Sitting of 18 June 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Bechuanaland Development (Mission's Report)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Under-secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what are the main recommendations of the Mission under Mr. Arthur Gaitskell which has been investigating development in Bechuanaland; and when it is proposed to publish its report.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): The mission's recommendations are long and detailed. Broadly, they concluded that prospects of cattle ranching in the Kalahari should be favourable, but that much further information, for example, regarding the existence and distribution of adequate water supplies, is needed before any final decision can be reached whether development of the area is likely to be an economic proposition. They have, therefore, recommended a five-year period in which detailed information about all relevant factors can be obtained by practical experiment. It is hoped to publish the report shortly.
    Mrs. White: Will the Government give an assurance that during the five-year period the fullest possible support will be given to experiments, both by way of staff and finance?
    Mr. Foster: We shall give what assistance we can. We are very grateful for the report and very enthusiastic about it. We shall have to consider what the conditions are at the time that support has to be given.
    Mr. Bottomley: In view of the so called improvements in economic conditions will the Minister give further consideration to the possibility of providing transport to and from Bechuanaland through South-West Africa to the coast?
    Mr. Foster: That is another question.

    High Commission Territories (Report)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when it is intended to publish Lord Hailey's report on the High Commission Territories.
    Mr. J. Foster: Next month.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Film Production Fund
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations in the film industry about the future of the British Film Production Fund since 10th March.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): No, Sir. As I have made clear to the hon. Member on previous occasions, the Government will be ready with a statutory scheme in good time should it prove necessary.
    Mr. Swingler: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how long these negotiations are going on or what are the prospects now of securing a voluntary agreement about the future of the Eady Levy?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No. I think that it is much better to leave it to the industry to conduct the negotiations.
    Mr. Swingler: How long?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot say.

    Trade with China
    Dr. Strossasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the export to China

    1153
    of antibiotic drugs, including the results of recent official conversations with other European countries which are supplying these drugs since British exporters were refused licences.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on 30th April, when I informed the House that those Western European Governments which had hitherto permitted the export of Pharmaceuticals to China without restriction had now agreed to impose similar restrictions to ours.
    Dr. Stross: Does the President's answer mean, in effect, that we have lost the £2 million order which was offered to manufacturers in this country and that there is no further hope of securing any increase in the trade?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Member wants to put down a Question about a specific order perhaps he will do so. My answer means that we and other European countries are having controls similar to one another instead of different ones.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the answer to which he referred in his answer today is now wholly out of date in the new circumstances and that the new agreement with the European countries is not likely to mean much in view of what we all hope is the rapidly approaching end of hostilities with China? Does he realise that, in any case, to regard these drugs as strategic material has always been offensive to the consciences of many people?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I would agree with the hon. Member at least in this—that of all the controls that were forced upon us by aggression in Korea the control of drugs which can be used for the relief of suffering is among the most distasteful. But the circumstances with which I have to deal are as they are today and not what they might be at a future date. On that we and the rest of the European nations are acting in conformity with the United Nations Resolution of May, 1951.
    Dr. Strossasked the President of the Board of Trade how much streptomycin has been exported to China since 1st July, 1951; and whether, in view of its
    1154
    value in the treatment of tuberculosis, he will permit a substantial increase in the amount.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Exports of streptomycin are not separately recorded. As regards the second half of the Question, we would be prepared, as my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade stated in the Adjournment debate on 15th May, to permit within the quota any reasonable increase in the supply of any drugs primarily required for the civilian population.
    Dr. Stross: While thanking the President for his answer, which I think is helpful, may I ask whether he is aware that it is said that in China there may be up to 40 million people suffering from tuberculosis and that the term "normal civilian requirements," which is often used, is rather a mockery? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear this in mind in future?
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will begin negotiations with representatives of the Chinese Government with a view to increasing trade between the United Kingdom and China as quickly as possible after the securing of a truce in Korea.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now initiate discussions with the Government of China for the extension of trade between Britain and China.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a full statement yesterday on the question of British trade with China in answer to Questions on this subject. Our policy, as he explained, is to develop trade with China, provided that this does not involve the supply to China of strategic goods. I do not, however, consider that any useful purpose would be served by initiating discussions in present circumstances with the Chinese Government.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister realise that some of our competitors in Europe are already well ahead of us in this field? Would he agree with the estimate made recently by a well-known body on this question, that Anglo-Chinese trade could be increased very quickly to the extent of about £100 million a year?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As I said, we are quite ready to seek to expand our trade with China in non-strategic goods. As to strategic goods, our position is that we are moving in close accord with other countries in Europe and with the United States.
    Mr. Swingler: If the right hon. Gentleman is moving in close accord with other European countries, has his attention been drawn to the £10 million trade agreement signed between France and China relating to the exports of articles including machinery, drugs, and other things which have been forbidden from this country? Would he, therefore, reconsider this question in view of what my hon Friend has said about the action of other European countries?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly consider the point which the hon. Gentleman raises. As I say, we have worked very closely with other countries in Europe with the object of seeking to get as closely agreed lists of strategic goods as possible.
    Sir H. Williams: Would it not be a good idea if the Chinese stopped shooting at our soldiers?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If these major matters could be dealt with it would certainly encourage the trade position.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of expressing appreciation of the efforts of the delegation of business men who have just arrived in China?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The question of business men's visits to China has been dealt with in a number of Questions and answers in the House, to which I would not wish to add anything at the moment.

