they believe. They believe that their best protection is to remain under the Colonial Office. That is their view, firmly held and deeply held. I press the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter for the reasons I have given. It is a matter he can reconsider because it is not a part of the agreement; there is no obligation in the agreement to reject this, none whatever. The Government can advise the Committee to accept it and, having accepted it, they should be able to say, "We have carried out very fully all the agreements. This was not provided in the agreement we made with you, but the Secretary of State shall also mean the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations."
    Surely it is a matter for the Government responsible to this House of Commons alone to decide what Minister in this House should be responsible and for what. That is not a matter we discuss with other Governments; it is not a matter we settle with other authorities. It is for the Prime Minister in this country to appoint his Cabinet——
    Mr. Hopkinson: I thought I made it perfectly clear that this matter has not been discussed or settled with other Governments at all but, naturally, in the ordinary course of explanations it was said that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations would deal with communications. That is all, there is no question of any agreement.
    Mr. Griffiths: I think we ought to get this clear. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is to be the centre for communications——
    Mr. Lyttelton: The channel.
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes the channel for communications. It has been decided, therefore, that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations alone will be responsible——
    Mr. Lyttelton: No
    Mr. Griffiths: Which Department will be responsible? Will the Colonial Office and any officers in the Colonial Office have any administrative responsibilities for this scheme? Secretaries of State come and Secretaries of State go. The Colonial Office is an office with long experience of administration of territories all over the world and with vital responsibilities still left for two other Territories and the majority of the population of Central Africa in the Northern Territories. Is the Colonial Office to have no place in the administration set up at home for the administration of the scheme? This is the really crucial point.
    9.30 p.m.
    When the Africans have said—I revert to the point, which is important—that they want to stay under the Colonial Office, let us remember what that means. It means not only Her Majesty's Government and successive Secretaries of State; it means all the tradition of the Colonial Office and the Colonial Service, appointed by the Secretary of State and answerable to the Secretary of State, carrying out the policy of the Colonial Office, with all the tradition that has been built up and of which we have every right to be proud. It is their tradition and ours. What is proposed in the Bill, not by agreement— there is nothing in the agreement about it—but by the decision of the Government, is a grave mistake to make.
    I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider this matter; I appeal to the Government to reconsider it. There will be a further opportunity, if we are to be voted down tonight—and we must carry this Amendment to a Division—of discussing this matter on the Report stage. I ask the Secretary of State to indicate to us that the point with which this Amendment deals, and which is not a part of the agreement but is a decision of the Government, be reconsidered.
    I turn to the other Amendments, and I ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to look at this scheme because the rejection by the Minister of the proposal for a Minister, "cuckoo" or otherwise, was based very largely on our conventions in this House. But what we are setting up in Central Africa is not the House of Commons. I ask hon. Members to look at page 15 of the White Paper, in which it is set out that there

    151
    is to be a Federal Assembly. It is set out that that Assembly will consist of a Speaker and 35 Members. Then the White Paper goes on to say something more than that. It says that of those 35 Members 26 will be elected Members, on a franchise—we will come to that later—six will be specially elected African Members and three will be European Members
    "charged with special responsibilities for African interests, …"
    In this Constitution, therefore, before we come to the Executive we lay down that of the 35 Members in the Federal Assembly six must be Africans and three must be Europeans appointed to represent Africans in that Assembly.
    The principle is, therefore, accepted that in this Constitution we must make special provision for Africans. We have no provision of that kind in this House and the parallel between our conventions here and the proposed arrangement which I have just outlined is irrelevant. It is laid down in the White Paper that there must be these Members appointed to represent Africans. I ask the Secretary of State whether there is a single argument against making provision for including Africans in the Cabinet when it is already accepted that there must be special provision to provide seats for them in Parliament. It seems to me to be logical. We say, first, that there must be nine representatives of Africans among the 35 in the Federal Assembly.
    What do we on this side of the Committee say in the first of the two Amendments with which I am now dealing? We say that there ought to be, and we ought to provide in this Bill that there should be, at least two representatives of the Africans in the Cabinet. I do not know what the size of the Executive will be. If it is to be eight members and we say that two must be Africans, that will mean one-fourth of the Executive. We provided that in the Federal Assembly one-fourth of the members must be representatives of the Africans. I suggest, therefore, that in moving this Amendment we are indeed carrying the principle already embodied in the Constitution of the Assembly into the Executive and into the Cabinet.
    I think that the Minister did find one exception, and only one exception, when
    152
    we were arguing this matter before. If this Constitution is passed in its present form it will be the only Constitution in any of our dependent Territories which does not contain specific provision for representing Africans in the executive. Northern Rhodesia is one of the Territories involved here in Central Africa. The Northern Rhodesia Territorial Constitution provides that there shall be two representatives of Africans in the Executive. Neither of them at the moment is an African. The two are Europeans, Mr. Moffat and Mr. Nightingale. They are appointed by the Governor to act as the representatives of the Africans in the Executive Council.
    There we have this provision in the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia. We have it elsewhere. Indeed, in Kenya we have carried it forward to the stage at which the representative of the Africans in the Executive is an African. Those are the stages of progress. First of all, as the Africans are perhaps themselves not competent to sit in a Cabinet, we appoint Europeans specially to represent them, and later on those Europeans are replaced by Africans. But here we have a Constitution in which there is no provision of any kind to ensure the representation of Africans in the Executive.
    That does not mean, as the Minister quite rightly said, that there could not be a Minister in the Cabinet even if our Amendment is rejected. The Prime Minister of the new Federal Government could invite one of the Africans to serve in the Cabinet. He could invite one of the Europeans to serve. I will be fair to the Colonial Secretary and repeat that he said that it was not likely that at this stage the Prime Minister would invite one of the Africans to sit in the Cabinet. But what is to prevent his inviting one of the three Europeans chosen to represent African interests to sit in the Cabinet, if it is said that at this moment there is no African competent and able to do so? That, surely, would not be said of the Europeans whom we appointed to represent the Africans.
    I had hoped that the Government would accept one of these Amendments. I only hoped that they would accept one. I did not hope that they would accept the Amendment relating to a "cuckoo" Minister. We have argued that point before. But if the Government cannot

    153
    accept the other Amendment, or they vote it down, cannot the Government make a gesture? Cannot they say, "We are anxious to allay African fears and to remove them, and we propose that there shall be a representative from among the nine sitting in the Cabinet." Why cannot we say that? Everybody who is concerned about this subject is asking for tangible proof.
    Reference has been made in "The Times" editorial and in letters to "The Times" to tangible proof. Here is the opportunity to provide tangible proof. If the Amendment is rejected and if it is not made compulsory to have Africans in the Cabinet, let the Government say that they will invite one of the nine to be in the Cabinet. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, to realise that this is entirely within the prerogative of Her Majesty's Government and that it is for us to decide and for Her Majesty's Government to decide, and that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should be responsible.
    I urge that consideration be given to the Amendment by which both Secretaries of State shall be responsible, as I believe that that will do a great deal to ensure what we all want, namely, to allay the fears which still persist in Central Africa.
    Sir R. Acland: I should like to add a few words before the Amendment is put to the vote; first, a word of a somewhat personally reminiscent nature. I well remember that when this discussion at the London Conference was first announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) I and a number of other hon. Members who are now on this side of the Committee, and were then on the opposite side, had the gravest misgivings about the outcome. I was among those who expressed those anxieties in supplementary questions immediately following the official announcement of the Officials' Conference.
    I remember so well that when the deliberations of the Officials' Conference were made public, or perhaps it was one day afterwards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) was good enough to see a number of us who were specially interested, and explain privately the details of the scheme. I remember that he made a particularly strong point to us about the
    154
    proposal for a Minister for African Affairs. I think it was the only point he made which seriously impressed me.
    My colleagues and I at that time were far from satisfied with the proposals coming forward from the London Conference. At a very early stage we were pressing for further strengthening of the guarantees for African interests. But right from the start in our discussions with those who were then His Majesty's Ministers, we were impressed by the fact that a Minister for African Affairs, right in the Cabinet, would not be merely like the paper guarantees which have proved so feeble in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia but would be a personal reality —that is to say, a reality embodied in the very central point of decision.
    It was a shock to us when, upon the change of Government, we heard that this proposal for a Minister of African Affairs was to be dropped. When we asked ourselves why this had happened we conjectured at the time the reason which has been so frankly and so honestly stated in public, I think, for the first time in the short speech which we had from the hon. Member for Leomin-ster (Mr. Baldwin). We had a strong suspicion that this proposal was dropped because it was known tha the white electors in Southern Rhodesia would not stand for it and that it would not pass the referendum. We believed at that time, and we still believe, that that was the one and only sufficient reason for dropping what would otherwise have been a really powerful proposal for the protection of African interests.
    If we go on from there and look at the reasons for dropping this proposal, which have been given from time to time by the Government, we find that some of them have been repeated in this debate, namely, in the speech by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs this evening. What is said, in effect, is that this proposal for a Minister for African Affairs would not work. The Government seek to draw comparisons, and ask us to consider how anomalous the position would be if a special Minister of this kind were appointed in the British Cabinet, but we really cannot draw parallels with the British Cabinet Constitution because the British Cabinet derives its authority from a Parliament which is elected by all the adult citizens of Great Britain. There

    155
    cannot be any conceivable case for putting into the British Cabinet a special representative, outside the realm of the normal rules of Cabinet responsibility, to represent some people who are not enfranchised in the ordinary way, because we are all enfranchised.
    9.45 p.m.
    The position is entirely different in a territory where the Cabinet is to be responsible to a Parliament which has been elected by a very small minority of the total population. In such a situation there is an overwhelming case for putting into the Cabinet a special Minister whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of the great majority who take no part in electing the legislative assembly from which the Cabinet draws its authority.
    I confess that I am at fault for not having with me the copies of HANSARD from which I can quote the actual words, but I am sure it is within the recollection of many hon. Members that at various stages in our discussions it has been argued that we could not have within the Cabinet a Minister who was pursuing a policy different from that of his colleagues. If that argument is put forward against the proposal to have a Minister for African Affairs, and it is pressed, it becomes a very strong argument against the whole policy of federation.
    Here again, I would quote from the letter to which I referred in an earlier intervention on an earlier Amendment— the letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council. That letter said:
    "We believe that the federal scheme could be so operated by men of good will as to hold out real hope for the economic advance, the political stability, and the healthy cooperation of all races."
    It could be so administered, and if it were the Minister for African Affairs would not find himself at any stage in conflict with the policy of the Cabinet into which he had been put by the action of the Secretary of State here.
    The conflict would arise only if by any chance the way in which this question is going to work out were to produce a white legislative assembly and, from it,
    156
    a white Cabinet, not intent on the advancement of the African peoples, but —let us be quite blunt—intent on preserving a sort of white man's paradise, based on cheap coloured labour, in a country where Income Tax is virtually negligible and where the black people do the dirty work.
    It is relevant to see what sort of conditions they are preserving for themselves at the present time. In Northern Rhodesia, for example, a man with two children, earning £1,000 a year—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Baronet is now straying from these Amendments.
    Sir R. Acland: I am in your hands, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I should have thought that I would be in order in giving one or two illustrations of how wonderful and comfortable life is in a country where the Income Tax of a man earning about £1,500 a year is about one-tenth of what it would be here, and where the wages paid for domestic servants are about one-hundredth of what they would be here.
    It is relevant to suggest that people subjected to the temptations which are implicit in that state of affairs—even if we ourselves were in that position— would be inclined not to be advancing the well-being of those people on whose poverty their own economic self-interest depends. I can understand that the Cabinet, not perhaps having this conscious intention but because of the economic pressure of their environment which produces that state of affairs, would object to having in their midst a man whose special job was day in and day out to bring home to them the way in which their everyday administrative actions were affecting the African majority upon whose labour they depend.
    It seems to me, therefore, that all the arguments which have been brought forward as to the impossibility of having what has been so contemptuously described as a "cuckoo" Minister are, in fact, in favour of not having this federation at all without something to produce a very different temper among the leaders of white opinion in Central Africa or anything which I, for one, believe to be possible on the laws of Christianity or on the laws of Freudian

    157
    psychology or on the laws of Marxist philosophy.
    If we roll together all that is taught by Christianity about original sin and what Freud told us about the way in which we rationalise our emotional preferences and what Karl Marx said about the way in which our decisions are influenced by economic environment, then we shall see how virtually impossible it is to suppose that a white minority will legislate for the steady advancement of a black majority on whose underpaid labour their comforts and luxuries depend. I thank you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, for having allowed me to explain what might otherwise have been a rather startling conjunction of names.
    Perhaps I may turn to another subject in this rather rambling series of Amendments which we are discussing at once, namely, the announcement for the first time to the House that the Secretary of State who will be the normal channel of communication for the Federal Executive is to be the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I regret that announcement very much indeed and I am sorry that it came to me, as to many others, as a shock. I was not aware that an earlier announcement had been made about a year ago in another place. Somehow that seemed to slide by without anybody noting the import, as we have done today.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: It ought not to have been made there.
    Sir R. Acland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment It ought to have been made here and not in another place. This is a busy life and we cannot listen to all their Lordships' debates or read all the HANSARDS of the House of Lords.
    I appreciate the point made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that our Amendment might include in the affairs of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who would have some joint responsibility with the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the territorial administration of those two Territories. I am not afraid of that. I think it would do him good—a great deal of good; and it would do his staff a great deal of good to find themselves
    158
    obligatorily mixed up with the administration of the territorial affairs of these two Northern Territories.
    There is no disadvantage at all if our Amendment brings the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations a little into contact with some of the Colonial Office's position in these affairs. Much more important, we believe that as time goes on the Federal Legislature and the Federal Executive will steadily grow in stature, in influence, in power and in importance whereas that of the legislative assemblies of the two Northern Territories will steadily and step by step diminish.
    What is really important is the announcement we have had that the channel of communication for the Federal Legislature is to be through the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. It is not good enough merely to say that, of course, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be consulted when matters reach the stage at which they are described as important, because I think it will be agreed that nothing ever becomes important without its having boiled up from a lot of little matters that were unimportant, or seemed unimportant. It is not a question of who gets consulted when the thing has reached the stage of crisis. I do not doubt, for example, in relation to Kenya, that a large number of Secretaries of State have been consulted in the last 12 months about matters in Kenya, because they have now become important.
    The vital question is: what Secretary of State, what office, what staff, have their hands upon the reins of day to day details? Which office keeps the records? Before the eyes of which officials do the day to day and week to week details go? Who has the opportunity of stopping at the earliest possible stage a trend of events which will later lead to crisis? Who has the power at the right moment to put in a word when decisions have not yet been finally taken and who may possibly influence things for better, or for worse?
    If that day to day routine work is to be done by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, whose main tradition is to keep the peace with Dr. Malan so far as Africa is concerned, how much worse it will be for the Africans in those three Territories than if all that day to day detailed work were done by

    159
    the Secretary of State for the Colonies and his staff with their traditions. I hope the Government will even yet take the chance of reconsidering this matter.
    Mr. Hale: The debate, I am afraid, has taken a turn for the worse.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Oh.
    Mr. Hale: Oh, yes. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear the speeches on his side of the Committee he will have the privilege of hearing me relate shortly what has happened, and he will then have the benefit of knowing what we are talking about. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) moved the Amendment he was moving an Amendment of very great importance, and one to which we on this side of the Committee attach supreme importance, but since then the debate has taken a turn for the worse.
    I say that after having heard the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), and much more after hearing the most inadequate reply of the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, who made no effort whatever to reply to the basic, fundamental problems. I am sorry to be discourteous, but I do say, with a careful sense of what I am saying, that I think that, on the whole, it was the most inadequate reply I have heard from a responsible Minister to an important Amendment in the last two years. In saying that I am not trying to be ungenerous towards or to overlook the claims of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education.
    The hon. Member for Leominster rose to make one point, that he made it first with some hesitation and then with increasing confidence. Finally, he committed himself to the point that, if this had been in the White Paper, the plebiscite in Southern Rhodesia would have gone the wrong way. Of all the observations we have heard described tonight as stirring up African opinion there is none more likely to stir up African suspicion, African distrust, and African hostility than that, and it is right to ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees with the observations of his supporter. Does he agree with that point?
    Is it really true that if it was said that an African Parliament which is to have
    160
    six African members anyhow must have one African in the Cabinet, if it was said that there must be at least something like a proportionate African representation in the Cabinet, that would have been regarded as so serious that the plebiscite would have gone the other way? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this had been in the White Paper, despite all the talk in Southern Rhodesia about partnership, and about a gradually growing confidence between the races, the White people in Southern Rhodesia would never have permitted African representation in the Cabinet?
    10.0 p.m.
    Is that what is meant? Does the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs agree with that or not? Does it represent the views of Her Majesty's Government? It is right that we should be told that when these discussions were taking place at which the Africans, for reasons which may be good or not good, were not present and not available to hear what was being said. It was certainly reported in "The Times" and other newspapers usually regarded as well-informed that one of the battles going on at that conference was by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and by Mr. Welensky to wipe out the provisions in the original White Paper for an African Minister for African Affairs. It was said time after time that that was a struggle. Now if that was the struggle, if that happened, the Minister ought to be frank and tell us, because we are entitled to know.
    If the position in Southern Rhodesia is now such that an Amendment of this kind would so offend the white population that the Federal scheme would become impossible, then I agree with the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), that in these circumstances federation really is impossible, and should be impossible. But it would be wrong to go on committing ourselves to a proposition knowing that there is a fundamental dishonesty of approach, and knowing that it is really beng used as a cover for these proposals which the hon. Member for Leominster has said were never meant at all, and that there was never any intention of accepting the proposals. If that be so—and the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, who has spoken for some time, has not sought to deny it, and he can deny it now if he wishes——
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Hopkinson: I made the position perfectly clear. I said that there was nothing to prevent an African being appointed as a member of the Cabinet tomorrow if the Prime Minister so proposes. I said that quite openly.
    Mr. Hale: It is also true that there is nothing to prevent my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) from being appointed to the Iron and Steel Board tomorrow. My apprehension of that is that there might be sales resistance on both sides.
    The Minister says he made the position perfectly clear. I think he did. I do not think it was his intention, but when he sat down I felt that I was more clear about the attitude of the Government on this matter than I had been before on a number of points. It was not because of what the right hon. Gentleman said but because of what he did not say that I felt convinced that the matter had been made clear. He started off, I regret to say, by referring to the "cuckoo Minister." That is an offensive and regrettable term. The trouble is that the cuckoo is not merely an unwanted, unwelcome intruder into the nest, but it also belongs biologically to a different species, and I regretted that such a comparison should be made by one of Her Majesty's Ministers at a time like this in referring to proposals for African representation. [Laughter] That this should give pleasure to hon. Members opposite is something I cannot help. I, personally, regret it, and I wish the Minister would withdraw the term, and would say that it was not his term and never ought to be used in that context. It is a very derogatory term.
    Mr. Hopkinson: I started by saying that the term did not originate with my right hon. Friend. I would point out that there is no question of race involved. The Minister for African Affairs was not to be an African under the original proposal.
    Mr. Hale: I was not talking about racial differences. I was talking about biological differences, an entirely different matter. Time after time the right hon. Gentleman used the term, with some regularity, and in a way which one thought expressed some approval of the use of the term. I only say that it is greatly to be deplored.
    162
    The Minister made a few other casual observations. He drew the attention of the Committee to footnote 23, on page 24 of the Federal scheme, and said, "There is provision for a Cabinet." I ask just what those provisions are. What is the function of a Cabinet unless, in accordance with my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, it is defined in the terms of the ordinary council? Unless we are told what it has to do, unless we are told what powers it can exercise, unless some reference is made in an Order in Council to its constitution, how can there be a Council in the sense in which the Minister referred to it? He referred to the note which says that, in accordance with the ordinary constitution, the Cabinet is not being embodied in a written document because it never is. He was, therefore, referring to it in terms of an English Cabinet.
    There is no way in which the Cabinet can exercise its power or be set up. There is no constitutional right to do it. There is nothing from which it can derive its powers, and the power of the Crown is delegated to the Governor-General. If we are to have a Cabinet we are bound to define it in the terms of an Order in Council or it has no means of acquiring power or of asserting power. It has no privileges in connection with treaty rights and so on. There is no method of doing it unless we provide it here and now in the Bill or in Order in Council.
    The Secretary of State went on to a series of other arguments which seem to get worse and worse. He said that we must trust the Secretary of State. That is an extraordinary appeal to make today. The whole effect of our constitutional rule is that we should not trust Her Majesty's Ministers on whatever side of the House we sit, because the job of a Member of Parliament is not to trust them but to watch them.
    We come to two matters which are, I think, of very considerable importance. We have been told today that the Secretary of State who will be finally and immediately responsible for the administration of federal affairs will be the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I understood the Minister to say that, and perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, communications in the first instance shall come from the Commonwealth authorities. In other