    Match Industry Report (Government Proposals)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade why certain sections of the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the supply of matches have not been published.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Because they contained information relating to overseas markets the publication of which would, in my opinion, be contrary to the public interest.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Having studied the sections of the Report, can the President of the Board of Trade give an assurance that there is nothing contained in them which justifies any further delay on his part in giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission, which ought to be done as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: A later Question is down on that subject.
    Mrs. Castleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to announce his policy with regard to the Report of the Monopolies Commission on matches and matchmaking machinery.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have studied this Report, about which the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) has also been making inquiries.
    I accept the conclusion of the Commission that the system described as a whole operates, and is likely to operate, against the public interest in certain respects as regards the supply both of matches and match-making machinery. It is, in my opinion, most desirable that there should be a measure of competition in the industry. This, I believe, would be the most effective safeguard of the public interest.
    I doubt whether the system of strict price control proposed in the Commission's Report would provide an effective remedy. New competitors would be less likely to enter the trade and there would be no stimulus to efficiency, if any gains arising from efficient production were liable to be swept away by Government Order.
    I propose, therefore, to explore without delay the possibility of removing some of the obstacles to competition in the match industry. Some of the steps I am contemplating call for consultation with the British Match Corporation and I am already in touch with them.
    I should, perhaps, add that the Commission's Report also makes it clear that any measures which may be taken can, in the nature of things, have only a slight effect, either on the economy or on the individual. But there will be no delay in following up the recommendations in the Report, most of which I can at once accept.
    Mrs. Castle: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he will place

    1157
    his specific proposals before us for consideration, and also say whether, since he rejects the majority recommendation on price control, he is considering the minority recommendation for the creation of a purchasing agency, sponsored by the Government in order to enforce competition?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have not made a final rejection of either the majority or minority reports. I think it would be wrong for me to do so until I have had some consultation with the industry upon this subject. As far as timing is concerned, I would not like to give a date. This is quite a complicated industry and we should examine it seriously before coming to a final conclusion.
    Mr. Jay: As the right hon. Gentleman has already had this Report in his hands for seven or eight months, cannot he at least assure us that he will announce what he is going to do, say within a month from now?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is true that the Report was available and that considerable discussions took place on whether certain sections should be deleted; but it is only recently that it has been published, and it has not been possible for discussion to take place with the industry until after publication.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision in principle to restore competition in the industry rather than perpetuate the monopoly under Government supervision will be warmly received in all quarters of the House?

    Carrot Imports (Prohibition)
    Mrs. Castleasked the President of the Board of Trade why the import of carrots was stopped on 1st June.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The seasonal prohibition on imports of foreign carrots from 1st June to 31st July, in common with the restrictions on foreign imports of a number of other fresh vegetables during the main home marketing season, is a temporary measure pending a decision on the application made by the National Farmers' Unions for revision of the import duty.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this exclusion has meant
    1158
    that the small supplies of imported carrots, which were cornered before the import stop operated are now on sale at 1s. 9d. a lb. and that this prohibition of imports is not helping the home grower because there is no home crop available at all at this moment and, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, will not be available in any quantity until next month. Is it right that consumers should suffer in this way?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I would agree with the hon. Lady to this extent, that I think that the use of quotas is an extremely blunt and, on the whole, unsatisfactory way of dealing with the question. I am anxious, so far as possible, to get freedom to deal with the tariff position, which is a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
    Mr. Legh: Notwithstanding the fact that there are carrots and carrots, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any steps which he takes to protect British horticulture will always receive the warmest support from this side of the House?
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor in the Labour Government was able to meet this sort of situation by greater flexibility in the operation of the import stop and that it is nonsense for hon. Members opposite to talk about helping home horticulture when there is not a home crop of carrots at the moment and the consumer is suffering without the grower benefiting?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My predecessor as President of the Board of Trade, like myself, moved in these matters in consultation with both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food. We assess the matter as best we can not simply for the protection of British horticulture but to deal fairly between producer and consumer.
    Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have failed.

    Raw Cotton Commission (Report)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered details which have been sent to him about the continuance of the

    1159
    activities of the Raw Cotton Commission; and when he proposes to close down that Commission.
    Mr. Horobinasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement about the Report of the Cotton Import (Review) Committee.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Report of the Committee which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Materials and I set up has been laid before Parliament and is now available in the Vote Office.
    I am glad to say that this Report is unanimous. The main feature of the Report is the recommendation that operations during the 1953–54 buying season should continue broadly on the same basis as at present, namely, that the spinners should choose whether or not to buy their cotton for the whole season directly or from the Raw Cotton Commission and that the Raw Cotton Commission should continue to provide cover both for those who do their own buying and those who buy from the Commission.
    Her Majesty's Government accept the Committee's recommendations for the 1953-54 buying season, and I understand that the Raw Cotton Commission is prepared to implement them in so far as they call for action by the Commission.
    The question of what arrangements will be appropriate and possible after the 1953–54 buying season will be the subject of early discussions with the trade interests concerned. But Her Majesty's Government accept, in principle, the unanimous view of the Committee that it is intrinsically undesirable that cover for private trade should be provided at the risk of public funds.
    Sir W. Smithers: While thanking the President of the Board of Trade for a small step in the right direction, may I ask whether he can assure the House that it is his policy to remove all forms of control, not only from the cotton industry but all industries, as soon as possible, so that they may increase exports at world competitive prices, and especially invisible exports, upon which our future prosperity depends?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Since I have been at the Board of Trade I have, in fact, removed all price controls and virtually
    1160
    every manufacturing control that there was when I got there, with great savings of money, staff and frustration.
    Mr. Horobin: While thanking the President of the Board of Trade for his skilful handling of this difficult situation, may I ask whether he can assure us that whatever happens to the trading activities of the Raw Cotton Commission, unless and until the industry is enabled to conduct its own cover scheme, cover in some form will continue to be given by the Government?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think I have given the traders a sufficient guarantee in that I have said that during the forthcoming buying season the cover will be continued as at present, but the Committee's Report—and the Committee had on it trade unionists and representatives of all sections of the industry—showed that they were unanimously agreed that it was intrinsically wrong to continue to cover private trade from public funds. As a statement of principle I think that ought to be accepted.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has just referred to from the Committee's Report, will be widely welcomed in all parts of the House and that it is widely felt that it would be very dangerous to run the risk of spending a lot of public money for private cover? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that in the discussions which are to take place in an attempt to find private means of providing the cover there will be no question of granting authority for the use of United States capital, with the risk that would involve for our dollar situation?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The question of cover schemes alternative to those provided by the Raw Cotton Commission is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, an extremely complicated one, and while I shall bear in mind the point which he has raised I think I should be unwise to plunge into it at this stage, before I have opened negotiations with the various interests concerned.

    Whisky (Exports to America)
    Mr. Stokesasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the margins allowed to importer,