    163
    words, a report on conditions in Nyasa-land would go first to the Commonwealth Office. I should have thought that we have suffered enough from delays in dealing with colonial matters in the last few months.
    Mr. Dugdale: When my hon. Friend made that statement, I thought I saw the Minister shaking his head. Will he state whether in fact my hon. Friend has described the position accurately or not?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I do not want to take the hon. Gentleman up on every point on which he goes astray. He said that a report coming from Nyasaland would go to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, but, of course, it will not. It will go straight to my right hon. Friend as heretofore.
    Mr. Hale: If it is of vital importance? If it is a complaint from Nyasaland about something which the Federal Government has done, which the Minister of Native Affairs in Nyasaland feels is derogatory to the interests of the African population in Nyasaland? I did not observe whether the Minister shook his head laterally or longitudinally. The Secretary of State earlier in the debate said, I understood, that the day-to-day life of the average person in the two Protectorates would remain the concern of the Colonial Office. I am sure he has made that statement before.
    At no time in the course of any of these debates has the Minister told us how. At no time has he told us what is the machinery by which the Colonial Office can continue to administer the two Territories on the basis of their being continuing Protectorates once so many reserve powers have been handed over to the Federal Government. I am not alone in being unable to see how it is to be done. The time has come when the Committee should be told how it is to be done, what matters will be dealt with and how they will continue to be dealt with.
    As one of my hon. Friends said, the Secretary of State for the Colonies may be a little flattered, perhaps unduly flattered, by the passionate desire of the African people to remain under his aegis, which is based not on any personal predilection but merely on the history of the Colonial Office. If they have had some
    164
    negotiations with the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, I can well understand their preferring anything to that.
    However, the Colonial Office has a great record in Africa and has been associated with a great many vital reforms. The Colonial Office has inculcated and incorporated the conception of the gradual advance of the African people as of vital importance. What is the concern of the Commonwealth Relations Office in Africa? At the moment it is primarily concerned with the Union of South Africa, and with trying to maintain, in very difficult circumstances, good relations and a basis of understanding with a Government which is enforcing racial policies which most of my hon. Friends utterly and profoundly detest and which the mass of the people of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland undoubtedly detest, distrust and fear.
    If the basic problems affecting racial matters, the colour bar, franchise and representation are to be handled by the Commonwealth Relations Office, that means a basic change in attitude and a basic change in the grounds upon which decisions are taken. It may be a very serious step-back for the African people. That is why we are entitled to ask about it.
    We have not been told why the Amendment is not being accepted. We have not had one solitary reason. In his opening remarks, the Minister of State referred to a moral obligation, and when we asked what the moral obligation was and by whom it was incurred, he said it was not in the scheme at all, there was nothing in the scheme which prevented the Amendment from being accepted and that there was nothing which ruled out proposals for a Cabinet or for African representation.
    If that be true, I put this with great seriousness because I believe it to be a point of first importance. If there is one thing that the Committee ought to be seeking to do at the moment, if there is one thing that could alter the attitude of the great majority of the people of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland to the scheme, it would be some dramatic recognition of the rights of the African people to representation. It would be some gesture which could recreate confidence and

    165
    understanding. It would be something which could be taken to the African people with the comment, "Here we are, after all this time. Here is your basic anchor and protection. In the new federal scheme is something which, to an extent, you had before in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, but you will now have it in the whole of the federated territories. Here is a provision which will enable you to have your own representation in the Cabinet directly responsible to the Secretary of State." We could tell the people that this would enable them to make day-to-day representations if necessary, saying, "These are the troubles, the difficulties, the basic grievances and the basic misunderstandings."
    10.15 p.m.
    On both sides of the Committee we have said that some of the suspicion, distrust, disappointment and misunderstanding in African affairs has not been based upon actual fact. We have always agreed that in every territory like this almost every industrial or economic advance has caused some little hardship to individuals. It is bound to cause the replanning of territories and a little abrogation of the personal rights of individuals, and it is because of that that we want a Minister who knows the facts and
    can deal with them, who can make representations all the time on behalf of those affected and see that the African people have in the new Government that confidence which they must have if the Federal scheme is to be successful. That is fundamental, and it is why we feel that this Amendment is of supreme importance.
    I have no wish to be hostile at this stage of the Bill, but it was with great regret I heard of the blank refusal of the Government to accept even the principle of this Amendment. In my view, that is a great tragedy at this stage of our discussion. That is why I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see if he could not, even at this late hour, say that between now and the Report stage he will consider this matter and will try to devise some means of accepting this Amendment in principle to create confidence by the African people in the administration, and as a gesture in the interests of cooperation, so that there will be one indication at least that the word "partnership" used so much in the Preamble and in the explanations of this scheme will have some measure of meaning.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 221.

    Division No. 181.]

    AYES

    [10.17 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Cove, W. G.

    Hannan, W.

    Albu, A. H.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewa)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hastings, S.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Cullen, Mrs, A.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Davies, Harold (Leak)

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

    Baird, J.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Balfour, A.

    Deer, G.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Bartley, P.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Holman, P.

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Dodds, N. N.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Beswick, F.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Bing, G. H. C.

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

    Hoy, J. H.

    Blackburn, F.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Boardman, H.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

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

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Fernybough, E.

    Johnson, Jamas (Rugby)

    Bowden, H.W.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Bower, E. R.

    Finch, H. J.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Braddcck, Mrs. Elizabett

    Follick, M.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Brookway, A. F.

    Foot, M. M.

    Keenan, W.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Forman, J. C.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Burke, W. A.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Glanville, James

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Carmichael, J.

    Grey, C. F.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Champion, A. J.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    McGovern, J.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Grimond, J.

    McInnes, J.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hale, Leslie

    McLeavy, F.

    Clunie, J.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Collick, P. H.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshtad, W.)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hamilton, W. W.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

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

    Rankin, John

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Reeves, J.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Reld, William (Camlashie)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Rhodes, H.

    Thornton, E.

    Mason, Roy

    Richards, R.

    Timmons, J.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Messer, F.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Ungood-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Mikardo, lan

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Viant, S. P.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Wade, D. W.

    Monslow, W.

    Ross, William

    Wallace, H. W.

    Moody, A. S.

    Royle, C.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

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

    Morley, R.

    Short, E. W.

    Weitzman, D.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Moyle, A.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Murray, J. D.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Nally, W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Slater, Mrs. (Stoke, N.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Orbach, M.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Wigg, George

    Oswald, T.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Willey, F. T.

    Pagat, R. T.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Williams, David (Neath)

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

    Steele, T.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Parker, J.

    Straehey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Paton, J.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Winterbottom, lan (Nottingham, C.)

    Pearson, A.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Peart, T. F.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Yates, V. F.

    Porter, G.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Prector, W. T.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.

    NOES

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

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

    Drewe, C.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

    Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.

    Fall, A.

    Kaberry, D.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Finley, Graeme

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Barber, Anthony

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kerr, H. W.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Fort, R.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Foster, John

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

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lagh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Birch, Nigel

    Fraser, Sir lan (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Bishop, F. P.

    Galbraith, Rt. Han. T. D. (Pollok)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Black, C. W.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hilthead)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col, J. C.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Godber, J. B.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

    Gower, H. R.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Graham, Sir Fargus

    McCallum, Major D.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Masclesfield)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Channon, H.

    Heath, Edward

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

    Cole, Norman

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Maude, Angus

    Colegate, W. A.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Hope, Lord John

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Mellor, Sir John

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Digby, S. Winsfield

    Hurd, A. R.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    168

    169

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Russell, R. S.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col C. N.

    Odey, G. W.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. O.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Turton, R. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles lan (Hendon, N.)

    Shepherd, William

    Vosper, D. F.

    Osborne, C.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Partridge, E.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Speir, R. M.

    Wellwood, W.

    Powell, J. Enoch

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

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Profumo, J. D.

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

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Wills, G.

    Redmayne, M.

    Storey, S.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Summers, G. S.

    York, C.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

    Rodgars, John (Sevenoaks)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    10.30 p.m.
    The Chairman: The next Amendment is that in the name of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), in page 1, line 10, after "Legislature," insert:
    "to consist of a Speaker and forty-two members including seven elected members from each Territory, fifteen specially elected African members and six European members charged with special responsibilities for African interests, such Legislature to have powers as listed in paragraph 10, page 10, of Command Paper No. 8754, except that immigration into and emigration from any territories in the Federation shall remain the responsibility of the Territorial Legislatures."
    I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if it were taken together with the Amendment, also in the name of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, at the top of page 1451 of the Order Paper, in page 1, line 10, after "Legislature," insert:
    "in which there shall be an equal number of Europeans and Africans."
    On the same point of the powers of the Legislature, I think it would probably be convenient if a number of new Clauses were also taken at the same time. Some of these new Clauses are in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—(Reserved powers), (Co-operative societies), (Entry of British citizens), (Deportation of British citizens), and (Federal Assembly)—and there is one— (Saving for trade unions)—in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley).
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order. I submit,
    170
    Sir Charles, that the new Clauses which refer to such things as deportation, the establishment of trade union rights, and Co-operative societies, might more appropriately be taken with the next Amendment which will be called, which is in my name, in page 1, line 11, after "Court," insert "a Federal Human Rights Commission." Those are subjects which are covered by human rights rather than by the proposal which is in the Amendment now before us.
    The Chairman: That proposal was put to me during the day. I have taken advice and am told that what I have just proposed would be the appropriate way to deal with this matter.
    Mr. Hale: Further to your Ruling, Sir Charles, this does affect four new Clauses which have not yet been reached, each of which is of very great importance and raises issues of principle. As I apprehend your Ruling, you are saying that because the first Amendment, which is not in my name—with which I am not wholly in sympathy, although I do not wish to show lack of support for my right hon. Friend—deals with the powers of the Federal Government, it is desirable that we should discuss every Amendment connected with the powers of the Federal Government. But the whole Measure deals with the powers of the Federal Government and there is one Clause to set up the Federal Government. By the same reasoning we could discuss the whole of the Amendments.
    Many hon. Friends have taken a lifelong interest in the co-operative move-

    171
    ment and are extremely interested in the Amendment standing in my name dealing with co-operative societies. Many hon. Friends have also taken a life-long interest in the trade union movement and would like to say a great deal about the Amendment dealing with trade unions. The Amendments which I understand you intend to call dealing with the deportation of British subjects and so on are also of great importance to the Committee.
    If this course is adopted it will be necessary for everyone who rises to consider seven or eight completely different matters. He will have first to say whether he really wants the Federal Assembly to be on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), then to deal with the attitude to co-operative societies, cooperative farming in the Territories, co-operative producers and co-operative retailers, talk about the trade union movement with all its implications and then to come back to certain fundamental issues of human rights and the basic topic of whether British subjects should be deported at all from British territory and with what precautions and safeguards.
    We are all anxious to co-operate, but, speaking with complete sincerity, not one of us is anxious to waste time on the matter or give the appearance on an issue of great constitutional importance of adopting purely delaying tactics. We want to put reasoned arguments fairly and with what strength we can on matters on which we feel quite deeply. I respectfully suggest that it would be a practical impossibility to have an effective discussion covering so wide a range and variety of subjects. I hope I shall have the support of the Secretary of State on this, as I think he would say that the interests of the Committee would be better served if we could have separate debates.
    Perhaps Amendments affecting the trade unions and the co-operative societies to some extent raise the same issues. Those affecting restriction of legislation may raise the same issues and we would try to get co-operation on those matters, but to raise all these matters together puts a great burden on us. I ask you to have regard to these observations and observations which may be made by my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Paget: This Bill proposes one Federal legislature. A new Clause proposes certain limitations on the power of the Federal legislature and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) proposes a quite different legislature. The fact that we want to limit the powers of one legislature which this Bill proposes does not for a moment mean that we would wish to limit the powers of a quite different legislatuue proposed by my right hon. Friend. I humbly submit, therefore, that we cannot consider the new Clauses which are limitations of the legislature to be set up until we have decided what is the legislature whose powers we are limiting, because until we know that we do not know what limitations we desire to put on it.
    I would therefore respectfully say—and it does not seem that it would take any additional time—let us first consider what legislature we are going to have. That is my right hon. Friend's Amendment. Then we come to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) to include a Commission for Human Rights. Then, knowing what our legislature is, we can move the new Clause which limits the powers of that legislature within a broad field that affects human rights. That seems to me the logical way of doing it. But to try to do it before you have decided what the legislature is seems wholly illogical.
    The Chairman: I should like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) who brought this matter to my notice today. I hoped their point could be met. I have taken the best advice I could get, and I am told that the idea I originally put forward is the best way to deal with it. I hoped it might be possible that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) should be taken with the entry and deportation of British citizens, but I am advised that is not possible, and that the original way is the way to deal with it. There would also be various new Clauses which could be discussed with the first Amendment.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: May I ask you, Sir Charles, to consider that we might take now the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman for West

    173
    Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale). That would be followed by my Amendment, and then you might take separately the discussion on deportation and the discussion on cooperative trading. I do not think that would take any longer, and it would be a much clearer discussion for the Committee.
    The Chairman: That of course would be quite impossible because I propose to call the Amendment at the bottom of page 1450 in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Griffiths), the next one in his name on page 1451, and the following Amendment, in Clause 1, page 1, line 11. All these would fall if I did that, and it is quite impossible for me to do what the hon. Member has suggested.
    Mr. Paget: With great respect, surely we are not considering a matter of the rules of the House. We are considering a matter of convenience. When a new Clause——
    The Chairman: The last question dealt with the rules of the House. I have no power on that.
    Mr. Paget: If we are taking the discussion of the new Clauses out of their ordinary order, that is a matter of convenience and not a matter upon which, I would respectfully have thought, the advice of those who are concerned with order becomes very relevant. I would have thought that if we were going to consider the new Clauses out of their natural order, which can only be done by consent, the persons who are the best judge of what it is convenient to discuss with the new Clauses are those who are propounding them.
    If we feel strongly that it would be much more convenient not to raise them in their proper place at the end but, in order to oblige the Committee or save time, to agree to take them with something else earlier—which is what we are perfectly prepared to do—I would respectfully suggest that our view should be considered. We feel that we should take them with the human rights Amendment rather than with the proposal relating to the Federal legislature—a new proposal with which, frankly, I personally have no sympathy, and I should find it very embarrassing to discuss it with the new Clauses.
    Mr. R. Williams: Further to that point of order, may I seek your guidance, Sir Charles? In the event of your ruling that these are to be discussed all together, assuming that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) who seeks to move the Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, line 10, catches your eye, would it be your view that he should address you, as the person proposing that Amendment, leaving entirely out of his submissions any views which he might have in relation to the other Amendments, or that he should deal with the Amendment standing in his name and all the other Amendments as well, since if he deals only with his own Amendment he will have exhausted his right to address this Committee, and will subsequently have great difficulty in putting his point?
    The Chairman: When the House is in Committee hon. Members may speak as often as they like. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich could either do so in his first speech or later. He will be called when he rises to his feet. There is no reason why he should not be called, as long as he catches my eye. As he is a Privy Councillor, he may catch my eye quite often.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not think there is much between the Chair and Members of the Committee. It is just a question of facilitating the business and also of having an adequate discussion on the main principles at stake. I hope, Sir Charles, that you will consider these points which I am going to make as briefly as possible. There is more at stake than appears on the surface. The ordinary people of this country have won, within limits, democratic rights. This debate will be watched by millions of people who are still struggling for their democratic rights. It will be read by many of them, and unless an adequate discussion takes place upon the main principles raised in these Amendments it will cause disappointment. Therefore, I ask you to allow a debate to take place upon my right hon. Friend's Amendment and then to call the Amendment dealing with human rights. Upon that an adequate discussion could take place, because in it are involved the rights of the co-operative movement and of the trade union movement.
    The Chairman: That is the very point which was raised earlier, before we began the Committee stage. I took the best advice I could get. I was informed that the original decision was really the right one. I think that as there are so many new Clauses it would not be possible to select them all, but, as the Committee knows, the responsibility is put upon my shoulders—and it is a most unhappy one to have to exercise—to select which will be discussed.
    Mr. James Hudson: Sir Charles, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) may have deceived you and your advisers, in that it is apparently supported by only one name. But I would assure you that there are a large number of us who are extremely concerned about the Amendment dealing with co-operative societies.
    10.45 p.m.
    I put it to you, Sir, that to start at 10.45 p.m. a general discussion of such a character, when there must be linked with it all the detailed issues relevant to co-operative societies and trades unions and so on, is to deal not only extremely unfairly with the constitutional question involved for Africa but with the House of Commons itself. I wonder if your advisers have taken into account the fact that from certain of these Amendments there is bound to arise a large number of issues—not just one or two—in which many hon. Members will be concerned and who will have the benefit of vital experience to offer.
    The Chairman: Yes, and I do not want to make any point about whether an Amendment appears in the name of only one hon. Member or in the name of six. When advice is given it is on the basis of which are the more important Amendments. I may be wrong, but the fact that there is only one name attaching makes no difference whatever to the selection.
    Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I wish to say only a few words, but you will recall, Sir Charles, that you did say a little earlier that you might have to exercise your power of selection in the event of all these Amendments not being taken together;
    176
    but, with the greatest respect, surely the duty of the Chair is to select which Amendments are relevant and which are not; and not consideration of how long the debate shall continue. I understood you to indicate that these Amendments are relevant and in order and, therefore, might I, with respect say that it would be quite improper for the power of selection to be exercised because some hon. Members of the Committee did not fall in with the manner chosen for discussing them?
    The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member knows that if an Amendment is irrelevant it is out of order, and under the Standing Order, as he also is aware, I am given this responsibility, which is a most unpleasant one. I would rather call the lot, but I have no option except to do my best, and what I have suggested to the Committee is, I think, the best course. I cannot select all Amendments.
    Mr. Hale: The Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) is one of substance and, if carried, affects the whole Bill. I am speaking for myself, and have been able to consult only those hon. Members immediately neighbouring to me at the moment but, if the Amendment is carried, then I think I may say we should not seek to discuss a number of the proposed new Clauses in the name of myself because I should have thought that we should have met some of the basic wishes and solved some of the fundamental difficulties we have in mind. Therefore, Sir Charles, I do ask that we should know the view of the Committee on the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend which, especially in the light of earlier discussion today, we wish to know.
    You did say, and I am sure that it was a slip, because I know I am speaking for the whole Committee when I say how greatly we appreciate, and feel in constant debt to you for it, your constant help and explanation of reasons for selection or otherwise, that you were anxious to have these things discussed together. We are all grateful for your guidance and help, and are glad of the opportunity of acknowledging that; and we realise that you have a duty in which there is real difficulty.