    1161
    wholesaler and retailer on a bottle of Scotch whisky sold in the United States of America are respectively 3s., 3s. 8d. and 10s. whereas we only received 6s. 8d. nett for each bottle shipped to the United States of America; and whether he is satisfied that the arrangements for distribution in the United States of America are in the hands of those organisations best able and willing to pay and obtain the best possible price for Scotch whisky thereby contributing as much as possible to the closing of the dollar gap.
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Before the Minister answers this Question, as the last part of it relates to matters for which the President of the Board of Trade has no responsibility whatever— the control of distribution in the United States—may I ask why that part of the Question was permitted to remain on the Order Paper, Sir?
    Mr. Speaker: I understood that the part of the Question to which the hon. Member has drawn attention, and the criticism—if any is implied—is directed to producers in this country who have their distribution organisation overseas.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The answer to the Question is: Arrangements for the sale and distribution abroad of whisky, as of other United Kingdom exports, are matters for which the exporters themselves are responsible, and which, I think, are best left to their judgment, in the light of their considerable experience and knowledge of the market. The Board of Trade are, of course, always ready to give all the help they can to any exporters who wish it on the arrangements for selling their products overseas.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the President aware that I have received that sort of silly answer for a very long time now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Well, it is a silly answer. Has the President examined how this distribution takes place? Is it not a fact that the majority of the whisky sold by this country in the United States is in the hands of American competitors? Does he think that that is the right way to go about it?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The truth is that the methods of distribution are decided by the producers over here, and it is in their interests to adopt the best methods available to them. The margins taken by the
    1162
    distributors are the same for Scotch and American whisky.
    Mr. Stokes: Has the President really satisfied himself on that point? Does he really say that there is no greater margin on the sale of Scotch whisky in America than there is on American whisky?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: So I have been informed.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend resist all blandishments, from whatever quarter they may come, to interfere with the normal processes of industry and commerce?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that enormous profits are being made out of Scotch whisky, and that "Johnny Walker" is advertising itself in the United States as a great national institution? Does he not think the time has come when the whole question of whisky should be referred to the Monopolies Commission?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That may be so, but the complaint of the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is that the profits are not high enough.
    Mr. Stokes: I want an answer to the Question, which I have already addressed to the Minister of Food and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will somebody in authority in the Government examine the question whether or not distribution is the hands of American competitors? If it is, we shall never get the right prices over our competitors.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot add much to the answer which I, the Chancellor and the Minister of Food have given to the right hon. Gentleman. If he has any specific proposals about how distribution should be organised in the United States perhaps he will tell us.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that the President has asked me what I would suggest, may I suggest that it would be far better if the distribution were not in the hands of competitors? Will he look into that question?
    Mr. McCorquodale: Is it not likely that those who have been engaged in the trade for many years know more about this subject than the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)?

    Anglo-Soviet Trade
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps Her Majesty's Government is taking to restore and develop bilateral trade between Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and between Britain and China, respectively.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As regards the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Her Majesty's Government were represented at the recent meeting of experts which was held at Geneva under the auspices of the Economic Commission for Europe. There was a general examination of the possibilities of increased trade in non-strategic goods between Eastern and Western Europe, and I am now considering the report of the meeting.
    As regards China, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave earlier this afternoon to Questions Nos. 8 and 9.
    Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for the first part of his answer, may I ask him if he realises the close inter-relation between international trade and international peace? Will he consult the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to devise a means of taking advantage of the improved world atmosphere relating to both trade and peace?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that a Question upon this matter is already on the Order Paper for answer by the Minister of State later this afternoon.
    Mr. Donnelly: Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans ready, should the international situation improve, to facilitate the promotion of trade in any circumstances where it might be politically possible to do so?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Any improvement in the international situation with regard to peace will be a very helpful thing so far as the promotion of trade is concerned.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the President aware that past experiences show that the best way to facilitate trade between the Soviet Union and this country is by a personal meeting with the leader of the Soviet trade delegation resident in this country? Can he say whether he or the Secretary for Overseas Trade has, at a recent date, met the leader of that delegation?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Not just recently. I did meet him some little time ago.
    Mr. S. Silverman: While appreciating that the task of the Board of Trade has been difficult in the past 12 months, having regard to the limits under which they were compelled to work, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless to bear in mind that there is considerable risk of this country missing the boat in the matter of trade, not merely with the Soviet Union but, even more, with China, that competition among countries for this coming market is already keen and that a great many people who are preventing free trade are themselves, through Japanese agencies, now trading? Having regard to the great importance of foreign trade for our own livelihood, would it not be a great mistake if we allowed others to get in in front?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples of persons who are, in fact, breaking the strategic control regulations I hope he will let us know, so that they can be followed up. As to taking advantage of the opportunity brought about by an improvement in the international situation, I can only say that we should be very glad to do so.

    Exports to Eastern Countries (Controls)
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make a review of the strategic controls over exports to Eastern countries.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is nothing I can usefully add to the answer which I gave the right hon. Member in reply to his question of 11th June.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are now in existence a considerable number of strategic restrictions the removal of which would not make the slightest difference to the security of this country or any other country? Secondly, is he aware that the Soviet Union particularly—it may be less true of China—could substantially increase their exports to this country of grain, timber and other materials and provide large orders for consumer goods from us if there were a reasonable easement of the strategic control list?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the strategic control list was drawn up by my predecessors, including the right hon. Gentleman himself. It is kept under constant examination. Our desire is to try to keep in line, so far as is possible between one country and another. In present circumstances, I cannot see that there is any case for radical alteration.
    Mr. Wilson: Since the attempts of the right hon. Gentleman to keep in line with other countries seems to be always based on adding items to the list, may I ask whether he can say when there was a removal of any important item from the strategic list?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Exchequer and Audit Department (Staff)
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to speed up the accounts of the Land Commission and others, he will augment the staff of the Exchequer and Audit Department.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): No, Sir. I do not think that the increase of staff suggested would be justifiable.
    Mr. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the accounts of the Land Commission for 1952 were not audited till nine months later? Are not fresh accounts very much better than stale accounts? Is he not aware of the queuing up for auditing that takes place, and if the reason for the delay is shortage of staff, will he do something about it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate that the earlier these or any accounts can be rendered the more use they are. It so happens that they are submitted at what is the busy season of the year for this Department, namely, the autumn, and it would not be economical to appoint staff to deal with what is a seasonal rush.

    Peru (Sterling Debt)
    Sir Edward Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply has been received to the representations he made some months ago to the Peruvian Government that its sterling debt should be settled without further delay.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): The Peruvian Government have expressed their desire to arrive at a settlement, but negotiations to this end have not yet been opened. The Peruvian Government, however, have been left in no doubt that settlement at the earliest possible date is considered most desirable.
    Sir E. Keeling: Have the Government of Peru given any reasons for treating their dollar creditors, an agreement with whom was made many months ago, so much better than their sterling creditors?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot see how any reason can be put forward for discriminating between the two sets of creditors. We continue to urge on the Peruvians the importance of sending a mission to this country to negotiate an agreement.

    Costa Rica (Dollar Debt)
    Sir E. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the agreement between the United States of America and Costa Rica for settlement of Costa Rica's dollar debt has now been ratified; and what progress has been made in getting its Sterling debt paid since its Government stated six months ago that they were ready to begin discussions.
    Mr. Maudling: I am aware that the settlement of Costa Rica's dollar debt has been ratified. So far, however, no proposals have been received from the Costa Rican Government which the Council of Foreign Bondholders could recommend the holders of the London issues to accept. Her Majesty's Government are following up the question and will render all possible assistance to the Council.
    Sir E. Keeling: Have the Government of Costa Rica given any reason for treating their dollar creditors so much better than their British creditors?
    Mr. Maudling: The same answer must apply as I gave on the last Question. It is difficult to see any reason why differentiation should apply. Her Majesty's Government will continue to urge upon these Governments the great desirability of settling these debts.

    Iron and Steel Companies (Public Investment)
    Mr. G. R. Straussasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in fairness to potential investors, he will instruct the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency that all public invitations for investment in denationalised iron and steel companies must contain the statement that it is the declared policy of Her Majesty's Opposition to return these companies to public ownership at the first possible moment, without paying more in compensation for assets or stock than will be received by their sale, and that in any such calculation the amount of dividends paid to shareholders will be taken into account.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the Financial Secretary aware that during recent months, in some Government circles and in some sections of the Press, it has constantly been suggested that the resolve of the Labour Party to renationalise such iron and steel companies as may be necessary without imposing further burdens on the taxpayer has weakened in some way; and, as that is completely untrue, is it not desirable in the interests of potential shareholders that the true facts should be stated and the potential investors be left in no doubt on this matter in any advertisement that is issued by the Iron and Steel Agency?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the first place, it would be unprecedented to insert in a document of this sort any reference to the policy of a political party, as perhaps that would involve rather frequent amendment. In the second place, to insert any such statement would be inconsistent with the constructive way in which the debate on the Iron and Steel Act was carried out and with the emergence from that debate of what is generally regarded as a sensible and enduring arrangement.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that our policy on this matter has not altered at all from the beginning and is unlikely to alter; and that as, quite plainly, a campaign has been started to try to deceive people into believing the Government's view that this Act is a solution to the problem, it is essential, not only in the interests of the potential shareholders but to prevent them from
    1168
    having any grievance against the next Government, that they should be under no illusions as to the terms and conditions under which they buy these shares from the Government?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Nothing that I or anybody else can do can prevent large numbers of people from having many real grievances against any future Socialist Government, but I am bound to add that that contingency becomes more and more remote with every policy statement issued.

    Opera Company (Financial Assistance)
    Dr. Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the assistance to be given by the Arts Council to the Carl Rosa Opera Company.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. The Arts Council have arranged to cover any deficit on the autumn tour to be undertaken by the Carl Rosa Opera Company, except for its visit to Belfast, which is being dealt with through other organisations.
    Dr. Stross: Will the Financial Secretary take it from me that that is a very satisfactory reply and that, in the provinces in particular, people will be glad to have this company touring again? Will he bear in mind that if the Arts Council had had sufficient funds last year we would not have missed a complete season?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I share the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction that it has been possible to meet a very widespread demand that this company should be able to tour.