    177
    On a Bill of this kind the difficulty is probably even greater than it is in connection with most Bills. But you did say, Sir Charles, and I am quite sure that you did not mean it, that you were anxious to have these things discussed together, because you were anxious to see that they had a chance of being discussed. The ordinary meaning of those words, unless we had an explanation from the Chair, would be that unless we agreed to something, which after all is for our side to decide, and unless we took the new Clauses now and discussed them, they would not be discussed later on.
    But having said that, Sir Charles, you said you thought they ought to be discussed, that they would be called in their proper order and that there would be an opportunity for discussing them. I have had a chance of discussing this matter with 20 or 30 of my colleagues, all of us agree that it will be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss these new Clauses later.
    The Chairman: I thank the hon. Member for his kind references to me. I can hardly think that they are really true. But the point is that if I start to select new Clauses, which I am bound to do under Standing Orders, I might select one which the hon. Member did not want. By following the procedure which I suggest and discussing the powers of the legislature, all these new Clauses—and the hon. Member himself has five on the Order Paper —will have a debate, which otherwise they would probably not have. That is the point which I meant to make.
    I have given this matter a great deal of consideration and I have come to the conclusion that this is probably the best way to get everything discussed. I hope that the Committee will proceed now. The procedure I suggest should meet everybody's problem in the long run.
    Mr. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "Legislature," to insert:
    "to consist of a Speaker and forty-two members including seven elected members from each Territory, fifteen specially elected African members and six European members charged with special responsibilities for African interests, such Legislature to have powers as listed in paragraph 10, page 10, of Command Paper No. 8754, except that immigration into and emigration from any territories in the Federation shall remain the responsibility of the Territorial Legislatures."
    178
    In moving the Amendment after this long discussion, I have to say that although it looks exceedingly complicated its principles are in reality quite simple. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to them, and, in the first place, refer to the present position of the Federal Assembly. The White Paper proposes that the Federal Assembly shall have 26 elected members, six specially elected African members, and three European members, charged with special responsibilities for African interests. Presumably that is the proposal we may see when we discuss the Order in Council later on. We can only assume that that will be so, and I ask the Government spokesman when he replies to tell us whether that is what the Government intend to insert in the proposals when they are finally discussed.
    The object of our Amendment is to produce equality of two kinds. The first equality is that of representation as between Europeans and Africans. We do not ask for African domination. We do not ask that there shall be a completely black domination any more than a white domination. We are asking for the principle which has been established already by the present Colonial Secretary in Tanganyika. There is in Tanganyika today a system whereby each race has equal representation. If that is right in Tanganyika, why should it be wrong in Central Africa? It seems to me most reasonable to request that there should be equal representation for each race. This Amendment is designed to secure such equal representation.
    We hear a great deal about the word "partnership" today. Surely the acceptance of this Amendment would be a very definite and concrete sign of willingness to implement the doctrine of partnership. It is not asking very much, because there is an overwhelming majority of Africans in the Territory. All that the Amendment asks is not that the Africans shall have an overwhelming majority of representation in the Assembly but that they shall have equal representation with Europeans.
    This seems to me a very mild Amendment, which could be easily accepted by anybody who really intended to implement the principles enunciated in the word "partnership." But we have

    179
    been told that arrangements have already been made. A deal has been fixed; Sir Godfrey Huggins and Mr. Roy Welensky have been told that such and such are to be the number of people in the Legislative Assembly, and nothing can be done to alter it. If that is so, it is a mockery of Parliament. Surely we are entitled to discuss what the representation shall be. It is one of the most fundamental things which we can discuss.
    As has been said, if an Amendment of this character were passed it would so alter the scope of this Bill as to make it acceptable in many respects to a large number of us. That is the first aim of this Amendment, to get equal representation for Africans and Europeans. There is another aim. We are considering the federation of three Territories. Is it unreasonable to ask that these three Territories shall be equally represented? Let us look at the United States of America. The American Senate has an equal number of representatives from every State. That is a principle which we seek to achieve in this Amendment, namely, that there shall be an equal number of representatives from the three Territories.
    This is not a question of African versus European. It is a question of equal representation on a territorial basis. We also ask that there shall be a definite list of powers which are to be possessed by this Federal legislature. We may be told that we shall hear about that later in a White Paper, or when the Order in Council is discussed; but we would like to hear now. We would like to know what they are, and to know that they are established in the Bill we are discussing. As the Bill stands we are being asked to sign a blank cheque, hoping that the Government will put into it certain powers and leave out others.
    With regard to a particular power, the control of immigration and emigration, we are concerned that the new Federation, dominated as it will be by Southern Rhodesians, and with Nyasaland certainly coming a very poor third in control, may
    180
    agree to a very large immigration of people, some of whom may be desirable, and others less desirable. There may be a large immigration of people from South of the border, a large immigration from South Africa. I do not think anyone in this House would desire that there should be such a large immigration. If it is to be left to the control of a Federal Assembly dominated by Southern Rhodesia, that may well happen. So we would like these powers of control to remain as they are at present—in the hands of the individual Territories.
    We ask, above all, that the Government shall show, even if it does not agree with the terms of this Amendment, some willingness to agree to equality of representation, thus showing that the word, "partnership," which is constantly on the lips of the Secretary of State and others, has a genuine meaning, and that the Government intend to implement it in the best way possible, namely, by having partnership in the Legislative Assembly.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Lyrtelton: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I think we have made fairly good progress with our discussion in Committee this afternoon, and I understand it would be for the convenience of hon. Members opposite, as well as on this side, if we deferred further discussion upon the rather important matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which together with the new Clause which relates to the Amendment will carry the discussion quite wide. I think we all agree that it would be a pity to start upon such matters so late at night.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: We are obliged to the Secretary of State. I am sure that this is the right moment at which to adjourn, and I therefore very cordially agree.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  GAS INDUSTRY (MEDICAL SERVICES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir Cedric Drewe.]
  11.1 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Swingler: I am sorry to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power has been caught napping by this sudden change in the turn of events, but I hope that he will be here very shortly.
  We have a particular responsibility in this House for supervising the management of publicly-owned industries and for promoting the welfare of those who work in them. The gas industry is rarely discussed in this House, and rarely provides sensational incidents which hit the headlines. On the whole it ticks over fairly successfully. As a thorough-going supporter of gas socialism, I want tonight to draw attention to what I regard as one of the deficiencies of the nationalised gas industry at the moment. As I know from some prolonged correspondence that the Ministry of Fuel and Power is fully aware of the points I am going to make, I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will have his brief when he arrives, which I hope will be soon.
  I want to draw attention to the lack of an occupational health service in the gas industry. We are very glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary arrive at last. I am only sorry that the Government Whips' department does not seem to be up to the mark tonight. I was saying, I want to draw attention, to what I regard as one of the deficiencies in the adminisstration of the publicly-owned gas industry at the present time. I believe that it should be one of the responsibilities of the National Gas Council to establish an occupational health service for the gas workers.
  The Gas Council stands almost alone today, amongst national boards and national councils of industries, in failing to establish, on a national scale, an industrial medical service for the workers in its industry. I believe that the best professional opinion in this country is in favour of the development of an occupational health service. I know that the T.U.C. supports it and went on record
  182
  in favour of it in principle last year. I know, also, that most of the other national boards have their chief medical officers and have established industrial medical services.
  I believe, too, and this may appeal more to the Parliamentary Secretary, that it is the practice of many big firms to develop industrial medical services. In fact, it was some of the private enterprise gas companies which pioneered in this field many years ago. The old Gas Light and Coke Company and the South Metropolitan Gas Company were pioneers in the field of establishing industrial medicine for their workers before gas nationalisation came along.
  It is indisputable that the gas industry, like other industries, has special problems in the field of the causation of deaths,, accidents, and other matters of that kind. It is certainly true that the Medical Research Council has decided recently to undertake some long-term research into the incidence of lung cancer amongst gas workers, which is an example of the kind of thing which requires the development of a national medical organisation on an industrial basis for the gas industry. Therefore, it is disappointing to find that today only four out of the 12 area boards which administer the gas industry of the country have established full-time medical staffs.
  Only in the case of the North Thames, the South Eastern, the North Western, and the West Midland Areas' Gas Boards is there in existence any occupational health service for the gas workers. These Boards are to be congratulated on the maintenance of these services which they either inherited or initiated. One matter which is noteworthy in this respect is that in the areas where the boards have established full-time medical staffs, they are also expending much more money on the welfare of the employees, partly, undoubtedly, as the result of the influence of these professional men who are working for the boards.
  Expenditure today in the areas of the gas industry on welfare for employees varies from the lowest level in Scotland of 2s. per worker per annum to the highest level of £9 per worker per annum in the West Midlands. That is an extraordinary variation. What is indisputable is that in the four areas, where there are full-time doctors working for the gas boards, much more attention is paid to

  183
  the welfare facilities for the workers than is paid in the other gas board Areas.
  It is argued by some that it is difficult to establish and develop an occupational health service in some gas areas because there are only small and scattered installations in those districts, but I believe that that argument cannot carry the day. If one surveys the gas undertakings that come under the 12 area boards one finds that in all of the 12 areas of the country there are some large installations and some small installations.
  There is no medical staff in the Scottish Area Board, but there are very large gas understakings in both Edinburgh and Glasgow. There is no full-time medical staff in the Eastern gas area, but there is a very large undertaking at Tottenham. In the Southern area there is no full-time medical staff and comparatively small expenditure on the welfare of the workers, but there are very large gas installations at Portsmouth and at Bournemouth. One could carry on elaborating that point. There are large gas undertakings in each of the 12 areas, and, therefore, I believe the argument that the undertakings are so small and so scattered that all those boards would not be justified in employing salaried medical staff is not an argument we should accept.
  I know that the Minister himself is not fully satisfied about the present arrangements, because in a letter he wrote to me in February he said he was not entirely convinced from the information he had gathered from the Gas Council that the present medical arrangements in the gas industry were satisfactory to meet the needs, and that there was consultation between his Department and the Ministry of Labour about health and sanitary conditions in the gas industry.
  I am asking that the Minister should now go further, and, having spent some time in surveying the problem, if he cannot persuade the Gas Council to take the necessary steps to establish on the same lines as in other nationalised industries a fully fledged occupational health service for the gas workers, he should use the powers he has under the Act to direct the Gas Council to establish on a national scale a medical service that will serve for the gas workers in all the 12 ireas in which they are administered.
  11.13 p.m.
  Dr. Barnett Stress: I am sure the House will agree, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree as a Member of the House, that a prima facie case has been made quite clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) for urgent action on the problem he has brought before us tonight. The figures he had given us of the disparity in expenditure for the welfare of the workers as between one area board and another are really astounding, 2s. in one case and £9 in another. The question I want to ask is whether the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind the immediate rectification of this problem, or whether he wishes to shield behind the fact that sooner or later this country will be compelled to offer a comprehensive industrial health service for each and every industry of the country.
  If he is going to argue that the desirable thing is to have a comprehensive national service for the country as a whole, I would put it to him that it must start with those industries where the risks are greatest, whether of accident or occupational disease. The Medical Research Council is engaged at present in investigating the problem of the incidence of lung cancer among gas workers, but we have no real hope of a full report for two or three years. That is my opinion, and I shall be very glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has been advised. If I am right, we cannot wait that time. The Ministry should urge that the service given to gas workers should at least be evened up to the best level which exists now in any area in the country. Bearing in mind that the cost of that may well be excessive, the Government should be urged to produce a comprehensive service for the country as a whole, for this is a matter which could best and most expeditiously offered if it were comprehensive and nation-wide.
  If the Parliamentary Secretary is able to offer an immediate rectification of the problem brought forward by my hon. Friend, and at the same time assure us that the Minister is aware of the dangers for this and other industries, and that they will do their best to bring forward a comprehensive national service, we shall have been happy to hear him.
  11.16 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I must first apologise for not being quite in my place at the crucial moment. There was rather a greater exodus than I would have been led to expect, knowing that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) was to speak, and I was delayed.
  To reply immediately to the hon. Gentleman for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), I was rather surprised at what he said about research, with his knowledge and experience in these matters. I am afraid there is no hope of getting results within the limited space of two or three years. When one embarks on research of this sort one is seeking, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to build up case histories in order to deduce causes. It is going to be a minimum of three years, and much more likely to be considerably longer, before experience is gained from the knowledge and records which are kept of diseases and reports of infection and all those medical questions from which those who learn from these matters can try to deduce the causes which have led to the results.
  It is perfectly true that the matter is in train, and so far as the question of there being only four permanent medical officers of the boards, I do not think that has any effect on this issue. There are ample numbers of cases available, even with only these four boards, to build up cases for 30,000 men, if they were all being followed, and I do not think that is a limitation in the matter of research. With the best will in the world, I do not think it will be possible to expedite the results in the way the hon. Gentleman expressed the hope.
  With regard to the gravamen of the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme he is really pressing an open door, and we are in a happy position tonight. He is following up and applying to the gas industry in particular the recommendations largely contained in the Dale Report which have been emphasised in leaders in the "Lancet" and "The Times" last year. As the hon. Member rightly said, my right hon. Friend has already expressed himself in a letter to the hon. Member as not being entirely satisfied with the present position. That was some months ago and, as the
  186
  House would expect, as my right hon. Friend was not entirely satisfied some months ago things have happened in the meantime and we have advanced quite a substantial way.
  I particularly want to emphasise that I cannot go with the hon. Member in suggesting that it is for the Gas Council to set up a medical service for the industry. It is not their job. It is a matter far more for each area board to do for itself. They are quite big enough areas and each have their separate problems and their separate geographical considerations. It is far better for them to use the benefit of their local experience of local conditions as to what are the best means of providing the most efficient and comprehensive service in their own areas than to try to set out a blueprint to be applied to one and all irrespective of local conditions.
  That is the way in which the matter has grown up from the beginning. I entirely agree and emphasise that matters of health and welfare are of fundamental importance to the labour relations in any industry. It is a very happy fact that in the gas industry in particular during over a century in which it has been running there have been as happy labour relations as can be found in any industry in the country. If there had been unsatisfactory health and welfare conditions in that industry we would not have had that experience in labour relations. It cannot be so bad when one remembers that in one board, the North Thames Gas Board, they have an average at any given time of 7,000 men with over 25 years' experience of their job and some with over 40 years' experience with the Board. That shows that it is not an industry on which one need embark in any alarmist way. I am not suggesting that the hon. Member was alarmist, but this does not call for any violent or drastic state of alarm.
  Mr. Swingler: That is a very good board.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I quite agree, but in boards which have inherited companies with similar experience we have similar results. The North Thames Gas Board substantially represents the area which was worked by the Gas Light and Coke Company prior to nationalisation, and for many years that company had

  187
  a full time medical staff. There is no doubt that that has been exceedingly beneficial to the North Thames Gas Board who inherited that staff and made use of it and still have the same people, as well as others, employed in a medical capacity in the work of the board. So also did the South Metropolitan Gas Company and the Wandsworth Gas Company have medical staffs for many years, and the South Eastern Area Board have had the benefit of inheriting that personnel and have the tradition of a permanent medical service which is a very good thing and has done exceedingly good work.
  Later, in 1948, the City of Birmingham took the same point of view, as gradually the same idea of a permanent medical service spread among the larger undertakings, and they appointed a permanent medical officer who was inherited by the West Midlands Gas Board. Generally speaking, the argument of the industry was that it consisted of small and scattered undertakings from whom experience had shown or tradition had set up the belief that it was better that the health and welfare, as opposed to the safety of the employee, could be looked after by local arrangements with local doctors rather than having a permanent medical staff.
  That was the line at the time when the industry came under nationalisation—the gradual development towards the ideal which probably had been set up by the Gas Light and Coke Company. But there was a substantial change in those developments at the time of nationalisation because the Government of the day appointed a committee on industrial health services—the Dale Committee— and very shortly after its appointment in June, 1949, the then Prime Minister announced that, pending the report of the Committee, which might have very important and widespread recommendations to make, development in industrial medical services should be held up. In consequence of that little if any progress was made in the gas industry at any rate —and that is the only industry I am talking about—with regard to the development of an industrial medical service.
  The Committee reported, and in February, 1951, the ban was removed by the then Prime Minister. The Minister of
  188
  Labour subsequently referred the recommendations of the Committee to the National Joint Advisory Council in order to obtain their views on specific recommendations. Replies have now been received from the British Employers' Federation and from each of the nationalised industries. We have not yet received a reply from the T.U.C. Consequently action on those specific recommendations cannot be taken.
  In the meantime, in the gas industry, and so far as we are concerned, we are determined to progress. It is perfectly true that some of the boards concerned are reluctant, or have been in the past for many good reasons. One is the question of expense, because the setting up of these medical services is a pretty costly business. Another is that in the interval they have been exceedingly heavily occupied in re-organisation in general, in setting about consolidating the businesses they have taken over, in standardisation, in the elimination of the old and smaller concerns, the introduction of gas grids and gas mains, and matters of that sort.
  I do not think, nor does my right hon. Friend think, that there is a case for directions. If you are to have a successful permanent medical service, you have to carry the industry with you—and both sides of the industry at that. Progress has been made. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Scottish Board. He will be glad to know that the Scottish Board has agreed to a permanent medical service. The Gas Council as a council has agreed. They are in line with the views of the hon. Gentleman which are shared by my right hon. Friend. Some boards are in a special category. I am expressing a purely personal opinion when I say I do not think it will ever be the best thing for the Wales Gas Board to have a permanent medical service. They have a very different set up and different problems. The Northern Board has different circumstances; for instance more than half its gas it does not make itself.
  By and large it is reasonable to expect that the remaining boards will be taking action, and there are three reasons for that. First, as the House knows, the members of the Gas Council are chairmen of the boards, and therefore each board will have at any rate one advocate for a permanent service in its chairman

  189
  because, as a member of the Gas Council, he will be in agreement with the principle.
  Secondly, the boards know my right hon. Friend's views, and if there should be any doubt about them, what I have said tonight will probably confirm his views to the boards. Thirdly, the Ministry of Labour Chief Medical Inspector, who has been in touch with the Gas Council upon these problems, is at the disposal of the boards, and is prepared to get in touch with them and to give them all the help, advice and guidance he can to help to meet their special problems and devise the scheme which is most suited to their particular circumstances.
  190
  Therefore, in the light of those facts, and having regard to the progress which has been made, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel that my right hon. Friend's statement in his letter some months ago has been without effect. We have made progress. We have achieved a considerable step towards getting a permanent medical service for the gas industry. We believe that it is a good thing, and we hope very much that it will now not be long before the best and most effective medical service is available to the industry.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SUGGESTED INQUIRY)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SUGGESTED INQUIRY)
HOUSING
  Unfit Dwellings
  Unfit Dwellings
  Brick Supplies, Dagenham
  Brick Supplies, Dagenham
  MINERS' HOSTEL, YSTRAD MYNACH
  MINERS' HOSTEL, YSTRAD MYNACH
SCOTLAND
  New Housing Sites (Agricultural Land)
  New Housing Sites (Agricultural Land)
  Harvest Workers
  Harvest Workers
  Shetland Herring (Sale)
  Shetland Herring (Sale)
  Health Service Committee (Highlands and Islands)
  Health Service Committee (Highlands and Islands)
  Quarrying, Edinburgh (Inquiry)
  Quarrying, Edinburgh (Inquiry)
BRITISH ARMY
  B.C.G. Vaccine
  B.C.G. Vaccine
  Uniforms (Coronation Day Damage)
  Uniforms (Coronation Day Damage)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Horticultural Tariffs
  Horticultural Tariffs
  New Industries, Aberdeen
  New Industries, Aberdeen
NATIONAL FINANCE
  American-style Comics (Matrices)
  American-style Comics (Matrices)
  Sports (Tax Revenue)
  Sports (Tax Revenue)
  Overseas Mail (Customs Examination)
  Overseas Mail (Customs Examination)
  Theatrical Profession (Income Tax Collection)
  Theatrical Profession (Income Tax Collection)
COAL
  Output and Exports
  Output and Exports
  Fuel Returns
  Fuel Returns
  ROADS, STAFFORDSHIRE (MAINTENANCE GRANT)
  ROADS, STAFFORDSHIRE (MAINTENANCE GRANT)
  CHEMICAL DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENT, PORTON (FATALITY)
  CHEMICAL DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENT, PORTON (FATALITY)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  B.B.C. Programmes (Economies)
  B.B.C. Programmes (Economies)
  Television Transmitters (Lease)
  Television Transmitters (Lease)
  TELEPHONES, MORPETH AREA
  TELEPHONES, MORPETH AREA
AGRICULTURE
  Beef Cattle (Subsidy)
  Beef Cattle (Subsidy)
  Common Land, Gloucestershire
  Common Land, Gloucestershire
  Grassland (Fertiliser Grants)
  Grassland (Fertiliser Grants)
  Gorse (Burning)
  Gorse (Burning)
  Labour Force
  Labour Force
KENYA
  Land Occupancy
  Land Occupancy
  Newspapers, Printing Presses and Schools (Suppression)
  Newspapers, Printing Presses and Schools (Suppression)
  Home Guard Posts (Defence)
  Home Guard Posts (Defence)
  KUALA LUMPUR (FRANCHISE)
  KUALA LUMPUR (FRANCHISE)
  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN (ASSISTANCE GRANTS)
  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN (ASSISTANCE GRANTS)

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun and Coronation Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Somers—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to he proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 2a, and committed.
WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
TROOPING THE COLOUR
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have been asked to inform your Lordships at very short notice that in connection with the Trooping the Colour, seats in covered stands surrounding the Victoria Memorial in front of Buckingham Palace may be purchased by Peers for the sum of 10s. each, to view the procession to and from the parade. Applications should be made to the Private Secretary of the Lord Chancellor. As time is short, Peers arerequested to call at the Lord Chancellor's Office to collect and pay for their tickets.

NATIONAL SERVICEMEN AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
2.36 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether under present arrangements National Servicemen who after completing their full-time service, develop conscientious objections to military service are, when called up for part-time service, sentenced to imprisonment before their objections can be considered by the Advisory Tribunal.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will be aware from recent correspondence which we have had together that the position is, broadly speaking, as stated in his Question; that is to say, Parliament has made no provision for access to a tribunal by National Servicemen who, after completing their full-time service, claim to have developed conscientious objections to military service. By an administrative arrangement, however, men in this position are allowed to apply to the Appellate Tribunal established by the National Service Acts, but only when they are undergoing court martial sentence with not less than three months' imprisonment imposed for an offence believed to arise out of their conscientious objections. This condition corresponds to the provisions made in Section 21 of the National Service Act, 1948, for men who claim a conscientious objection before call-up, but whose plea has been rejected by a tribunal. As the noble Lord will also be aware, the Service Ministers and I have carefully considered this problem, and we have reached the conclusion, which has been publicly announced in reply to a Question in another place, that there are good grounds for maintaining the present arrangements.
LORD CHORLEY: While thanking the noble and gallant Earl for his reply, I should like to remind him of the correspondence to which he has just referred relating to the case of Brian Jupp. This young man is a London graduate of ability, on whose university training substantial sums have been spent, and who, as the noble and gallant Earl knows, was kept in prison for a period of not less than ten weeks, during which period the community was deprived of the value of his services, at a difficult time, when everybody ought to be pulling his weight. Does not the noble and gallant Earl think

729
that the procedure which he has just outlined to the House is, in these circumstances, unjust and contrary to the national interest?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, I do not think the procedure is unjust, but I feel it is regrettable that such a long time has elapsed before the young man referred to has been able to appeal. However, I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to k now that in future when a tribunal upholds a man's plea the reviewing authority will he instructed to remit the balance of the sentence, and the appellant will be discharged forthwith.

THE DRUG TARIFF
2.40 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any progress has been made in the conversations upon the drug tariff which were stated in the House on 4th of March to be taking place, and if they have anything to report.]
The EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the arrangements which were stated to be under consideration have now been completed, and the chemists' representatives were advised in March last. The effect is that from 1st April last payment is being made for certain borderline items which just fail to meet Tariff requirements. The arrangements will ensure that most reasonable items are covered. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health is proposing to draw doctors' attention to the new provisions and to ask them to prescribe accordingly.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his answer. I know that the National Pharmacists' Union are very happy with the results. However, I should like to ask the Government to bear in mind that human inventiveness is never ceasing, and that the chemists are perhaps not very well placed for their own defence; and to consider whether the conversations now so happily ended may not be renewed, as circumstances demand, in the happy atmosphere now created.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am certain that my right honourable friend would like to carry on this policy, and I shall certainly draw his attention to the remarks of the noble Lord.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (REAR LIGHTS) BILL
2.43 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Reflectors to be carried by vehicles at night
(8) This section shall come into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (3) to omit all words after "on," and to insert:
"such date not earlier than the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, as the Minister may by order made by statutory instrument prescribe."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting this and other Amendments on the Order Paper, I feel that I should offer the most sincere and humble apologies to your Lordships for not having been present at an earlier sage in the passage of this Bill through this House. It was through no fault of my own: I had to be abroad at an international conference, where I had the honour to represent this country, and it was quite impossible for me to attend your Lordships' House.
With the objects of this Bill, naturally, every one of us must be in sympathy, but it is a remarkable fact that neither in another place nor in this House have any figures been given to justify the introduction of this measure into either House of Parliament. The noble Lord who has moved the Report stage of this Bill has not felt able so far to give us any figures to indicate the extent of the danger which presumably this Bill seeks to remove. I studied the Hansard Report of the debates in another place, both on Committee stage, and on Report and Third Reading, and I have been able to discover no figures. In another place the discussion centred largely on the danger caused by commercial vehicles. With all that I have the greatest possible sympathy, and there is everything to be said for this Bill. I am trying to help the discussion a little by indicating my attitude, and in

731
my remarks on my further Amendments I shall endeavour not to repeat what I have already said.
The only figures that have been given to us to justify this Bill are those given by the Road Research Board and the Ministry of Transport Return of Accidents for 1951. The Road Research Board tell us that there have been 3,400 cases of personal injury in a year due to inadequate or inefficient rear lights. But what they do not tell us is that nearly half of those casualties concerned pedal cyclists, and not motor vehicles at all. As a matter of fact, to the best of my information the casualties due to motor vehicles having inadequate or inefficient rear lights were about 1,750 in a year. That is a terrible figure, but we have to remember the enormous number of motor vehicles on the roads—upwards of 5 million to-day, and growing at a rate of roughly 300,000 a year.
The Ministry of Transport Road Accidents Return gives quite a different picture. That Return states that in one year there were 690 accidents where there was either an inadequate light or no light at all, and that 107 private cars, 41 motor cyclists, 210 goods vehicles, 46 unknown mechanically propelled vehicles and 200 pedal cyclists were involved. That, according to one Government Department, is the extent of the menace to be removed by this Bill. Only 107 private cars were involved, yet it is now proposed to make cars carry two rear lights. To-day, so far as I know, all new cars produced have two rear lights, yet it is proposed to make all cars on the roads—many of them owned and used by people of very slender means—carry two rear lights. It will put owners to a good deal of expense—and the numbers involved run literally into millions. Of the 5 million vehicles on the roads, it is probably true to say that at least 3 million will be affected by this Bill. The figure may be larger than that, but I want to be on the safe side.
The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, in charge of the Bill in your Lordships' House on behalf of the Government, was a member of the Alness Committee. I always regard the Alness Committee as the finest Committee that was ever set up to deal with anything to do with the motoring world. They examined with the greatest possible care every argument that could be put forward on any topic connec-
732
ted with road safety, or any other problem connected with the motoring world. I always take off my hat to the Alness Committee and every one of its members. As a matter of fact, I had the honour to appear before them and to be questioned by them, and they were absolutely first-class. What they did not know, at the end of their deliberations on this matter, about road safety and everything associated with it was not worth knowing. The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, was a member of the Alness Committee, and he will know that they made no recommendation to the effect that motor vehicles should have two reflectors. Your Lordships will be aware that, as I have said, every motor vehicle produced to-day is provided with two rear lights. But the Bill goes further than that. Incidentally, on this question of rear lights I should like to point out that nowhere in the Bill is there any mention of whether the rear lights should bewired up in parallel or in series. That is a point which perhaps could be dealt with by administrative means, but it would certainly make a considerable difference.
I have just said that the Bill goes further than providing for two rear lights. It goes on to tell all motorists that they should have reflectors as well as lights on the back of their motor vehicles. Well, my Lords, we have had experience of reflectors, and we know that, like lights, they are liable to be covered by mud and dust. We know that we have an enthusiastic police force in every county in the British Isles. We know, further, how easy it is for the police to bring a successful prosecution against a person because his rear light is covered with mud or dust. That, of course, can also happen in connection with these reflectors. We know that reflectors fitted to bicycles were no good at all; we know that reflectors fitted to any sort of vehicle are perfectly useless under ordinary conditions where you have lights meeting you, and so on. Nothing is really a substitute for a rear light. So much for the Alness Committee. They made, as I say, no recommendation that we should have reflectors, though they did say that we should have two rear lights.
Then came the Metropolitan Police Report on Road Accidents in 1951, which made no mention of any trouble arising from the absence or inadequacy of rear lights. It seems to me that, before we go to the extent of passing legislation

733
through Parliament in order to compel the use of rear lights and reflectors, we ought to be assured that the need is there. I agree that 1,750 accidents from this cause is a very serious figure, and one that should certainly receive attention; but are we really going the right way about it? I am sure that everyone with experience of roads in this country will agree that the lighting of commercial vehicles leaves very much to he desired and that many accidents have occurred from this cause. We all know the difficulties which arise, especially when overtaking a vehicle, through inadequate rear lighting of lorries. On the other hand it seems to me—and other noble Lords may have had the same experience—that about the best-seen object on the road at night is a pair of nylon stockings. Perhaps we might take that idea alittle further, and provide that, in addition to their lights, commercial vehicles should have the back painted a light colour, preferably white. That would certainly be doing something to improve road conditions at night. Before we pass this Bill we ought to be satisfied by those who are behind it that it meets the need. No doubt they can produce figures which would show that. We must remember that it places an expenditure which is estimated by the Road Research Board at 15s. on the owner of every motor vehicle not already fitted with two rear lights. Fifteen shillings may sound very little to many of your Lordships, but it is a very appreciable sum to a good many vehicle owners, who are already paying a high rate of taxation for having the vehicle on theroads at all. Do not let us delude ourselves into the thought that motor vehicles are to-day the preserve of the rich man: they are not. In many cases they are owned by wage earners, and one is delighted that that is so; it is good that people should be able to get out and enjoy the countryside. But this 15s. will mean art extra burden for them to bear—and this in days of continually rising prices.
The effect of this Amendment is to postpone until 1956 the coming into operation of the Act, and to leave it to the Minister to prescribe the actual date it shall come into full operation. The reason I have put down the Amendment is that I want to give all concerned a little further time to think over the matter. I am thinking of the Minister and the authorities
734
who will be concerned. I believe that we shall have to give attention to commercial vehicles and to pedal cyclists. We shall not solve this problem by telling two or three million motor car owners that they must find, according to the Road Research Board (and I think the Road Research Board are optimistic in their figure), a further 15s. I think the figure is likely to be greater. I should like to see a delay imposed so that the Minister, the Research Board, the police and other parties—who perhaps so far have given little enough attention to the problem—may have time to think about it. Above all, I beg that the Government will bear in mind that no case has been made out, in either House, for this Bill. It has obviously been regarded by those behind it as necessary, but I do not think they have made out a case. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will give careful consideration to the arguments I have submitted and that he will demonstrate to us, if he can, that it is really necessary to have this Bill, and that it is necessary to have it at the present moment. I hope that, even at this eleventh hour, it may be possible to provide for the delay which I suggest in this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("on") to end of line 2, and insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)
2.50 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not go into all the points which he made in moving this Amendment. I am sorry he was not here when we had the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill, because had he been here then he would now be aware that at least one of the points which he complains has not been dealt with was in fact dealt with. He said that no figures had been given in either House to justify this measure. May I point out to the noble Earl that on May 7, in the debate on the Second Reading, I used these words (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 182, Col. 336):
"But when I tell your Lordships that research has shown that some 3,400 casualties a year are caused, in whole or in part, by inadequate tail lights or rear lighting of road vehicles, your Lordships may think it right to give your support to a measure which I do not say will eliminate all these accidents but certainly will tend to decrease them."

735
That is what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill; and that is, in the main, its justification. It will, of course, cost people who own cars a little extra to put on a second light. The noble Earl is quite right: new cars nearly always have two red rear lights, but the cost of fitting the extra light to other vehicles has been estimated at about 15s. That is somewhat less than what one would now have to pay for four gallons of petrol. I do not think it is unreasonable, when accidents are being caused by lack of rear lights—accidents which may affect not only the back of the car which has not got them but also the front of a car which drives into another car which has not got them, and which, moreover, may well injure the drivers or these people who have to pay this extra 15s. I submit that it is a good insurance for them, an insurance that they ought to be willing, if they own a car, to undertake for the benefit of their fellow road users.
After those preliminary matters, may I come to the noble Earl's Amendment? In the Bill as it stands, the provision requiring the reflectors on the back of the car is to come into operation on the first day of October, 1954. The Motor Manufacturers' Association have agreed that there are plenty of these reflectors, and cars can all be fitted by that date. The principal users' organisations, through the Standing Committee of the A.A., the R.A.C. and the Scottish R.A.C., have all agreed that that is a suitable date, and so the point of the noble Earl's Amendment would be merely to defer something which it seems to me should not be deferred if it is going to prevent some of these accidents on the roads. It can be done by this time: fitting two red rear reflectors on the car does not take long. It will not cost much and if it is going to save some of these appalling road casualties on our roads, I ask your Lordships not to defer the date on which it shall come into operation.
3.3 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I think there is something to be said for the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved. On the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that I thought this was a piece of legislation which was not properly conceived and which only added confusion to an already confused
736
Statute, the Statute controlling the behaviour and use of vehicles upon the roads. On Second Reading I ventured to suggest that one of the causes of accidents, of collision through bad rear lighting, was not the design of the lighting on a motor car at the present time but the fact that the lighting regulations were not properly enforced. I ventured also to say that we should soon get to the stage of having motor vehicles dazzling from the rear with red lights as much as we are dazzled in the front with white lights. We support the Bill, as I said then, on the ground that anything that will mitigate road accidents should be supported. The toll is desperate, and it is growing. But let this be said: if this added legislation is not enforced with any greater strictness than the existing legislation regarding vehicle lighting, it will be an abject failure.
One of the things that I have always protested against—I think I can use the same language again—is cluttering up the Statutes with more regulations, when those already on the Statute Book are not enforced. One has only to drive along the main roads of this country to-day to see old and dilapidated vehicles with hardly any rear lights at all. I cited a case in your Lordships' House where I followed an old and dilapidated commercial vehicle for many miles. When it pulled up in a market place, I went to examine the rear light because I had not seen it. I found that the connection was hanging down; it was covered in mud, and must have been hanging down for years. If these reflectors, which will get mud-bespattered and dusty, are left in this condition, or if the lights are left as they are at the present time, this Bill will not do very much good.
My other criticism of the Bill is that it does not deal sufficiently with the greatest menace on the roads at night, the commercial vehicle with the unwieldy load, the overhanging load, the 60 ft. vehicle. I am sorry that the noble and gallant Earl, the Minister of Defence, and the noble and gallant Lord, the Secretary of State for Air, are not here; they are two of the biggest culprits in the matter of having huge and unwieldy loads carried along at night without proper illumination, not only for the rear but for the side as well. This Bill does hardly anything to mitigate that danger. I feel, therefore,

737
that there is something to be said for the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved. If it is desired to reduce the number of accidents caused by bad rear illumination of vehicles, you will go a long way to stop it by a greater enforcement of the law as it stands to-day without, as the noble Earl has said, causing these hundreds of thousands of vehicles to have two rear lights and two rear reflectors.
However, on balance, if we are to have this provision in, we may as well bring it in at the date of the Bill. Noble Lords on this side of the House will support the Bill, and I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment, because we should find ourselves in the position of supporting the Bill as it stands. I think those responsible will have a great deal of difficulty in enforcing this provision. I think there will be a great deal of difficulty in getting the reflectors on to these vehicles in time, and therefore the Minister may need to nave second thoughts at some future time and may have to bring in a regulation to postpone the date. But I agree with what the noble Earl has said: that this provision will not help to reduce the number of road accidents caused by had rear lighting unless it is enforced more strictly than the existing law is to-day.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, not often do I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but this time I can hardly agree with one single word he has said. I believe that the rear reflectors are a very good additional factor for safety. I see no reason at all for putting off for two years any factor of safety, anything that is going to reduce accidents on our roads. I hope that he will not press his first Amendment. As everybody seems to be dealing with his Second Amendment at the same time, may I just say, particularly in relation to what the noble Earl said about reflectors, that I cannot agree, I have just come back from a fortnight in Germany, where I drove something like 1,500 miles, a great many of them at night. Every commercial vehicle had not only two reflectors at the back but also a swinging reflector, which hung under the chassis on a strip of metal and swung from side to side, according to the movement of the vehicle. One might miss all the other reflectors; one might miss the tail light,
738
but that swinging light caught the eye at once. I must admit that I saw one or two vehicles without tail lights, but the reflectors were such that I saw them every time. I hope that the use of two reflectors will be made compulsory, that the tail lights will be made compulsory, and that this will be in 1954 and not in 1956.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to what has been said. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has already said, everything depends upon the enforcement of the law. It is perfectly true that to-day the law is really not enforced. I imagine that the unfortunate police forces of the country, under strength, as we know they are in many areas, are probably finding it very difficult to send their officers out on to the roads at night. That may be one reason—I do not know. But whatever the reason, there is a general lack of enforcement of the law. The Road Research Board have issued what is called Technical Paper No. 25, of which no doubt the noble Lord has a copy, in which there is a picture of a motor car with a completely inadequate rear lighting system. That is very carefully gone into on page 6 of that document. There is no doubt that if the law were enforced conditions would be a good deal better than they are. But page 18 of the same document, the Road Research Technical Paper No. 25, recites that 80 per cent. of the cycles, and 60 per cent. of the commercial vehicles, on the road had rear lights of less than one-tenth of the light considered to be necessary for efficient lighting. That is under the present system. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin said, in the few remarks which he made to us, that he would not guarantee that this Bill will prevent all accidents of this sort at night. It will not—that we know perfectly well. This is only tinkering with the thing. There are already 3,000 offences that every one of us can commit on the highway. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has thought of that. I hope he will not himself suffer under this by committing the 3,001st.
There it is. I hold very strongly the view that this Bill merely tinkers with the problem. The problem is a far bigger one than can be solved by this

739
Bill. I am afraid that by Parliament's passing this Bill people will get the idea that things are going to be all for the best on the roads; that they have done quite a lot. There is only one thing that will make things better on the roads of this country and reduce casualties. Every one of your Lordships who has experience knows perfectly well that it is the fact that we have got to improve the roads of this country. Chief constables have written to me about roads in this country which they call death traps, yet nothing is done. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said he would support anything which would reduce the ghastly toll of the roads. I hope that we shall get a lot of support from him when pressing for a real road system, in which I know he is interested from the point of view of the great association to which he belongs. I have listened to what was said. I do not know whether it would be the wish of your Lordships that this Bill should come into operation on the day indicated in the Bill, but so far the weight of speakers has been against me and perhaps I had better withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Increase in number of rear red lights to be carried by vehicles at night]:
3.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, before moving the first Amendment standing in my name, I should like to repeat what I said at an earlier stage of this Bill—namely, that Her Majesty's Government are in sympathy with the Bill and accord to it complete support. It was good of Lord Howe to refer to my membership of the Alness Committee, but he was quite wrong in assuming that I had official charge of this Bill, which, as it is a Private Member's Bill, is entirely in the hands of Lord Llewellin. This Amendment is consequential on the proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 4. The words proposed to be left out authorise the front light and the rear light required to be carried on the nearside of motorcycle side-cars and on some horse-drawn vehicles to be combined, and will be unnecessary if, as a result of the new clause, general provision is made authorising the combination of separate lamps when a single lamp will fulfil all
740
the statutory requirements. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, leave out from ("carried") to end of line 6 on page 4.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as I understand it, when this House put in an Amendment that where a motorcycle had to carry a light shining white in front and red to the rear, it was intended that that light need not be two separate lamps but could be one lamp, so long as provision was made for it to shine white in front and red rearward. As I understand it, it was then felt that there were other classes of vehicles to which that could equally apply—everybody thought we had made such a sensible Amendment that the provision ought to be made more general. I gather that that is the purpose of the Amendment which the noble Earl will move later. Just as he, quite rightly, told the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I was in charge of this Bill and not he, it is equally clear that the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, is in charge of these Amendments and not I. As the noble Lord responsible for this Bill, all I say is that I am very ready to accept them all and to thank the Ministry of Transport for their energy in this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Rear lights on vehicles with projecting or overhanging loads]:
3.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, like the last Amendment this Amendment is consequential upon the proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 4. The subsection proposed to be left out authorises the lamps required to mark loads projecting to the rear or laterally to be combined with other lamps. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question before we agree to this Amendment? I gather that it is a consequential Amendment that comes before the new clause. Am I to understand that the new clause will enable the Minister to make regulations affecting the lighting of road

741
vehicles with which Clause 3 deals? Clause 3 (1) states:
"Where a vehicle on a road during the hours of darkness carries a load projecting to the rear more than three and a half feet behind its tail light, it shall carry a rear lamp in such a position that no part of the load projects to the rear more than three and a half feet behind that rear lamp."
That is the type of vehicle in which I am interested, because the load may project more than three and a half feet; there are cases in which it may project fifteen feet or sixteen feet aft of the standard rear light. Do I understand that the new clause will give the Minister power to propose regulations not only to have a rear light on that projecting load but also to have lights along the side of it to show the length of the overhang from the vehicle?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I am afraid I do not quite understand the noble Lord's point. What does he mean by lights down the side of the vehicle as well as at the rear? I do not quite follow him, I am afraid.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, as I understood the noble Earl, when he gave his explanation he said that the lights could be not only the statutory rear light but also lights that showed the length of the projection. These vehicles have got to carry two red lights—the standard red light on the vehicle and the standard red light at the end of the projection. My question is with regard to the placing of lights on either side of the projection. Will the Minister have power, under the new clause, to enforce such illumination?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I understand that the light is on the end of the projection; it will not show the length of the load.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Does that mean that the Minister has no power under the new clause to put forward a regulation which will ensure that the length of the projection is illuminated?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I am not quite clear on that point, and I should not like to give an answer at random now. I will look into the matter and let the noble Lord have an answer later.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name. Like the two previous deletions, this Amendment is consequential on the proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 4. The subsection proposed to be left out would have amended a prevision of the 1927 Act dealing with lamps on some horse-drawn vehicles showing both to the front and to the rear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, leave out subsection (6).—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Multi-purpose lamps
".—(1) Nothing in the principal Act or this Act shall require a vehicle to carry separate lamps for different purposes, if it carries a lamp satisfying all the requirements which would be applicable to separate lamps carried by it for those purposes.
(2) The Minister's power to make regulations as to the position in which lamps carried for the purpose of subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act are to be attached to the vehicle shall include power to make special provision, as respects any class or description of vehicle, as to the position in which a lamp carried for the purposes both of paragraph (a) and of paragraph (b) of that subsection is to be attached; and in a case for which special provision is so made the reference in the foregoing subsection to the requirements which would be applicable to separate lamps shall not include the requirements of any regulations as to the position of a separate lamp carried for the purposes of the said paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) Paragraph (i) of section six of the principal Act is hereby repealed.
(4) This section shall came into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-four."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will move this next Amendment as briefly as I can. This new clause has become necessary because, in the course of examining the consequences of the Bill, a larger number of cases than expected were encountered where the combination of lamps fulfilling different purposes into single units would be desirable when the provisions come into operation. The principal Act, as well as this Bill, had previously referred