    British Firms (Canadian Investment)
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total of Canadian dollars made available by the Treasury to British firms for the purpose of capital development in Canada since the end of the war, and the total of Canadian dollars remitted to the Treasury as dividends for these investments in Canada.
    Mr. Maudling: The figure asked for in the first part of the Question is being ascertained, and with permission I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT in

    1169
    due course. As regards the second part of the Question, no separate figures are available to show the dividends remitted on post-war investments in Canada.
    Mr. Erroll: Could the Minister indicate, even if not precisely, whether we are getting a proper return on the dollars invested in Canada? Otherwise, a good deal of doubt is likely to arise over the advisability of continued investment in that country.
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think there could be any doubt about the great importance of stimulating investment from this country in the productive industry of Canada at present, but I hope that my hon. Friend will find it possible to await the figures I have promised. It would not be possible to provide separate figures of the dividends we missed.
    Mr. Erroll: There is no point in investing in a country if we do not know what we are to get out of the investments.
    Mr. Maudling: That is a matter which might be left to the investors concerned.
    Mr. Grimond: Is it not the case that many investments in Canada will only show a return in the long run and that the dividends at present remitted will not be a true indication of the eventual benefits to this country from such investments?
    Mr. Maudling: It is quite possible that a lot of investment in Canada will show a return only in the long run, but I quite agree that that does not make it any less important in the long run.

    Retired Officers' Pensions
    Mr. Marloweasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what classes of pensioners, other than the retired officers of the Armed Forces, had their pensions reduced in the inter-war years to below the 1920 level and still remain fixed at 9½ per cent., or more, below such level; and how many pensioners, other than such officers, who are now receiving less than they did 30 years ago.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Civil Service pensions awarded between 1922 and 1935 were also stabilised in 1935 at a level below the 1922 level. Owing to the different basis of Civil Service pensions as compared with those of retired officers of the Armed Forces the percentage
    1170
    reduction was not a uniform reduction on the 1922 rates. In some cases it was considerably more than 9½ per cent.; in a few cases less. Some of these pensioners receive less than they did 30 years ago.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is it not the case that the Government could easily meet the claim for pensions for retired officers without having to face heavy claims from other quarters? Is it not high time now that that was done?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a different and much wider question from that put on the Order Paper. My hon. and learned Friend asked what classes of pensioners were treated in this way and I have given him the answer.

  AGRICULTURE

    Owner and Tenant Farmers
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) how many farmers in England, excluding Wales, are owners and tenant-farmers, respectively; and the comparable figures in 1920 and in 1930;
    (2) how many Welsh farmers are owners and tenant-farmers, respectively; and the comparable figures in 1920 and in 1930.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale): In 1950, the last year for which information is available, the proportion of owner-occupied agricultural holdings was about 42 per cent. and the proportion of tenant farmers about 58 per cent., both in England and in Wales. Comparable information is not available for 1920 or 1930, but there are indications that the proportion of owner-occupancy both in England and in Wales has been increasing slowly.
    Mr. Bowen: Can the right hon. Gentleman give separate figures for England and separate figures for Wales?
    Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir, but the trend is as stated in my answer. It is very difficult to give definite figures. These percentages are only trends, and are the only figures available.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that the number of owner-occupiers has increased since the application of the successful agricultural policy of the Labour Government?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think it has anything to do with any particular Government's policy. I think the trend has recently been towards owner-occupancy.

    Polled Cattle (Breeding)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give greater encouragement to the breeding of polled cattle.
    Sir T. Dugdale: With the help of my Department private breeders are already engaged on the breeding of polled cattle of the Hereford, Sussex and Lincoln Red breeds. In addition, the Agricultural Research Council is carrying out an experiment in breeding polled Ayrshires. I am always ready to offer the same facilities to any other breeders who are prepared to undertake this very long-term project on scientific lines and with proper control.
    Mr. C. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that South Devon cattle are far better than any form of polled Angus?
    Sir T. Dugdale: That is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. C. Williams: Not at all.