743
specifically to a few individual cases of such combination. Subsection (1) now provides in general terms that separate lamps need not be carried for different purposes where a single lamp would satisfy all the requirements of the Act for these different purposes. It thus supersedes provisions contained in the 1927 Act and in the Bill authorising combined purpose lamps in certain specific cases only—that is to say on some horse-drawn vehicles, motor-bicycle sidecars and projecting and overhanging loads.
Subsection (2) provides that, as regards any class or description of vehicle, where a combined lamp cannot comply as to position with the ordinary requirements for such lamps, and the Minister considers that in that instance special provision for a combined lamp is desirable, he may make separate regulations as to its position which could for it replace the general ones. This power might be exercised in the case of such vehicles as agricultural tractors and agricultural trailers and other vehicles of specialised design which are not ordinarily used on roads at night to any great extent. Subsection (3) makes an amendment in the principal Act which is consequential on the powers conferred by subsection (1) of the clause. Subsection (4) provides for the clause to come into operation on October 1, 1954, which is the same date as is contained in Clause 1, which deals with reflectors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name. It is a further consequential Amendment following on the new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("section one, two or three") and insert ("any section").—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.28 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:
Interpretation
".In this Act the word "vehicle" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods or a trailer so constructed or adapted."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to limit the scope of the Bill to commercial vehicles. Many of the arguments which can be advanced on this question have already been mentioned by me to your Lordships, and I trust that you will forgive me if I repeat myself to this extent. The main trouble on the roads of this country at night arises from the commercial vehicle and from the cyclist. A large porportion of the casualties referred to by Lord Llewellin—though he did not tell us this at any stage of the Bill—are due to cyclists, that is to say to the bad lighting of bicycles. They are not due to the bad lighting of motor cars. If we mean business, we ought to deal with the bicycle and the commercial vehicle. I have already ventured to submit that to tell some 3 million motor car owners that they must go to the trouble and expense—it may be nothing to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, but it is a considerable outlay for many of the smaller people, owners of old and second-hand cars and the like—of having a second rear light and reflectors fitted to their cars is not going to make them thank the noble Lord for his effort in bringing them under this Bill.
On the other hand, there is no doubt—and this can be borne out by anyone who has experience in these matters—that commercial vehicles using the roads of this country are not adequately lighted at the present time. I do not know whether any of your Lordships are in the habit of passing along A.5. That is the main road between the docks and the Midlands, and if your Lordships will traverse it at about three o'clock in the morning you will be able to realise what the rear lighting problem is in this country. I suggest that if under this Bill we can get the commercial vehicle properly lit, we shall go a long way towards achieving the result at which the Bill aims. I should have liked to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, a word as to the Government's attitude with regard not only to this matter but to the previous one, but it seems that I am unlucky, because the noble Earl has vanished. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am sorry, but I am afraid I cannot accept on

745
behalf of the promoters of the Bill the suggestion made by the noble Earl. His Amendment would mean that these improvements would be made to goods vehicles only and would exclude all types of passenger vehicle, including tractors; and these extra lighting facilities are as necessary on vehicles such as tractors as on any other type of vehicle. The noble Earl has said that he would like to hear what the Minister had to say. As my noble friend Lord Birkenhead is not here, perhaps I may be allowed to read this sentence:
"The Minister cannot accent the proposition that the additional safeguards which Clauses 1 and 2 are intended to provide should apply only in the case of goods vehicles and not in the case of tractors or passenger vehicles."
Perhaps it is appropriate that I should read that sentence, which is, as it purports to be, from a document provided to me by the Ministry. However, let me console the noble Earl. He complained about the 3,000 offences which he or I or anybody else driving a motor vehicle may commit on the road. I do not know whether any of his cars are provided with such a light, but I have a reversing white light on my car which comes on when a I reverse either by night or by day. At the present moment that is illegal. Clause 4 of the Bill will make such a light legal. As the noble Earl always has the most modern type of car, I suspect that we shall be taking away one of the offences which he, like myself, may now inadvertently commit by reversing during the hours of darkness.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I do not know whether I may say a word in reply to what has just been said by the noble Lord. I am unlucky. The noble Lord has a reversing light, but none of my cars has one. I will satisfy him there. We have had an ipse dixit from the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, but we still have not heard from the Government about this matter. I feel we might have had just a word about the Government's views, not necessarily with regard to the present but with regard to the future. When I said "commercial vehicle" I had in mind the motor coach. I am sure that noble Lords interested in agriculture will he interested to know that tractors will require two rear lights and a reflector. I do not know what the agricultural community think of this. I see the noble
746
Lord, Lord Carrington, here and he has some interest in agriculture. I do not know whether he welcomes the provision that tractors should have two rear lights and a reflector. I still have not heard the Government's view, but I am afraid I cannot say any more about the matter.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE SITUATION IN KOREA
3.35 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I desire to repeat for the information of your Lordships a statement just made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place, in answer to a group of questions about the situation in Korea. The statement is as follows:
"As the House is aware, on June 8 the Armistice Delegations at Panmunjom signed the agreement on the question of prisoners of war. This agreement followed quickly the revised proposals which were put forward by the United Nations Command on May 25 with the support of Her Majesty's Government. We are satisfied that the arrangements now agreed will ensure that no prisoner of war is repatriated by force.
"Two points of substance which were outstanding when I made my last statement on May 21 have been settled to our satisfaction. India will be invited to provide the forces to take custody of prisoners under the Neutral Repatriation Commission. Prisoners who refuse to be repatriated will not be detained beyond 120 days after they have been transferred to the custody of the Commission. The other provisions of an armistice agreement have already in the main been agreed for many months past. Thus nothing ought now to stand in the way of the conclusion of an armistice except the necessary administrative arrangements, which I trust may be soon completed.
"I will repeat again to the House what I said a month ago"—
in this context "I" means my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—

747
"upon our relations with the United States about Korea:
'The United States, as mandatory for the United Nations, has borne nineteen-twentieths of the burden in blood and treasure. The matter is not one which we have either the right or the responsibility to decide, but it is our duty, without separating ourselves from our great Ally, to express our opinion frankly and plainly to them as occasion offers.'
"This was well received in Washington and generally throughout the United States. We made a number of suggestions to the United States Government. These were most attentively considered. They were discussed on several occasions not only with our Ambassador but with representatives of the members of the British Commonwealth with combatant forces in Korea who were invited by the State Department to attend the meetings. In the result we found ourselves in complete accord on the new proposals to be made at Panmunjom. We thought it right in view of this to make public our intention to support the United States along these lines in any way that might be desirable or necessary.
"When this statement was issued, events moved rapidly to the agreement to which I have just referred. Under the decisive guidance of President Eisenhower a result has been achieved which, unless new disappointments occur, will he of high value in itself and also important in relation to the world position.
"Perhaps I may make this further observation. I do not feel that full justice has been done by us here during the last few months to the difficulties to which General Clark and General Harrison were subjected, not only by Communist obstinacy but also by the attitude of the South Korean Government under Mr. Syngman Rhee. One must remember that it was the policy of the United States to build up a strong, well-armed, efficient South Korean Army which in course of time would relieve them of the heavy burden they have been carrying. This army has for some time been a factor of growing importance. In my opinion, these Generals most faithfully sought to bring hostilities to an end in terms compatible with the honour of the Allied Powers acting under the autho-
748
rity of the United Nations, but all the time they had to consider the reactions which might occur in the powerful South Korean forces which they were creating and had to a large extent created.
"The House will recall that the draft Armistice Agreement provides for the summoning of a political conference where serious issues remain to be discussed. It would be unwise to assume that many difficulties do not lie ahead. But I feel we may regard what has happened as constituting a definite step forward towards the goal we all seek."
3.40 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating to us here the statement which has been made. We should all desire to extend our congratulations to President Eisenhower and to all those who under him have been able to bring about this happy result. We think that successive Governments in this country and in the Commonwealth, and particularly the Government of India, have made most useful contributions towards bringing this about, and we hope that this is a happy augury for our successful work together in the future. If there has been any failure to appreciate the difficulties, that failure has been dissipated by greater knowledge, and I hope that the Government will keep us fully informed of any fresh development or difficulties which may arise.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will rejoice that after complete agreement had been reached between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States the negotiations in Korea on the difficult question of the prisoners have at long last reached a conclusion, and that the way is clear to an Armistice. But we realise, as the Government statement has reminded us, that the Armistice merely gives us access to the great political difficulties that lie ahead. I am glad that the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken paid tribute to the part played by the Government of India, first, in the hard negotiations in the United Nations, and afterwards by accepting the main responsibility for the execution of the provisions with regard to the prisoners. I do not think the time has come when this House would wish

749
to debate this matter—I feel it is better to let events take their course—but at this present moment it is well that some of us should make clear that public opinion in this country would not tolerate the prospects of an Armistice and a Peace being spoiled by intransigence on the part of the Government of South Korea.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, can the noble Marquess say whether the conclusion of this Armistice terminates the state of war with China?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, so far as I know no armistice terminates a state of war. It brings to a temporary standstill—though we hope it will be permanent—the actual hostilities: no more and no less. That is what I understand to be the nature of an armistice.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, is the noble Viscount right in saying that there is a state of war with China?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What I was particularly interested to know was how it affects the commercial embargo: whether, if war ceases, commerce can resume, or whether it must await the prolonged negotiations of a Peace Treaty.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, that will be a question which we shall have to discuss when we come to the political conference to which reference was made in the statement I have already read. It must be understood what the limitations of an Armistice are, and, as I say, I understand those limitations to be the cessation of actual hostilities in the field.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes; but the reason for the embargo was that we were anxious not to supply munitions to people who were fighting us. If they have agreed to cease fighting us, is not the case for the embargo due for revision?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No. I think the noble Viscount will see this. One profoundly hopes that an Armistice will bring hostilities in Korea finally to an end. But it will be an Armistice, and therefore, it might be that hostilities will break out again before a peace has been concluded. From that point of view, the matters to which the noble Viscount is referring are not matters to be discussed under an Armistice Agreement, but under a more permanent settlement.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to ask whether it is not the case that the embargo on trade with China in strategic materials is the result of a resolution of the United Nations; and therefore would not the removal of that embargo, in any case, be a matter for the United Nations?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct in that. It may well he that that is the more appropriate machinery, rather than the political conference; but it may well be that the United Nations discussions and the political conference will go on simultaneously at, one hopes, a not too distant future date.
LORD WINSTER: But it is not an affair for unilateral action?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No, certainly not. I should just like to thank the noble Lords who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench and from the Liberal Front Bench for what they said about the situation which has now happily come about, and to say that their remarks will be gratefully received, not only by Her Majesty's Government but by the Government of India and also, I believe, in the United States.

REGISTRATION SERVICE BILL [H.L.]
3.47 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: the Amendments made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.

HISTORIC HOUSES
3.48 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the adjourned debate on the Motion of Lord Methuen, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the demolition of historic houses.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, before embarking upon, the matter under discussion, it might be as well if I were to remind your Lordships that this debate is an adjourned debate from that which took place on May 14. There is no doubt that the lack of liaison between the two Houses placed noble Lords in a very awkward and uncomfortable position,

751
and more especially the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, who initiated this debate. I feel sure that no discourtesy was intended from another place, but it certainly was a little unfortunate, to say the least of it.
Coming to the matter under discussion, I should like at once to pay my own humble tribute to the Labour Government, the last Administration, who undoubtedly foresaw the potential loss of valuable assets to the country if no action were taken in this matter. They were led by a far-sighted Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Sir Stafford Cripps, who, courageously supported by his colleagues in the Cabinet and by his Party, set up a Committee which brought out this admirable document known as the Gowers Report. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, I feel that this is a masterpiece which should serve as a model for future Reports on prospective legislation. We must also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, for raising this subject. He dealt with this matter in great detail, but both he and the Report approached this subject mainly from the point of view of preserving these units as national assets of great historical and cultural value.
These houses, with their contents and surroundings, are unique and almost unknown in any other country. They are examples of the work of some of the finest craftsmen that the world has ever known, and they represent the culture of many generations. As one witness to the Committee said,
"They constitute a national asset whose loss would be irreplaceable."
Furthermore, the Pilgrim Trust made the excellent point of the importance of preserving these houses as living entities. They said, if I may quote, quite shortly, four or five lines on page 30 of the Report:
"These houses are and always have been the homes of their owners, constructed for family life and gathering through the generations the charm and spirit associated with that peculiarly English word 'home'. They are not merely beautiful structures, but possess an indefinable atmosphere as the centres of a highly civilised home life. To convert them into mere 'show places' or to institutionalise them as museums, Government offices, hospitals, or schools, would deprive them of their intrinsic character and rob them of their 'soul'."
That is a beautiful piece of English. The Committee endorsed this point of view,
752
and I myself—most deferentially I say it—feel that the importance of this cannot be over-emphasised.
However, there is another very important reason, to my mind, why they should be preserved—and this brings me to the main point which I wish to try to place in front of your Lordships' House this evening. I propose to approach this matter from rather a different angle. It is that these houses are not just assets of great historical and cultural value but are also "centrepieces" of a way of life. Please mark that phrase. It was one which was used by Her Gracious Majesty the Queen in her broadcast to her people on the evening of her Coronation—"a way of life." These centrepieces have a definite rôle to play in the rural economy, as a hub around which the rest of the community revolves. It is not just the Chatsworths, the Holkhams, the Hatfields, marvellous though they are, but it is also the gems of small manor houses throughout the countryside and the castles in the north. They also are "centrepieces" of a way of life.
In a rural district, as many of your Lordships know only too well, leadership is essential in order to bind the people together. Largely owing to the burden of taxation, these centrepieces are fast disappearing and, what is worse, there are now fewer and fewer recognised leaders being left to function as such in their natural surroundings, for whom the local population feel a love and respect and to whom they can turn as of old in times of doubt and need. I may be wrong, but I feel very strongly that there was something of great value in the old régime which is worthy of preservation, and in some cases, if it is possible, resuscitation. In many of the houses which we are discussing dwelt families who had been brought up for generations in the traditions of service to the community, and who regarded themselves, in most cases, only as trustees of the places in which they lived and of the people who lived around that place.
In the part of the country in which I live, and from where I come, there is, I believe, a very high mode of democracy. Some people prefer to call it "benevolent paternalism." Call it what you will, a man is judged entirely by how he fulfils his place in life. A good postman is regarded as a more valuable member of

753
the community than, if I may use the Scottish term, a "bad laird." In fact, the occupant of any position is regarded as a trustee of his office or job, and he is judged by his performance in that office, he it a high one or a low one. I go further. I believe that he is grudged nothing which will enable him to carry out his duties satisfactorily, be it Rolls Royce or bicycle. To those of us who live in the country all the year round, winter and summer, it is becoming only too painfully obvious that the loss of these homes is contributing greatly to the collapse of the rural economy of which I spoke just now. This will shortly, in my humble opinion, inevitably have upon agriculture as a whole a deleterious effect which we can ill afford in these difficult times.
There is an urgent need for effective measures to be taken if the deterioration of these assets is to be prevented. The sands of time are running out. It is now or never. The National Trust are doing a noble work for which we are all deeply grateful, but it must be remembered that when this body takes over a house or a garden that subject must be endowed. Occasionally some rich benefactor, such as the Pilgrim Trust, does this, or sometimes it is the owner, if he is well enough off. But these are exceptions, and therefore the rôle of the National Trust is necessarily limited. Other useful suggestions have been made, as, for example, those made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who referred to the possible use of interest earnings from the Land Fund, amounting to about £2 million per annum. I understand that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has a very good answer to that. The noble Lord, Lord Silk in, suggested that some of these could be ploughed back towards helping to implement the recommendations of the Report.
Another suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, yet, even so, it is hard to see how Her Majesty's Government will be able to avoid having to make substantial tax concessions or grant if the need is to be met. It is non-sense to say that we cannot afford it. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, pointed out, if we can afford what he termed—and he is well qualified to know—"astronomical expenditure" upon the
754
exploitation of nuclear energy, surely we can afford to spend what would appear to be in comparison a very modest sum in giving effect to the findings of the Gowers Report. The Government must face this position realistically. It is, after all, merely a matter of the correct evaluation of assets.
When in the United States two or three years ago I was given a definition of "economy" by one whom I believe to be a very sound economist. He gave it as follows:
"Economy is not a drawing in, but is a full utilisation of every asset."
This question of preserving our country houses, I feel, is a problem for correct evaluation. I implore Her Majesty's Government, once having decided that these assets are worth saving, not to be penny wise and pound foolish. It is like the general in the battle who squanders his reserves. It is no good frittering away your resources by putting them in piecemeal. If grants or concessions of taxation are to be made, they must be sufficient to ensure the achievement of that purpose. It is true that Her Majesty's Government already contemplate making some grants, but these, most of us feel, after having had time to consider the matter, will be totally inadequate to meet the problem—and, in fact, the Minister of Works in another place has already admitted this. But at the same time, we all appreciate that, from the political point of view, such measures may not be easy to put through at this juncture.
It is right to admit, however, that it is not only a matter of money. There is also the question of finding and attracting once again the necessary domestic help to maintain these houses. Everyone knows of the difficulty of obtaining this assistance in these days. I gather that the two main reasons underlying this difficulty are, first, lack of amenities and, secondly, the feeling that it is somewhat of an unworthy profession, and a dying one at that. But if the recommendations of the Report are implemented, not only should it be possible for owners to provide better amenities but also domestic service could and might be regarded, given proper publicity, as a profession which is making a valuable contribution to the community and which once more has some future.

755
Another great difficulty seems to lie in the fact that the Gowers Report, excellent though it is in every way, will not, I fear, reach the man in the street. But I believe that if, with the help of the Press, the full facts of the case are put before the people, and the position as to what is happening clearly explained, few will grudge the expenditure of public funds in order to save one of our national heritages. In fifty years' time it will be too late; and I believe that this Administration will be sorely blamed, whether they accept blame or not. In conclusion, my Lords, how the whole problem is to be dealt with will need very careful consideration, possibly by further Committees. But with the right brains at the head, and with the help of the National Trust, which has already done so much, and above all—and I want to emphasise this—with wise and proper and comprehensive publicity, I am convinced that it can be done. But there must be no delay.
4.3 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, at the opening of this debate in May the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made an announcement of a money grant by the Government. I was sorry that that announcement was not of such a nature as to render the debate completely superfluous; but it was not. It is always ungrateful to look a gift-horse in the mouth, but the money grant offered was totally inadequate for the purpose which the mover of this debate has in mind: it was simply a four-foot plank to bridge asix-foot gap. It does not mean even first aid. The best that one can say of it is that to a certain extent it admits the principle that the Government should assist in this matter of historic houses. We must press and continue to press until they do assist in a manner which really deals with the problem. By way of contrast to the insignificant grant, the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, in moving his Motion, spoke of death duties averaging £184 million a year over three years. That enormous sum of money is spent as income by the Government—and spent, I am afraid, in very extravagant and wasteful ways. How much better it would be if a considerable proportion of
756
that enormous sum were to be spent on rescuing our historic houses from decay!
It seems to me very reprehensible that there has been no action so far upon the Gowers Report. I well understand Lord Waverley's personal interest in this matter; and undoubtedly the lady in question deserves great credit, not only for the contents of the Report but for the literary skill and style with which it is compiled. But while the Government have been vacillating about that Report sixteen historic houses have been pulled down and a hundred more are threatened. These are the fruits of three years' delay. It seems as though the Government hope that, if only they are given enough time, by the time they come to deal with the Gowers Report the problem will have solved itself. The one step which I think the Government should most certainly take without delay is to clear up the overlapping which is created by the fact that two Ministries have responsibilities in this particular matter. The resulting anomalies inevitably create delay. If the Government are really in earnest in this matter they will make this an opportunity of clearing up the situation by getting these matters into the hands of one Department, and one Department only.
The subject of our debate came very much into my mind only last week, when I was in Ely Cathedral and saw there the ravages of the death-watch beetle. But in that cathedral the problem is being tackled, and tackled very energetically. When I saw and heard about it, I thought of the photographs which have been on exhibition in the Library of your Lordships'House—a truly depressing record, and on top of that the melancholy catalogue given by Lord Methuen. One might well think that the Eastern Counties have been invaded by the Goths. These ravages go unnoticed, but think what it will mean for the future when they have reached full fruition. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, gave instances of vandalism which have been laid at the door of Corporations. With great respect to the men who compose these bodies, one must say that they are not men who should be judges in what are, after all, matters of taste. You might as well entrust Sévres porcelain to the tender mercies of Lyons waitresses. It is monstrous to let these untrained men have

757
powers. Those powers should be removed from their hands and put into the hands of people who are competent to deal with these matters.
Our country houses, as has been repeatedly said in this debate, are incomparable in the world; and it is shockingly to our discredit that we neglect them, and allow such a house as Beaupre Hall, for instance, to go to ruin rather than spend £25,000. Of course the Government ought to spend amounts like that to preserve such a building. They ought to spend £25,000 on the maintenance and repair of such a building as that. But what happens—and it seems most illogical—is that a preservation order is made. But although there is a preservation order, the house may be allowed to rot and fall down. The preservation order does not mean that any preserving is to be done. Surely, if the Government consider that a house deserves preservation they should go on and preserve it. It seems a mockery to issue a preservation order and then do literally nothing to preserve the structure.
As things are, we see works of great architectural genius falling down, collections scattered, gardens often laid out by the greatest landscape gardeners becoming a wilderness, woodlands becoming derelict. In some of these respects I am sorry to say that the War Office have been a shocking offender, or were a shocking offender during the war. Really, some of their exploits justified the old epithet about "a brutal and licentious soldiery. "The War Office could have stopped this during the war, in spite of their anxieties and preoccupations, because they had only to let it be known that sanctions would be taken against the officer responsible for the area in which such things happened, and it would have stopped overnight. But, as it is, we saw such a building as Rolls Park requisitioned by the Army. When the Army marched out, then began the interminable argument about damage. Meanwhile, the roof over the staircase fell in and dry rot appeared; there was damp everywhere; the floors became dangerous; the garden became a shambles and to-day it is used as a caravan site. That is one instance of what followed on the requisition of such beautiful structures as Rolls Park by the Army.
758
All over tile country, wherever one goes, one can find some example of history and beauty in ruins. No fewer than 160 great houses have been demolished in thirty years. The crash has come to them quickly; the crash has come to them in fifty years, after many of them had been lived in from mediæval times. Death duties, of course, have done the mischief, a mischief not stopping at the houses alone but often extending to the agriculture of the neighbourhood. Thinking of that, I should very much like to hear what is the answer to what seems to me a very sensible and fair suggestion, that equivalent duties should be charged on the sale of an estate and not upon the death of its owner, so that in that way the country house and the estate surrounding it would remain a valuable agricultural and social centre to the neighbourhood.
Something has been said about the collections in these houses. The contents of them are all too often being sold piecemeal in a desperate effort to stave off the inevitable end. I am told that that is quite all right because such things find their way to the museums for the enjoyment of all. In my experience, very few of the "all" visit museums. In any case, a setting for a great picture, for fine furniture or for beautiful porcelain is not a museum: it is a home. A museum is not the perfect setting for such things. And which of us has not suffered the agonies of fatigue in trapesing round galleries and museums? There are few things more fatiguing and I think there are few worse settings for such objects of art as those of which I am speaking than a museum. In that connection, I notice what was said in the previous day's debate by the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss and March, about the contents of houses being accepted in lieu of money for death duties. I have to confess I have never been very clear about that. Who does the valuing in such a case? That is one thing I do not know. Is a picture likely to be valued at less or at more than it would fetch if it were put up at Christie's? In any case, however these things are arranged, the picture leaves the house and so, whether the contents are accepted in lieu of money for death duties or not, the break-up of the collection is not averted.

759
I feel that this matter will never be logically handled until it is recognised that a house of the type we have in mind in this debate is, as a whole, a work of art. What is the story of such a house? A man decided to let one of the foremost architects of the day build a house for him. After the house was built, son after son made the Grand Tour. Each of those sons had a different taste. One cared for pictures, another cared for statuary, a third for books and another for porcelain. Each in turn collected something and brought it home to enrich the house. But the house never ceased to be a home. That, I think, is where there is a great distinction between the beautiful houses of this country and some of the great imposing and impressive edifices that one visits abroad. Those seem to be rather cold and formal, rather show places, whereas with us the great house has always been a home. You go into the magnificent entrance hall and you see that dishes for the dogs' dinner are on the floor; there is a Sheraton table with a litter of crops and hats lying on it. There is a smoking room with superb panelling, and probably you find a hideous pipe rack nailed on it alongside the squire's armchair. The result is in itself not only a total work of art but a home as well, such as all foreigners who see it agree is something unique.
I think these country houses and our poetry are really the two great contributions that this country has made to art, although I am bound to say that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, tried to convince us the other day that we had made a third great contribution to art in our system of taxation, which he held out to our peculiar admiration—a system of taxation which is at the root of the mischief of which we are talking to-day. I feel that is where we have to begin: with the realisation that these houses are in themselves works of art. You do not let a Rembrandt deteriorate through damp, and you would punish a man who went into a museum, took a truncheon out of his pocket and began to demolish priceless porcelain; but our country and historic houses, which are beautiful works of art, apparently may rot and moulder. Really, what is the offence that these country houses and the people who own them have committed? What, collec-
760
tively, have they done to merit such a fate as we see befalling them to-day?
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in the first day's debate made what seemed a most well-informed, broad-minder and fair-minded speech on this subject. It was at times, I thought, a little lugubrious and slightly contradictory. I do not think there would be any real difficulty, as the noble Lord seemed to fear, in deciding what we ought to preserve. There are men in this country who are perfectly competent to form a committee to decide that point. Of course, there will never be perfect agreement upon such a point, but you could reach a perfectly good and satisfactory agreement about what should be preserved. In that direction, I think that "listing" already serves a certain preliminary and useful purpose.
Again, with reference to what the noble Lord has said, for the many reasons which he gave it is quite true that not all the houses could be lived in after preservation; but many could be lived in. In any case, let people live in them for as long as they can. Do not strain too much for perfection in that matter. Do not make the best the enemy of the good. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, drew a contrast between subsidising the owners of some of these houses and subsidising food production. "Man does not live by bread alone," and, in any case, in my opinion this country can perfectly well afford to pay both forms of subsidy. I do not want to put it too highly, but I thought that the noble Lord slightly mis-stated the case when he said that we cannot tell the public that they are being taxed to enable well-off people to live in these large mansions. He also spoke of a "selected and favoured class of persons. "That is straying into a field that I do not very much care about myself; it savours a little of class prejudice. I do not think we want to bring that into this debate. In any case, the plea being made to-day is to help these particular people to some small extent to preserve what is a national asset. It is not handing them money in order to help them in the perfectly selfish enjoyment of their houses. Help is asked for to preserve a national asset. After all, if we face it, what has been done by the National Trust and what is envisaged by the Gowers

761
Report really represents a form of semi-nationalisation. So this is not entirely a case of asking for help to be used by the owners for purely selfish purposes.
LORD SILKIN: Perhaps I may just explain that I do not think I put the case quite in that way. I really put it in the way that that is how it would be seen by large numbers of people.
LORD WINSTER: Well, I think it would be seen by people very much in the light in which it was put to them. If the matter were carefully and properly explained, people would perhaps not see it in that light. But, my Lords, if you think—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin made this abundantly clear, as I shall show in a minute—that these houses should be preserved, then you have either got to help the owners to preserve them or the State must do it. I cannot see a third alternative other than to say outright that you are prepared to let them go. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has put the matter in a most fair light—I am going to quote some of the passages from his speech. He spoke of these houses as "a great heritage" and said, that it would be "deplorable if we lost" them. He said that "something must be done," that "it can only be done out of public money"; and, dealing with the point which the noble Lord has just made, he said that we should "face up to inconsistencies and criticisms."
In all those things I, as I am sure practically every speaker in this debate would, most fully agree. I think that in all those respects his speech was most fair-minded and helpful. He wound up with what seemed to me an extremely sensible suggestion—one of the best suggestions which I have seen put forward—namely, that the £2 million a year interest on the Land Fund should be devoted to these purposes. That is a most interesting alternative to the financial proposals contained in the Gowers Report, and is perhaps rather bolder.
I hope this is not irrelevant, but in conclusion I should like to stress the admiration which I am sure all your Lordships will feel for the work of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, for what is done by the Pilgrim Trust, and for what is being done by the Churches Preservation Trust. All those, bodies are helping us to maintain the beauty of the
762
buildings of this country. They are pointing the way the Government should go. If successive Governments do not go that way they will run the risk of being classified with some of the historic vandals of history, such as the men who burned the Libraries of Alexandria. I hope that now the Minister of Works has finished his arduous and most successful labours involved by the Coronation he will have the time, which of course he has not had up to date, to look at this matter of historic houses. I am sure the right course of action is, first, to put the matter entirely into the hands of one Department, with one Minister responsible for it; then to get the houses classified by a competent body so that we know exactly what it is that we have got to preserve, and then to proceed to look at the cost and to go to the very limit of what the country can afford to preserve this priceless heritage.
4.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, there is always a special interest attaching to speeches from the noble Lord who has just sat down because it is difficult to predict in advance what line he will take on any subject. But on this occasion I feel sure that all of us on this side of the House will be grateful for his speech. He referred to the statement made by the Lord Chancellor at the beginning of the earlier stage of this debate, and I also should like to refer to it, because it seems of considerable interest, not only for what it did say but for what it did not say. One cannot help wondering whether it is the Government's answer to the Cowers Report.
As an owner myself, I should perhaps declare an interest in this matter, although I have never yet received any Government assistance, and, to be quite candid, I very much doubt whether I shall receive any financial assistance under the proposed new Bill. It seems to me that under the Bill the money is to be reserved for the National Trust and the Ministry of Works. If I am mistaken, and I do get some assistance, it will all come as a pleasant surprise. Nevertheless, I would remind the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that we owners have been kept in suspense for some considerable time on this matter of the Gowers Report, and if he can add anything to-day to the statement that has been made, particularly when we have to remember that another winter's damage is coming along,

763
I am sure we shall all be very grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, and other noble Lords have said that they do not regard the amount of money that the Government contemplate devoting to this purpose as anything like sufficient to prevent houses from falling down. That may be true; nevertheless, I think that the Government, without paying out money, or even giving rebates in taxation, can take certain action which would make it very much easier than it is at present for owners to solve their own problems. I should like to suggest one or two of these solutions, in the presumption that they might be considered in connection with the proposed Bill.
Before coming, to that, perhaps I may, without wearying your Lordships, describe some of my experiences. I am the owner of two houses, both of which might be called historic and of architectural interest. One is my family home, and that I am hoping to maintain by turning it into a show house. In that field I am an entirely new boy, whereas many of your Lordships have had a long experience in it. All I would say is that it seems to me a rather speculative undertaking. I should like to say a little more about the other house, partly because it has already excited the attention of my noble friend Lord Methuen, and a photograph of it is included in the series of photographs in the Library, where it is, I think, described as a "Tudor relic of great importance. "I also want to cite the case of this house because I feel that it is typical of the sort of houses which are now creating a really serious problem. The house is named Fawsley House. It is of fair size, and its architecture ranges from the pre-Tudor to the Victorian. It has certain features which are remarked on in various architectural works. When I inherited it in 1938, it had been empty for twenty years, and its contents had been sold. Then came the war, and I suppose that this house had what was a very rare distinction, because it was somewhat improved by Army occupation. They did some repairs, and they fitted it out with some rudimentary services. When the war ended, I was again confronted with the problem of maintenance and of finding some use for the place. I tried every Government Department, local authority, voluntary and statutory organisation. I could find
764
no one interested in the house, chiefly, I think, because of the large capital cost of conversion that would have been involved. I then turned to consider commercial purposes. I went into multifarious schemes, but none of the ideas came to much, so I decided to demolish the greater part of the place, only to find that the expense of the demolition would have been more than I could afford. So I then decided to allow the place to fall down.
So far, I feel, my story is the story of a number of other owners—that is to say, they have tried desperately hard to find some use for their houses, and have failed; and they have then found the expense of keeping the roof on more than they could manage. In this case, a new idea was suggested to me: that I should put the premises to an industrial use. I joined forces with the local saw-miller. We started in a small way, but our venture has prospered. Machinery is now installed all over the house. The net result is that this house is still standing, with all its architectural features unimpaired, and it is an embellishment to the countryside, instead of the festering ruin which it would undoubtedly have become by this time, had it not been put to this industrial use. My experience with this house, and with another, which does not belong to me but with which I have been connected, leads me to regret that the Gowers Committee did not even consider the possibility of an industrial user of some of these old and historic houses. It may be that they were too horrified at the bare idea to commit it to paper. Of course, it would be horrifying if these houses could be used for other purposes; but for houses which are, so to speak, on their last legs, industrial use seems to offer great possibilities. In the first place, an industrial company usually has some money to devote to construction and reconstruction, and the amount of money necessary to convert a house of that description to industry, as compared with the amount of money necessary to save it for human habitation, is quite infinitesimal.
At one point in his speech, Lord Methuen asked me, as President of the National Federation of Housing Associations, whether I knew of any cases where large country houses had been

765
developed for the purpose of housing the aged. Of course, I do. I know of a number of houses that have been converted for that purpose. But all but two, I think, are large Victorian villas, on the outskirts of towns. It would be quite impossible to use most of the houses illustrated in the Library for the purpose of housing the aged, partly because the cost of conversion would be too high and partly because their situation is too remote to suit old people. But for industry the large size of rooms is an advantage; the services and furnishings are extremely simple, and the isolation does not seem to be a. bar, as labour, within certain limitations, seems to-day to be very mobile. Last, but not least, the workers—certainly in my industrialised house—seem rather to enjoy their novel surroundings. For these reasons, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not entirely turn down either the industrial solution or any other living use. I personally believe that in these cases a living use is almost synonymous with a paying use. If a house can be put to a paying use, the negative controls exercised under the Town and Country Planning Act make some sense, which otherwise they do not.
And now one or two words about what I believe the Government could do to assist in making these houses paying propositions. In the first place, despite the present Government's efforts to reduce controls, it is still very difficult to do anything without getting someone's permission to do it. In the case of Fawsley, we had to get permission to form a company, then planning permission to change user; then we had to negotiate the question of the development charge. We had to get a licence to use materials, and, of course, we had to get a felling licence for the timber. We had pretty good luck, but it struck me that too much depended on the general attitude of the various Ministries, and too much on the personal views of the inspectors they sent down in connection with these licences. For instance, the Board of Trade, to whom we had to apply for a building licence, were not in the least interested in old houses. They were interested in export and rearmament. They flatly refused to issue a licence, and that would have been disastrous to us but for the fact that the general
766
licensing position soon afterwards became relaxed.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Winster, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make the new Historic Houses Commission a centre to which owners of these houses can go for assistance. I hope the Government will make it possible for owners to apply to the Commission for their support in dealing with all Departments. If an owner has a novel idea for the preservation of old houses, I think he should be able to go to the Commission, explain it to them and ask for their endorsement. That endorsement being obtained, I think the various Government Departments should take account of it. I think the Commission might also collect and pass on useful information. We seem to know a great deal about houses falling down, but very little about houses that have been maintained and the methods used to save them. There may he some brilliant ideas going about, but unless one hears of them privately it is impossible to find out about them: there is no centre to which the owner can apply.
Further, I think the Commission might advise not only the Government but also owners on these thorny questions of taxation. Lord Silkin, I think, said—and I accept his phrase, which he communicated to Lord Winster—that it was not acceptable to his Party that owners should be subsidised out of taxes and enabled to live up to what might be considered—perhaps erroneously—an extravagant standard. With great respect, he seemed to me to be over-simplifying the issue. The noble Lord is a lawyer, and he knows much better than I do the vast output of effort now being devoted by his colleagues in the legal profession to advising clients how to arrange their affairs in such a manner as to attract the minimum of taxation. In fact, when the legal profession have finished with a Finance Act—if they ever do finish with it—it is not easy to tell what is public money and what is not.
This particular activity seems to have engaged the attention of the legal profession ever since the thirteenth century. As to its ethical aspect, I suppose that depends on one's political outlook. If you think that private enterprise is a sort of financial racket, I suppose you believe that owners of property and of these houses should so arrange their

767
affairs as to attract the maximum taxation. If, on the other hand, you believe—as the Gowers Committee seem to believe, and certainly I believe—that the existing owners have the greatest sentimental urge to preserve their houses, you also, I suppose, believe that preserving them through the agency of the owners demands less expenditure of public money than any other way. You will therefore view with greater sympathy the efforts of the legal profession so to arrange their clients' affairs as to attract the minimum of taxation, and I cannot see anything unethical in suggesting that this new Advisory Committee should pass on to owners any information about such devices, of course within the law, if by so doing they do not break any of the unwritten rules of the legal profession.
Further, I think this Committee might well suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer small and technical changes in the law, which I do not suppose would upset anybody very much. For example, under the Finance Act of 1945, and carried on by a Labour Government, there was a provision which enabled owners to recover tax on capital expenditure, on both agricultural and industrial buildings. But the benefits attaching to the recovery of this tax on industrial buildings are not nearly so great as the benefits on agricultural buildings. It seems possible that some change could be made here without a great upset, because it might be of material assistance to owners who desired to use their houses for industry. The one direction in which I can see no headway under existing conditions, even with all the help owners can expect from their lawyers, is in the matter of death duties. Unless the National Trust are to be subsidised to a considerable extent to enable them to take over a very large number of houses, any scheme for use by private enterprise must in time fail, unless in this respect the law is somewhat altered, because, although it is possible to put these houses on a profitable basis, the sort of profits they can make will never be sufficient to attract new capital. I confess that it is difficult to see why, if it is right to exempt chattels, the contents of these houses, from death duties, it is politically impossible to exempt the houses in which
768
these chattels are found, and possibly, also, some of the funds necessary for their maintainence.
In conclusion, if Parliament desires to see these houses preserved, the cheapest and most efficient way of doing it is through the agency of the owners. I believe that a good deal can be done in this direction without any spectacular demand on public money. If, for some complicated social reason, Parliament desires to drive owners out of their houses, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who is always an honest arguer, that a number of these houses must become ruins, either artistic or otherwise.
4.45 p.m.
EARL, BATHURST: My Lords, I also should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, for bringing this subject before your Lordships' House, and to your Lordships' interest in allowing the debate to continue for a second day after the Recess. It is most important that Lord Methuen has given us an opportunity to discuss the Gowers Report, which seems to have been so far in the background of late. With deference to what the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, had to say, surely the Gowers Report is the one Report which the average man or woman in the street really knows by name. I think there is not a single person who has a bad word for that Report, and if one mentions it as the Gowers Report people know exactly what one is talking about—except, of course, in the Printed Paper Office, where it is but one of thirty-two Reports which that distinguished Chairman has produced.
I must admit I have an interest in this subject, not only being the owner of a mansion house, so-called, but also opening it to the public. I make no bones about it. I open it partly because I think it is a duty, in view of the rising public interest in large country houses, and partly to obtain the benefit of the considerable taxation allowances given for running one's house as a business. I think all noble Lords who have spoken so far have been critical of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his £250,000 grant—whenever that may come. But, surely, this is at least a step in the right direction. He has acknowledged the need. I have no doubt that noble Lords consider it far too small. Possibly at a future date he may see some way of enlarging

769
that amount and so carrying Out the proposals which the Gowers Report has stated so fully.
The problem that must confront the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he is spending public money for the advantage of private persons. But I beg to assure him that I am satisfied that that would not be unpopular in the country to-day, and many noble Lords will agree with me. In this new Elizabethan age undoubtedly there is a tremendous new interest in the historical past of this country. I think the Report says that exactly the same phenomenon happened after the French Revolution and some of the greatest measures to preserve the French historical objets ďart were passed immediately after the Revolution. In this new Elizabethan era could not Her Majesty's Government see fit to make some great effort to preserve our country houses? I think it would be right and proper to say that the Elizabethan houses are probably those of most interest to the general public and tourists at large. These are the most difficult to maintain and the most likely to finish up first in the terrible state which the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, showed us the other day.
Suppose the time comes when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to release another 6d. from income-tax: could he not consider releasing only 5d. and with the extra penny in hand create a suitable fund which he could parcel out, with the assistance of the Committee set out under the Gowers Report, to help not only these houses but especially the cathedrals and university buildings, many of which are in an equally difficult and hopeless state of repair? I am certain the general public—the electorate, for that matter—would be behind him in doing so. In fact, is it too much to hope that after this debate Members of another place will see fit to air this whole topic even on the political platform? I am certain they will find a sympathetic audience, to whatever Party they belong.
We have this £250,000 to be spent. May I put forward this suggestion to the Minister and his advisers?—that they should consider spending this money to preserve one house during the financial year, in order that that one house will not be-
770
come a total ruin, as the photographs produced by Lord Methuen have shown is happening. If this small sum is spent piecemeal it will mean only a few more years of preservation and then the Government will have to be asked for more money, which presumably will not be available. Surely, one house well preserved would be more in keeping with the ideals of the Gowers Report and most beneficial to the Government and, the public, whose money is being spent
I suppose some justification is needed for the measure of help which we ask to be given to country houses. I should like to put before your Lordships some of the facts of the tourist trade, which is becoming a great industry, greater than ever before. I have with me the Annual Report for the year 1951—that is, the year ended March, 1952, the Festival of Britain year. It is issued by the British Travel and Holidays Association, which is under the presidency of the noble and learned Viscount, Earl Jowitt. Festival year, of course, was a bumper year for travel, as the Tourist Association admit. Yet, to their surprise, the year 1952 proved every bit as good; and this year, with the Coronation, no doubt will be even better. This Report shows that during Festival year the tourist trade earned for this country £26·35 million in dollars—that is, £6 million in dollars more than the next greatest dollar export, which is Scotch whisky. Again, apparently the tourist trade is the seventh largest export which we give to the world, amounting as it does to £103 million—that is, including the dollar part. On the other hand, I find that, for one reason or another, there is no mention of insurance in this booklet; and I am told that insurance is by far our largest dollar-earning export. However, we earn a great many dollars from the tourist trade. Furthermore, these dollars cost us nothing, except a trifling Government grant to the British Travel and Holidays Association. Unfortunately, I have no figures to prove what part the country houses play in this tourist trade, but I am assured by the Tourist Association that it is very great.
It so happened that we tried to form a trade union, as it were, of house openers to the public, and under the chairmanship of Sir Harold Wernher we had a splendid meeting in a fine West End