    Grassland (Ploughing Up)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture how much land has been newly ploughed from grass to grow crops for the 1953 harvest; and to what extent the ploughing subsidy scheme has increased the tillage acreage this year.
    Sir T. Dugdale: About 600,000 acres of grassland in England and Wales have been ploughed up and cropped for the 1953 harvest. The cropping forecast made by farmers on 4th March, and published on 28th April, indicated an increase in tillage in England and Wales of about 100,000 acres. A better estimate can be made when the preliminary figures from 4th June Returns are available about the end of July.
    Mr. Hurd: May we take it that most of this extra 100,000 acres is now growing corn, and that this marks a reversal of the downward trend in the corn acreage of 1950 and 1951.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I think before deciding anything definitely on these figures we must wait until we get the next returns.
    Mr. T. Williams: Lest that supplementary question should be misleading, would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the increase in the grain crops this year compared with 1951?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The answer I gave said that the increase in England and Wales alone was about 100,000 acres of crops out of 600,000 acres of grassland that have been ploughed up in England and Wales.

    Food Losses
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated loss of foodstuffs in the United Kingdom in 1952 due to insect infestation.
    Sir T. Dugdale: So far as I know a reliable estimate of such food losses neither has been, nor can be, made.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Am I right in thinking that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation have made a rough estimate, and would that give any guidance as to the loss we suffer in this country?
    Sir T. Dugdale: It is very vague, but an expert committee of the F.A.O., in 1946, estimated that 5 per cent. of all grain, pulses and oilseeds harvested in the world was lost through insect infestation. If we were to apply that figure to the United Kingdom we should find that it would mean a loss of about 150,000 tons a year, but probably our loss is much less than that, less than the world average.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If there is a considerable loss abroad, up to 5 per cent., will the Minister give his strongest support to the measures taken by the F.A.O. to combat infestation in countries from which we import our food?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, I have this problem very much in mind.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated loss of foodstuffs in the United Kingdom in 1952 due to destruction by rats and other rodent pests.
    Sir T. Dugdale: There is no reliable basis for calculating the loss from year to

    1173
    year, but an estimate was made in 1949 that the loss of food caused by rats and mice was about 2 million tons a year. Since then the drive against these pests has continued and the present loss of food, though considerable, is probably lower than in 1949.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If it is anything like that figure, am I right in thinking that would be the equivalent of something like £30 million to £40 million on our balance of payments account, and, if so, will the Minister strenuously resist any proposal on the grounds of economy to reduce the anti-infestation organisation we have built up?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman would not be right to say it would all fall on our balance of payments. Some may be the result of loss of home-grown grain. On the figure for wheat it would be approximately correct, but the loss would be in terms of money. I certainly give an assurance to the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do all we can to avoid any further loss and, indeed, to reduce the loss as time goes on.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the local authorities are carrying out their obligations under the Act of 1951? Is the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Housing and Local Government cooperating with borough councils, rural district councils and urban district councils in fulfilling their duties?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, I think the scheme is going reasonably well. So far as rats and mice are concerned, there was recently introduced a rat and mouse poison called "Warfarin," which is being increasingly used to very good effect and proving very satisfactory.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: May I interpret what the Minister has said as a pledge that this organisation will not be reduced on the ground of economy?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I should not like the right hon. Gentleman to interpret anything I have said as a pledge, but I shall certainly look into the point made by the right hon. Gentleman to make sure I understand what he is asking me to give a pledge about.

    Fishmeal Factory, South-West Area
    Mr. G. R. Howardasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any further news about the setting up of a fishmeal factory in the South-West.
    Sir T. Dugdale: The White Fish Authority have engaged a consulting engineer to draw up plans and estimates for the proposed fishmeal factory. The Authority are also negotiating for a site at Plymouth.
    Mr. Howard: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is satisfied that it will be of real benefit to the fishermen in West Cornwall, particularly Newlyn? Will they have to bear the transport costs to that factory or not?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I cannot answer the last part of that supplementary question. At present the factory is entirely the responsibility of the White Fish Authority. I am keeping in the very closest touch with the developments that are taking place and I know that the authority are anxious to get it in being and working at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister request the White Fish Authority to bear in mind that there is a great deal of unemployment in West Cornwall, and to consider siting the factory there?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The decision where the factory is to be sited, has, I think, already been taken.