771
hotel. The meeting went very well until right at the end we were told that it would cost us £25 each for membership, whereupon the meeting broke up. Hence there are no figures to show what part country houses play in the tourist trade. However, the Tourist Association tell me that approximately one in every five overseas visitors who call at their fine offices in St. James's Street inquires about country houses. They have working there, answering questions about houses, three charming young ladies, who are employed full time during the season. Further, the fact that houses are being opened to the public is spreading the tourists and visitors throughout the country, instead of their "doing England," as they call it, by starting in London, going to Windsor and then straight up to Scotland. In addition, it will bring the visitor back to this country the following year.
The Association see fit to mention in their Report "Britain's Historic Homes," and I should like to read to your Lordships a short paragraph under this heading. It says:
"There is great and growing interest among overseas visitors in the ancient and historic homes of Britain, which are being opened to the public in increasing numbers. Recognising the value of these homes as a tourist attraction the Association has done everything possible to publicise them abroad, and arrangements have been made for the production of a comprehensive illustrated list twice yearly giving visitors appropriate information."
It is plain that country houses, both those that are and those that are not open to the public, are of definite interest to the overseas visitor, who makes such a great contribution to our dollar and export drive.
The subject of the income tax reliefs which have been asked for has been more than covered already in this debate, but perhaps I may add my own comment. Surely, the people of the country, the electorate, believe every bit as much now that the country house, its fabric and its contents are as much a national capital asset as the breeding of racehorses and pedigree cattle, or the replacing of machinery in industrial plant. I believe that the public are more than ready to allow such income tax advantages. The greatest assistance, of course, would be to the small country house or town house
772
owner, who, for one reason or another, has no chance of making a business success of a venture such as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Gage. But unless action is taken now, in, say, ten years' time, or possibly in twenty years' time, looking rather further ahead, there will be nothing left for the overseas visitor to see other than municipal housing units and Government offices, of which one can see too many everywhere. Any noble Lord who has had dealings with these foreign visitors knows only too well that they are not interested in municipal housing units or Government offices, of which they have just as good examples in their own country.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: And particularly visitors from the Commonwealth and Empire.
EARL BATHURST: Yes. My last plea in connection with preferential treatment for these country houses is that we should remember the noble part that they played during the war. Country houses were used as secret headquarters and their grounds as tank parks, camps and hospitals. They have honourably held and guarded those secrets right the way through. Many of us still have these valuable War Department investments right on the doorstep, and no doubt they must remain there for a considerable time to come. But I do beg that when that great day of derequisitioning comes, the Minister concerned will do everything possible to give generous and, above all, speedy compensation to the people who have these War Department installations on their premises. In the meantime, could he make some endeavour towards giving some priority to their being kept in a state of repair, especially where they are ruining an otherwise beautiful property?
5.0 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, my first duty is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for his courtesy in allowing me to take the place that was originally assigned to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who unfortunately could not stay for the debate. I cannot speak with authority as to the architectural qualities of these great houses, but I was pleased to read in the Gowers Report a description of some of them and also descriptions of what is happening to some

773
of them. I cannot speak about the matter as one who knows the houses from within, but I have been inside some of them. Long before the Gowers Report was issued, I thought that it would be a tragedy for this country if the greater part of these houses were allowed to fall into decay or to be destroyed. As a matter of fact, I understand that some of these houses were bought in order that certain people could get at the timber. I should think that the noble Earl who is the chairman of the Forestry Commission could say with authority that some of the timber which was destroyed ought to have existed for many years before it came to maturity.
In a great industrial area of somewhat rural character, we have seen how some of these great houses can be used for communal and social purposes. In my own county we have taken over several for educational purposes; and had it not been for these houses in a great industrial area like ours I do not know what would have happened, or how the council would have been able to build on the scale which was necessary to meet the needs of the county educational authorities. To-morrow, within a few miles of my own home, one of these places will be declared open as a residential college for further educational purposes. In this democratic age, if there is one thing which is necessary it is that there should be such places for the education of the adult worker. Governments need not necessarily accept all that is in the Gowers Report, or all the proposals. But, as a worker's representative for many years, I am astonished that no Governments, whether my own or any other Government, has taken action upon this matter. Of course, many of these houses could not be used for any particular purpose, except as residences; they could not be used for the kind of social purpose of which I am speaking. We, as miners, took time by the forelock and bought one of these houses, which is now being used for remedial work for men who have suffered in the mining industry. One has only to see the very fine work that is being done there to give thanks that we, have such places to fall back on for social and communal purposes.
I know that many of these houses are beautiful. My life has been spent in an industrial area, and I think I speak for
774
most of my own kind. I had a vivid experience when I left the more crowded part of the mining area to go to West Durham, and saw, almost with a shock, how one of the great landlords there had used even the soil of the mines to plant trees; and a great part of the area is now beautiful with trees. To come into that area, where the land looks lovely because it is well covered with trees, was something of a shock to me, coming from a greater and more crowded industrial area. I have said a few things in a rambling way, speaking as one who has spent his life as an industrial worker. But whether the Government agree with, the whole of the Report or only a part of it (I care not which Government it is which acts, so long as action is taken), it is certain that many of these houses can be used for social and communal purposes, for hospital work, remedial work and educational work. If the opportunity to save these beautiful places, which can be made very useful, passes by, nobody in this country will be more sorry than the average industrial worker who, in some cases, has had to spend his life within sight of these places but is, not always very familiar with them. I hope the Government will do something very soon.
5.8 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, the subject under debate has been extremely well covered last time and to-day, but there are one or two points which I should like to make, quite briefly, before the end of the debate. I have just returned from a lone lecture tour in America, lecturing upon the very subject of the historic homes of Great Britain. I cannot see how one can over-emphasise the enormous interest which is being shown in America towards these houses. There is one very important point to, remember; that is, that most of these great houses were built before 1776, and Americans, quite rightly, claim them as a part of their historical heritage. Here is a great common bond in our history which can do much to consolidate closer Anglo-American relations. These houses contribute towards Anglo-American relations and assist not only in education of our people but in teaching people from abroad the English way of life.

775
As the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, so wisely said, these houses contribute a great deal towards our dollar earnings from the tourist trade. I wish, however, that I could agree with him so much about the efforts of the British Travel Association in publicising these houses abroad. I am afraid that I have to say, from personal experience, that these houses are badly publicised in America: they are absolutely starved of all publicity material. It seems a great shame that in this year of 1953 there does not exist a single film on the stately homes of England which can be shown abroad, or even in this country, showing our people what their great heritage is. People from other countries come to England, and to London, but there is no common sign which denotes the presence off the main road of a stately home. Many of these great houses can be passed by within two or three hundred yards, simply because the visitor is not told of their existence just off the main road. For some time attention has been paid to this matter by the Automobile Association, and it has been brought by them to the attention of the Minister of Transport. I hope that the Government, through the Minister of Transport, will give this matter their urgent attention.
I know there has been a great deal of good-natured teasing from the Press on the subject of how many of us have opened our houses to the public. But it has to be borne in mind that these great mansions were built originally through the enterprise of our ancestors. They were, in fact, glorious monuments or marks of achievement, left behind by many great men who in the past have helped to guide the destinies of our Islands. Therefore, it seems right that we, their descendants, should show the same spirit of enterprise in preserving our houses as our ancestors did in building them.
Many of us have had to make great sacrifices in opening our houses to the public. I suppose that most of us would prefer to be walking round our own gardens rather than having hundreds of other people doing so; and we should prefer to be living in the houses ourselves. However, that is not an entirely new problem, and I would remind your Lordships that many of these houses have
776
been open to the public since 1800. But we feel a deep sense of responsibility that these works of art should be shown to the public. Now that we have made these sacrifices over the last generation, we feel how bitter the criticism would have been if our ancestors over the last two centuries had allowed these houses to fall into decay.
Therefore, I say to the Government, "Take courage." There is no question of losing votes over support for measures to preserve these great houses. In an ordinary year the tourist trade, which is so important, has in many ways very little to offer tourists coming from abroad. In France the chateaux have a much greater international reputation than the historical houses of Great Britain. Many people who come here, visit London to see Buckingham Palace and the Changing of the Guard, and then go on to Paris; but I am afraid that the Guardsmen cannot be regarded permanently as rivals to the Folies Bergères. Therefore, I ask Her Majesty's Government to do all they can in the way of propaganda to make these houses known, not only in America but throughout the world.
5.13 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, I am sure that we are all obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, for initiating this debate. It has ranged over a very wide field. I think it is right to say that nobody has taken more interest in this subject than has Lord Methuen. He and I sit from time to time on the same Committee of the National Trust, and I know that we are both appalled by the enormous list of houses which are in danger either of falling down by themselves or of being demolished, or of suffering some similar fate. I think it is true to say that the National Trust are not in a financial position to take on all the houses which are offered to them or which they might wish to take on. The Trust is not, of course, an institution which is subsidised by the Government. When a house is taken over by the National Trust the owner very often has to make available an endowment to help to keep up the house.
This debate has shown that the matter is not in any way a Party one. I was pleased to hear the speeches from both sides in favour of trying to preserve what is best in our national heritage of country houses. The noble Earl, Lord

777
Bathurst, spoke of some of the noble uses to which these houses were put during the war. If I may speak personally for a moment, I owned two country houses, in one of which, during the war, £17,500,000 was collected by the Red Cross in small amounts of 1d. a week and upwards; and in the other, 8,488 babies were born. I do not know whether the noble Lord would call these noble uses, but they certainly contributed very much to the war effort and will, I hope, contribute to the peace effort also.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, mentioned houses which are useful for educational purposes and which are being used for educational purposes. And there are also many that are being used for other purposes. We have heard the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, talking about a house being used as a wood mill. I am not sure whether that would he regarded as an attractive use, but it is certainly better than letting the house fall down.
The fact is, of course, that these houses which are scattered up and down the country would be impossible to live in as residences, the reason being that people cannot bear the large burden of taxation. I have heard it said that there is one of the recommendations of the Gowers Report which should be put into practice—that is, that a house with a certain area of land should not be subject to death duty. I have been fighting for this for twenty years. Some people think that this form of relief would apply to a large class of persons and that it would not be right so to relieve that particular class of person. I do not agree with that, because the people who own these houses are often regarded, both by themselves and by the nation at large, as trustees for the architectural and other beauties of these houses. If some specific form of relief were given, on the lines suggested in the Gowers Report, I do not think it would be regarded generally as a form of favouritism to a certain class of people, or that it would be looked upon as a relief for certain interests. There is no doubt at all that the recommendations put forward in the last Finance Bill, which is before another place at the present time, only scratch the surface of the problem. Five hundred thousand pounds spread over five years is only a fleabite, compared with the main problem. I think that the Government should take their courage in both hands and go
778
further towards implementing the Gowers Report. The Gowers Committee, in the course of preparing their Report, interviewed many people—incidentally, I myself had the honour to give evidence. The Report was produced after a great deal of consideration. The Committee did not look at the question from any Party political point of view, or from the point of view of any one class. They eventually produced their very able Report, and I only wish that either this or some future Government would take their courage in both hands and implement the Report.
There are various uses to which these houses can be put if they do not remain as private residences. We have heard of educational uses and industrial uses; we have heard of these houses becoming lunatic asylums or prisons without bars; but we have to face the fact that there, are not enough lunatics or schools to fill them all, and also that taxation continues to take away the capital from agricultural estates, and that therefore more and more of these houses will fall into decay. It is no good blinking the fact that the country house, whether it be large or small, is doomed unless some strong action is taken to save it. The first charge on the ordinary country house with an agricultural estate is certainly that of death duties. I should once more like to make a plea for the proposition that agricultural land should not be charged with death duties until it is sold, in the same way that pictures of historic or artistic interest do not have death duties levied on them until they are sold—that is now the rule. I believe that that would make a very great difference.
There are various other reasons why houses are not occupied. We all know the difficulty of getting domestic help in large houses. That, I am afraid, is a sign of the times: there are not the number of people available who either wish to go in to work in large houses or are willing to live in isolated or out-of-the-way places. But, in addition to that factor, there is the cost of heating. It is very expensive indeed to heat large houses. Whereas before the war you could get coke or anthracite at reasonable prices, both are now very expensive. Even if you convert your house to oil heating, that also is very expensive; and unless you keep your house

779
reasonably warm it becomes damp, the pictures are harmed and, of course, it is impossible to live in.
Again, on the question of the maintenance claim, those of your Lordships who own houses or agricultural properties will know what is meant by the "excess maintenance claim." That, I think, should be extended to include more upkeep of the house itself. A further point is that a beautiful house is of no interest to sightseers, or to anyone else, if the garden surrounding the house is completely derelict. Many houses have very large gardens, and you cannot put the wages spent on the upkeep of those large gardens into your "garden loss claim" for running your kitchen garden as a business, because they would not be allowed. I think an allowance should be made against either Schedule A or what is called "other income" for the upkeep of the garden surrounding a house.
There is another matter which your Lordships may be surprised that I mention, and that is the question of farm rents. You may not think this has very much to do with houses, but in fact it has, particularly houses on agricultural estates. I believe it to be the fact that the average rent of farms at present all over the country is 3d. an acre more than it was in 1870. The pound is worth a good deal less than it was in 1870—not that I personally remember what it was worth at that time: it is worth, perhaps, one-fifth or one-sixth of what it was in 1870. At the same time, the cost of repair to farm buildings, fences, gates and everything else, is between three and four times what it was even in 1938. I think the question of farm rents should be tackled very seriously, because it often happens that an estate has to be sold and the house demolished owing to the fact that the owner cannot afford to continue to own it. Could not farm rents generally be increased in proportion to present day values? In fact, it is true to say that in agriculture the land owner is the one who has the worst of the bargain. The farm worker, quite rightly, has had his wages raised—the present minimum is £5 13s. 0d. a week, compared with 32s., or thereabouts, before the war. The farmer has his prices raised, while the land owner, very often, still has his rents
780
at about the same level as they were before the war. As I said just now, I am told by a certain statistician that rents are only 3d. an acre more than they were in 1870.
I do not intend to delay your Lordships much longer, but I should like to emphasise once again that it is a great pity, from the point of view of the national interest, when these houses become unoccupied and derelict. Previously, the owners did a great deal of unpaid work in the countryside. Now that they all have to go and live and work in London, or live and work in local towns, they cannot do that unpaid work. The great work which the owners of those houses have done in the past is recognised by all Parties, and if the houses cease to be the homes, then the owners go away and their work is no longer available. But it is quite impossible, in my opinion, for the Government or the National Trust, or even local authorities, to tackle this problem themselves. It is a question of individual enterprise, to use the political term. There are so many houses which are unsuitable for these public uses that it comes down to this: the basis of the whole ruination of these houses is taxation and the lack of income to keep them up. Before sitting down, I wish to make a plea that this Government or some future Government will be courageous enough to carry out as many as possible of the recommendations in the Gowers Report, and particularly to look at the subject of death duties and income taxation.
5.28 p.m.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships, as I know that the subject has already been fully covered. I should like merely to put forward one suggestion, which I believe has not so far been put forward, with regard to historic houses. The noble Lord who has just sat down spoke of the possibility of granting some relief in the future from death duties on the land on which these houses stand. If any relief comes, I am sure your Lordships will agree that anybody who hears of relief will immediately apply for it. May I suggest that in each county some voluntary committee, working under the local government of the county—that is to say, the

781
county council—should decide in each case which houses in the county are of real historic interest and which are not; and which are suitable for being open to the public and which are not? That is all I want to say, and I thank your Lordships for listening.
5.29 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, it falls to my lot to reply to this debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. It has been a rather sad and depressing debate, both to-day and on the last occasion. There have been many phrases such as "beauty is in decay" and "history is crumbling into dust." It has been a depressing debate, and I fear that I shall not add to its gaiety. I made my contribution at the opening of the first day's debate, when I was able to announce to the House that in another place a Question and Answer had been made from which it appeared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to promise a Bill, which would of course have to meet with the approval of both Houses, under which a sum of £250,000 a year would be provided for the maintenance of so-called historic houses; and, further, that he proposed that a sum of £500,000 should be made available in live years for the purchase of such houses. Here may I say, parenthetically, that we all speak of "historic houses." That is a shorthand expression for houses of historical or architectural interest, because many of the particular houses which have been referred to in this debate are, it may be, of transcendant architectural beauty and interest but could not be described as of any historic interest. Therefore we speak of historic houses in that sense.
The proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to put forward was greeted with some measure of sympathy, but it has been described as "utterly inadequate," "a pitiful sum"; and we are said to be "penny wise and pound foolish," and so on. My Lords, I venture to say that, considering the state of the nation's finances when the Chancellor of the Exchequer took over the great burden of his responsibility, it is a most remarkable achievement, for which everybody in your Lordships' House should express gratitude, that he has been able in this summer of 1953, to announce that he is willing to find such a sum. Nobody knows what the future will provide—it
782
may be that he, or, if there be a Socialist Government, a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be able to find a larger sum—but, I repeat, I thought that it was a remarkable achievement, and one which does infinite credit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he was able to propose that such a sum should be made available.
My Lords, that is the contribution which I was able to make at the opening of the debate on the first day. Let me say, in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, who suggested that there was some lack of liaison between the two Houses, that it was really purely fortuitous. By the indulgence of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, his Motion, which should have come before the House some weeks earlier, was postponed to make way for other matters; and so far as I know, it was pure chance that a Question was put down in another place and was answered on the day to which Lord Methuen's Motion had been postponed. The noble Earl has been good enough to say that he is sure that neither I nor, of course, the Leader of the House was guilty of any intentional discourtesy. Of course, that was so. There was nothing discourteous or sinister and, if I may say so, I do not think that Lord Methuen's brilliant speech suffered in any way from the fact that at the last moment he had to make certain adjustments.
LORD METHUEN: It helped me quite a lot.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is good enough to say that it helped him quite a lot. It all comes down to a question of taxation—a matter which, of course, is not primarily one for this House. But to those who challenge what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, one must put this question: Do you want increased taxation? I do not think anybody on either side of the House wants increased taxation. If you do not want increased taxation, do you want the existing revenue to be diverted from its present purpose; and if so, from what purpose? Do you suggest that the expenditure on defence should be reduced in order to meet this expenditure? Do you suggest that subsidies on food should be reduced? Do you suggest that the health services should be reduced in order to meet this expenditure? Yet, my Lords, it is only by increasing taxation

783
or taking money from other purposes that more money can be found for this purpose.
LORD METHUEN: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor? The National Land Fund has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am coming to that.
Before I come to the National Land Fund, however, there was the ingenious suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that there should be a special form of taxation imposed upon those who build new houses, to support old houses. Well, my Lords, that, as I say, is very ingenious, but it is rather difficult to see why a particular burden should be placed upon those who build new houses rather than on any other member of the community. I do not know whether the noble Lord, seeing some houses that are being built, thought that the punishment should "fit the crime," or something of that sort. But apart from that, there really is no reason why a new burden of taxation should be imposed upon a particular section of the community because they choose to build a house instead of renting one. However, that ingenious suggestion will, of course, be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Now perhaps it would be convenient if I said something about the National Land Fund, which has been mentioned. There has been so much misapprehension about this matter, notwithstanding that it is dealt with fully in the Gowers Report, that perhaps, without occupying too much of your Lordships' time, I might just refer you to the relevant paragraphs in the Gowers Report. For the moment I have lost the reference but, stating it as shortly as I can, the upshot of it is that the National Land Fund was established, as we know, under the Finance Act of 1946. It is called "The National Land Fund," and it involves a sum of £50 million, which, of course, will earn interest, I suppose, because of the way in which it was invested, at something over £2½ million a year. But the mere act of creating that Fund did not put any extra money into the Government's pocket. It was
784
not like the Road Fund or the National Insurance Fund, which had been collected by a particular means for a particular purpose. It was not a Fund established out of monies provided for a particular purpose by the public. The whole £50 million simply came out of the Consolidated Fund. It is not in any sense real money at all; it is simply a collection of Government securities. To spend it, or the interest upon it, is, from the Budgetary point of view, just the same as spending any other part of the revenues of the country.
LORD METHUEN: Was it not money derived from the sale of surplus war material, put aside purposely for that matter by Mr. Dalton?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not recollect whether that was so, but for whatever purpose it may have been set aside, the result now is, that, from the Budgetary point of view, it is just the same whether you spend £2 million and call it the National Land Fund or spend it out of the ordinary revenue of the country. When you are considering the national finances, the whole point is whether you have got the money available. If you spend £2 million or more out of the National Land Fund you have to raise a further £2 million by taxation to meet your other expenditure. That is the position of the National Land Fund. As I say, if you want more money than the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to provide, it must be found either by taxation or by reducing expenditure for other purposes.
My Lords, the debate has ranged very widely over a number of topics and about a few of them I must say a few words, although the substance of the matter is what I have already said. I should not like the House to take too depressing a view of the situation. It is true—and we all know it—that many beautiful houses have fallen into decay, and some of them have been demolished. But I would ask your Lordships to see things in their right proportion. In 1939, as I am informed, a list of the 400 best houses was compiled by the National Trust and the Ministry of Works. Of those 400 houses, since the war only four or five have gone. Two of them, Weald Hall and Cole shill, were largely burnt down.

785
I think there is some measure of exaggeration here. Let me give your Lordships one or two examples. I am reluctant to mention houses by name, lest I shall be thought to say anything derogatory about them and perhaps hurt the feelings of their owners, but I would mention just one or two. I hear, for instance, of Fawley Court as a house which is a superb example of Wren architecture. One's mind goes to the mellow beauty of Kensington Palace; but if you look at Fawley Court you find that it has been wholly refaced with bright red brick, and it is by no means a thing of beauty which, with an impartial mind, you would say was worth preserving. At any rate, you would shed no tears if you heard that it was falling into decay. Another house, which I will not name, is said to be a superb example of Tudor architecture. Well, it is an example of nineteenth century Tudor architecture and not, I think, a very good one at that. And there are many other houses of the demolition of which you hear, about which it really is not necessary to shed a tear. Of course it is a fact that any house which is falling into decay is a pathetic and pitiful sight. But that is true, perhaps, of human beings, too. It is a pathetic sight when handsome men and lovely women fall into decay. As I have said, there is a measure of exaggeration about this story.
Now I want to say something more about the machinery. First, there is a matter of which Lord Winster spoke and which Lord Methuen also mentioned in his opening speech. I refer to criticism concerning the overlapping of the two Ministries—the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I believe that there is a complete misconception about that. First of all, Lord Winster, appeared to believe—I can hardly think it is true of Lord Methuen—that the Minister of Works was concerned with inhabited houses. We have been dealing in this House almost entirely with inhabited houses, and not with ancient monuments. The Ministry of Works has nothing to do with inhabited houses. There is no actual overlapping in practice, but, of course, there is an area where for the purpose of planning there may be some overlapping on paper. I can assure noble Lords that there is the closest liaison in these matters between the Ministry of Works and the
786
Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Of one thing I am sure, it is impossible to-day to do as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, suggested and take the whole problem away from the Minister of Housing and put it under the Minister of Works. Planning is a matter which is within the sphere of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Over and over again it will happen that the question of the preservation of a beautiful building comes into the picture of planning, and it is therefore impossible that it should not be within the sphere of his control. But, as I say—and I say so having in mind what takes place in my own room when I prepare myself to assist your Lordships in these matters—I know how closely the two Departments work in liaison together.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, and, at an earlier stage, Lord Methuen, said something about the work of the Departments, the Ministry of Housing, and the local authorities, in regard to machinery. The position is this. Under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, it is the duty of the Ministry to list all houses which are of historical or architectural interest, and to notify the owners and the local authorities. Great progress has been made in that work. I cannot give your Lordships the exact figures because, of course, they will vary from day to day, but something like 1,150 out of 1,480 local authority areas have been thoroughly surveyed and the necessary lists sent to the local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, will know, that listing was originally clone under the advice of the late Sir Eric Maclagan and is now under equally eminent authority. The result of the listing is that the owner of a listed house cannot take any steps towards the demolition of the house without giving notice, and if notice is given then a building preservation order may be made. That has been subject to some criticism. A building preservation order is purely negative. It prevents the owner from demolishing or from making substantial alterations to the listed building without giving notice. It does not enable the authority to compel him to do anything, but it does enable the authority, in certain circumstances, to acquire.
However if, under a preservation order, an authority will not allow an owner to demolish—if that is what he

787
wants to do—he is in a position to demand compensation. Your Lordships will easily imagine that in these circumstances an authority will be slow to make an order which will render them liable for compensation, or perhaps leave on their hands a house for which they can find no economic use. I have used there an expression which is of vital importance in the consideration of this matter. If you could find an economic use for every one of these houses which the owners cannot maintain, the problem would be a simple one. As I think Lord Silkin pointed out, it is only in exceptional cases—to some of which Lord Lawson referred—that such houses can readily be converted to that end, but it is one of the benefits of listing and making a preservation order that time is given to look round and see whether some economic or social use cannot be made of the building. And that has been done in many cases.
I would say one thing more about what the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, said—and if I am sometimes critical of what he said, he will not think that I do not sympathise in the main with his theme. The noble Lord was wrong in suggesting that local authorities were under no obligation, if they were the owners of houses, to communicate with the Minister. That is not right. Local authorities are in the same position as other owners in regard to demolition of listed houses. It has happened on many occasions. It happened in the case of Renthurst, to which the noble Lord referred (I may have the name wrong) that there were communications, investigations and discussions to see whether it was not possible to save a house of this character. Although there may be some mistakes and errors of judgment—it would be strange if it were otherwise—yet it is the fact that listed houses cannot be demolished without adequate consideration by the proper authority and by the Minister. Now, you may say that that does not help much, if the Minister has not the money and cannot save the house; but this, at least, is true: that these houses are not destroyed without all the consideration and all the efforts that can be made to save them. It is true that not many building preservation orders have been made: something like 100 have been made by local authorities and a much smaller number
788
by the Minister. Again, I would give your Lordships one or two concrete examples of such orders being made. For instance, it has been found possible in the case of Dentish Court in Dorsetshire and Westwood Park in Worcestershire to save these houses, which might otherwise have been demolished, by converting them to other use.
This debate has ranged over a wide area and your Lordships will forgive me if, without much sequence, I go from one subject to another. I turn to Scotland for a moment, because there was an interesting discussion on the first day of this debate about the position in Scotland. In particular, it was said that in Scotland houses which might otherwise have been preserved have had their roofs taken off in order that they might be saved from rating. I hear a murmur of assent to that. That very question was raised in this House, I think by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, some two years ago and it was raised more recently in another place; but no concrete examples of that happening were brought to the notice of the Minister (either the Minister in the previous Government or in this), and we have heard of no examples of that being done in the last few years. My answer to what was said is this: a Committee has been set up and is now working under Lord Sorn, a distinguished Lord of Session, which has the duty of reviewing the whole of the present system of valuation and rating, and this very question of the rating or de-rating of houses according to whether they have their roofs on or off will be for their consideration and discussion.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, raised another topic. May I say with great respect to the noble Viscount what a remarkable effect the translation from the atmosphere of Downing Street to the salubrious air of the Port of London seems to have had upon him? He was able to talk with a light heart of a sum of £250,000 being wholly inadequate. I wondered how he would have regarded the matter when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Viscount was inclined to discount the argument that to treat owners of historic houses as a special class for taxation purposes was a bad thing, arguing from the analogy of the relaxation of taxation which had been

789
given in the case of agriculture and certain industrial research processes. I venture to think that he did not give sufficient weight to the fact that in such cases whole classes are given relief. In what is now proposed there is no question of a whole class being given relief, but only certain persons, who are chosen upon executive authority and by executive discretion; and the borderline between persons who would be on the list and who would not be on the list would be so difficult to determine that I venture to think there would be a grave sense of injustice if one were given taxation relief and another were not. That differentiates this altogether from the cases he puts forward as precedents in which relief has been given.
There is another aspect of this matter—I must apologise for the lack of sequence in my observations. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, spoke of the doom of country houses, and it was clear that to him that doom was inevitable unless relief went a very long way. For instance, he said (and justly) how expensive it is to heat large country houses. Does he contemplate, could anybody contemplate, that to I know not how many owners of country houses relief should be given by way of the provision of free fuel? I cannot think that a proposition of that kind could be put forward to the people of this country, however much interested they are in the beauty of the countryside, whether of art or of nature, and receive any measure of assent.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord excuse my interrupting on that point? I think I continued to say that it was because of the lack of income that people could not keep their houses. I was not asking for free fuel.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has put his finger on the spot in saying something that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said before him in the earlier part of the debate. We have to recognise that in many respects our way of life has changed. Nobody can read the memoirs of the last century and consider the way in which the owners of these great houses lived, the staffs that were necessary to keep the houses in order and the fuel necessary to keep them warm, without
790
recognising that there has been a change in our way of living. I am far from saying that we are yet at that state in which our beautiful country houses ought to he regarded as symbols of a civilisation that has gone. We have not reached that stage and I hope that we never shall. But we have got to realise that many of the things which we valued in the past have now irrecoverably gone, and we have to do the best we can. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made what I consider to be a remarkable suggestion, in the circumstances, and when the matter comes before the other place in the Bill—about which I am not justified in saying any more than was said in another place, that it was hoped it would he introduced as soon as circumstances admitted—then we shall seethe reaction of the other House, of this House and of the country at large to the proposals which are made.
I was most interested and struck by the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst—a speech which, if I may say so as a much older man, I regarded as full of great promise. He suggested that in the country at large a proposal to impose taxation in order that the owners of great houses might be able to live there would be welcomed. The noble Earl sees with the eyes of the younger generation, and it may be that he is right. However, I very much doubt whether such a proposal, if it involved a substantial burden upon our revenue, would meet with the approbation which he suggests. I only hope that if and when the attempt is made he will prove right and I shall prove wrong.
I intend to deal with only one more topic of the many that have been raised in this debate, and that is the dull and dreary topic raised by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, on the question of the General Development Order, an Order made under the Housing Act, and not made in the least with any idea of either facilitating or otherwise the work of the local authorities in respect of this matter. With great respect, I am unable to see how the making of a general Development Order releases any local authority or the owner of any house from the obligations which he is under if the house is a listed house. I shall be glad to see the noble Lord upon the matter, or to put him

791
into touch with the appropriate department, but I venture to think that with regard to that matter he is under some misapprehension.
LORD METHUEN: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for that offer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is inevitable in a debate of this kind that a reply should be somewhat inconsequential. The main burden of what I have had to say is in the answer which was given in another place, with which I ventured to intervene on the first day of this debate. Upon other matters I have had to wander at random and to endeavour, however inadequately, to answer some of the many points which have been raised. However, there is one thing more I should like to say. I should like to join with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in saying that the Gowers Report is one of the most remarkable documents that I have ever read, couched in English of rare clarity and distinction, and a model of what such Reports should be.
LORD METHUEN: Before the noble and learned Lord finishes his speech I should like to ask one question which perhaps I should have asked before. He said that I had misunderstood the function of the local authorities in reporting a listed house to the appropriate Ministry. I did not say that they did not report it, but that when they did report it, it was too late. They should report it in the early planning stages when they know the listed house is threatened. The same applies to other Ministries.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am sorry if in any respect I misunderstood what he said. It is difficult to generalise on this matter, but this I do know: that in one or more of the specific cases to which he referred there was ample time after communication for the Ministry to intervene if it could intervene usefully. I believe reference was made to either Bristol or Gloucester, or to both. In those cases there were long discussions between the local authority and the Ministry before anything was done. But, again, the question of money arose, and it was not found possible economically to do what the noble Lord would have done—namely, save the house.
LORD METHUEN: That cannot be said of Abingdon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are so many houses. Abingdon is a house about which there has been a great deal of exaggeration. The house at Abingdon is Fitzharris House, which is one of those houses which are just good houses. Nobody would say, I suppose, that it is a house of such architectural beauty that, if it is not found possible to use it economically, it should be preserved as a museum piece. Every effort has been made to find some use for Fitzharris House, but no use has been found for it. There it is. It is not worth preserving as a museum piece.
6.8 p.m.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to noble Lords who have been so good as to take part in this debate, which I feel has been a memorable one. We have had frank opinions expressed from all parts of the House, and it is difficult to say which of the many speeches has been the most interesting. I liked the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the aged houses should be supported by the young ones, though the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has, possibly quite rightly, pointed out that it would entail an extra burden. Still, he has good hopes that the suggestion will go to another place for serious consideration. My contention about the Gowers Committee recommendations with regard to tax exemption has, in my view, been fully supported by what the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, in spite of the fact that we are near the river and far removed from Downing Street. I should think that it might be possible to approach and solve this matter on a non-Party basis, without the fear of one Party taunting the other with having contracted a "most favoured nation" clause. We should be particularly grateful, in my opinion, to the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, for the clear and convincing way in which he spoke about using the National Land Fund for this very purpose.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt in order to say what I meant to say before? The reference to the National Land Fund is on page 60 of the Gowers Report, and as there has been some misunderstanding I hope that noble

793
Lords will occupy some part of their leisure by reading paragraphs 33, 34, 35, and 36 on that page.
LORD METHUEN: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reference, but I have not the time to read it just now. I was going partly by what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, and also by what Mr. Dalton said in 1946, when addressing the National Trust at its Annual General Meeting. I remember the occasion very well, because I had to propose a vote of thanks. As I remember—unfortunately it is not recorded—he said, "I have created this National Land Fund out of the sale of war material for the express purpose of helping societies like yourselves and various other societies. "Your Lordships will find the rest of his remarks very ably expressed in his Budget speech at that time. I did not mention it in my speech on the first occasion, because thought it better to come from some other part of the House, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned it.
I was very surprised by what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said about the Fund being treated just as any other part of the national funds. When it comes to voting the sums, which, naturally, we are all glad to hear are going to he voted for this purpose, I hope Her Majesty's Government will take seriously into consideration the work of the National Trust. Few would quibble at the Trust's receiving ample help from this source, particularly in cases where the gift of houses of outstanding architectural and historical interest would otherwise have to be refused because no endowment sum was forthcoming. As your Lordships know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, has already mentioned, the National Trust depend entirely on endowments by donors to maintain the fabrics; the Trust have no other income for the purpose and, of course, receive no Stale subsidy. I have been with the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, on the Historic Buildings Committee of the Trust since inception of 1936, and it has been a tremendous disappointment to us all to be forced to turn down very fine houses, simply because we are not satisfied that the sum offered would maintain them and the owner cannot offer more, or because the owner cannot offer us anything at all in the way of endowment.
794
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the great town houses and blocks of houses, mainly Georgian, are, just as important as any other structures; and it is these that give the most interesting of our provincial towns their unique character. I know of no towns abroad to match in their way such places as Bath, Regency Brighton, and Cheltenham, or New Town Edinburgh, as superb in their lay-out and design as they are in the richness of their architecture. It was for this reason that I mentioned the 1949 Housing Act and suggested where it might be amended in order to give these town houses the help they appear to need. I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be good enough, if he thinks it worthy of so doing, to pass on my suggestion. I instanced in particular Bath, because I know the conditions at first hand only too well, being a member of the Bath Preservation Trust and in close touch with the Council. In fact, I was partly briefed, I do not mind telling your Lordships, by the Town Clerk himself over that. I am sure that what applies to Bath would apply in equal measure to many other places.
In my opening remarks I mentioned the French system, and how they preserve their monuments. That has not been queried, although some noble Lord might have said. "Yes, but we are talking about our own historic houses. You mention the French. Do the French subsidise the owners of any of their historic châteaux?"The answer is that they do. I was interested to find out what proportion of châteaux and manor houses received a grant or were preserved by Government means in France. Being fairly familiar with Normandy, I looked up the lists of this region which, as your Lordships know, consists of five departments. In that region they have 406 places with scheduled buildings, and 487 places with buildings entered on the supplementary list. The latter receive no grant and the former do—they receive 50 per cent. grant for the upkeep of the fabric. In Normandy they have 34 inhabited châteaux and 24 manor houses scheduled, and 86 châteaux and 73 manor houses have been placed on the supplementary list, the Department of Calvados alone accounting for well over half this number. I think that disposes of any criticism which might have arisen over what the French do in the way of

795
subsidising owners of historic occupied houses.
Though we should make full use of whatever measures are likely to assist our historic structures, that does not alter the long-term policy of implementing what is probably the most urgent recommendation of the Gowers Committee—namely, that the present administrative division and tangle should be cleared up before anything else is done. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has referred to that at some length, and I should like to refer to it again, because I am entirely in disagreement with him over this—I will explain why in a moment. The Ministry of Works will have the spending of the money, but much of the essential knowledge and experience of this work exists at present with the investigators in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Unless these investigators are transferred to the Ministry of Works—the spending Department—there will be a serious risk that the money will go into a comparatively small number of large grants to a rather arbitrary short list of buildings. I feel strongly that far better value for money could be obtained by a discriminating combination of grants with other methods such as only a really strong comprehensive organisation could employ.
I might explain that, before that happened, a comprehensive plan would have to be brought in which gave the Ministry of Works power to schedule and maintain—or whichever you call it—inhabited buildings. The Ministry of Local Government have not the power to schedule—only the Ministry of Works have that power. By "other methods," to which I referred just now, I mean guidance to owners, in the first place in methods of maintenance, and so on; secondly, in bringing pressure to bear on local authorities to preserve the amenities of a historic house; thirdly, in finding other uses for houses, as I have already suggested; and, fourthly, in the use of building preservation orders in respect of inhabited houses. As your Lordships are aware, these cannot be used at all by She Ministry of Works, as they have no jurisdiction whatever over inhabited houses, and special legislation would have to be brought in for that. Of that I am quite aware. Fifthly, there must be edu-
796
cation of the public through the lists. It is desirable, as I have said before, that these lists should be completed as early as possible and published, but it would seem a mistake to have separate publications for two Ministries, especially as in some cases they would be dealing with the same structures. Sixthly, it is undesirable that there should be two bodies with almost certainly divergencies of opinion between them, with confusion as to what buildings should have priority for maintenance. Who will decide, for instance, which buildings merit the most urgent attention in the case of a financial grant? It means that you will have two sets of accounts for two Ministries, which seems to me rather short-sighted, and wasteful as well. I think everyone who has had practical experience of this problem of assessing the relative claims of historic structures agrees that this course, which has been recommended by the Gowers Committee, is the only right one and should be followed as the first step: that is, to transfer the investigators to the Ministry of Works and amend the law so that the Ministry of Works can schedule inhabited buildings.
In support of these views, may I refer to several letters published in The Times since the new year, from practical people who have more knowledge than most of this problem? The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred to one or two. One was from Lord Rosse, dated February 20. Lord Rosse, as your Lordships know, is chairman of the Georgian Group and has vast experience in this matter. He has been one of the leading lights of the National Trust. Then there was one from Sir William Holford, who was for some years technical adviser to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and succeeded the late Sir Eric Maclagan as chairman of the Listing Committee under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. This letter was dated March 5. There was also one from Mr. Wagner, the Richmond Herald, who was for some time secretary-member of the same Advisory Committee. His letter was dated February 25. In all these letters (by eminent authorities, may I remind your Lordships) emphasis is laid on the absolute necessity for setting up a body with the staff, knowledge and authority to see this problem as a whole, so as to give expert advice and devise

797
remedies promptly within the limits of the resources available. At present this is lacking, as responsibility and experience are divided between two Ministries.
Emphasis is also laid on the urgency of completing the listing of buildings of architectural and historic importance as soon as possible, the point being made that even the recording and photographing of such buildings are not keeping pace with the demolitions. I was not very happy about the answer that the Lord Chancellor gave on this point. He mentioned a great number of local authority areas who have started; but the fact remains that we are behind schedule and that buildings are coming down before they have been listed. In fact we have no time, in the case of dilapidated buildings, to get them photographed. I therefore appeal to the Government to go back to the Gowers Committee recommendations before committing themselves to any proposals which leave out of account this all-important question of administration. Without this unification any Bill they bring in is bound to be lacking in the essential element for its success. In the meantime, until some such organisation as is envisaged is brought into being and got well under way, those of us who are responsible for historic houses and their historic contents should, I feel, do all we can to bridge the gap by trying if necessary to find alternative uses for these houses without the loss of their character. Would it not be fitting if the great country houses of this country, which have played such a distinguished part in the past, became centres of light and learning? I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GREAT OUSE RIVER BOARD (REVIVAL OF POWERS, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendment considered and agreed to.
  PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
  PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMES OF VIOLENCE