    RIVER TEIFI (CORACLE FISHING)
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the issuing of salmon licences for coracle fishermen on the River Teifi.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I have informed the South-West Wales River Board that I do not feel able to make the Order they have applied for, because I am not satisfied that I have the power to do so or that such an Order would improve the fishery. I appreciate, however, the Board's concern with the future of coracle fishing on the River Teifi, and with this in mind I have

    1175
    suggested that they should meet my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to discuss the problems involved.
    Mr. Donnelly: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, first, in principle, that it is desirable to have coracle fishing going on on this particular stretch of the river? Secondly, would he ask his hon. Friend also to receive representatives of the coracle fishermen, who would be only too happy to come to London and bring a coracle with them to show him, after seeing the South-West Wales River Board?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is, yes. I agree about the importance of coracle fishing on the river. I shall be only too willing to help in any way I can to solve this admittedly very difficult problem. So far as the second part of the supplementary question is concerned, I think we had better await the interview between the Parliamentary Secretary and the board, to see what progress is made, and then see whether any useful purpose would be served by asking the coracle fishermen to come to London to meet my hon. Friend.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Civil Defence (Deep Shelters)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has obtained from Sweden about the civil defence arrangements and provision for deep shelters for the civil population of that country in the event of atomic bombs, and to what extent he proposes to introduce similar measures here.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I have obtained from Sweden a considerable amount of information about the civil defence arrangements, including the provision of deep shelters for the civil population. Conditions in this country are not generally so favourable for the construction of deep shelter as they are in Sweden, but the possibility of providing such shelter has not been overlooked in the planning which is now proceeding.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Home Secretary aware that Stockholm has arrangements for building deep shelters for 20,000 people; and would he tell us whether
    1176
    his Department have come to any conclusion at all about deep shelters?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Facilities for studying the Swedish plans have recently been afforded by the Swedish authorities, and they are being studied in my Department.

    Cruelty to Animals (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place under the Cruelty to Animals Act since it was first introduced in 1876; and how many have been made since the war and in 1952.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: My consent is required only to prosecutions under the Act against licensed persons. There has never been such a prosecution.
    Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that, during 77 years, there have been more than 50 million experiments on living animals, many of which have been the cause of gross cruelty to the animals concerned, is not this Act a farce when there has not been a single prosecution over the whole of those 77 years?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I disagree pro-foundly. In point of fact, the opposite is demonstrated. Offences serious enough to justify prosecution do not occur because the Act is honestly observed to the best of their ability by those who work it, and because the inspectors are able to help licensees to understand and observe the limitations imposed upon them and so prevent major infractions of the terms of the licences.
    Mr. Freeman: Is it not obvious, then, that the animals concerned have no protection whatsoever, in view of the gross forms of cruelty that have been reported from time to time?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No; and I do not agree with the premise on which the hon. Gentleman is asking the question.
    Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that the bulk of the millions of operations to which the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman) refers are, in fact, nothing more than minor operations involving nothing more serious than a prick such as one would get from a thorn when gathering a rose; and is not this propaganda absolutely monstrous?
    Mr. de Freitas: Is it not the fact that the limitations and restrictions imposed by the Home Office under the Act under which they operate are extremely severe, so that it is almost impossible to bring a case of cruelty?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, I entirely agree.

    PORT WORKERS (TRANSFER)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Labour how many port workers have been transferred from port to port to facilitate the loading or discharge of vessels; how many were on a daily basis and how many on a period; and if he can state the amount of time that has been saved by this arrangement of transfers.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): Between 1st May and 13th June, 1953, there were 72,218 transfers on a daily basis and 91 transfers for longer periods. The work done by these men transferred amounted to approximately 73,200 days. I regret that it is not possible to give any estimate of the amount of time saved, but the National Dock Labour Board always tries to make the best use of its labour force.
    Mr. Awbery: In view of the condemnation expressed by the hon. Gentleman's supporters when these men were on strike, will he now express his appreciation of their services and the valuable way in which these men are exercising the system of transfer from port to port?
    Mr. Watkinson: I should be delighted to express my appreciation and that of Her Majesty's Government of the dockers as a whole. We remember how they saved this country in the ports during the war years.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Hospitals (Fire Prevention)
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Minister of Health what powers fire authorities have under his regulations to inspect fire prevention arrangements in hospitals; whether he is satisfied that those powers are adequate; and to what extent it is customary for hospital management
    1178
    committees to seek the advice of chief fire officers of local authority fire brigades on fire prevention matters.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): I have made no regulations on this subject. Although fire authorities have no power to enter hospitals without the agreement of hospital authorities, I have no evidence that this is ever unreasonably withheld. Indeed, the advice of fire brigade officers on fire prevention is widely sought by hospital authorities.

    Medical Auxiliaries
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Minister of Health when regulations will be made prescribing qualifications for medical auxiliaries; and if professional and other bodies concerned have yet been given an opportunity to comment on the outline of these regulations.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: An outline of the proposed regulations was sent for comment to the professional and other interested bodies at the beginning of May, and discussions are being arranged with the organisations who have requested them. Until these have taken place, I shall not be able to say when the regulations will be made.
    Mr. Bowden: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the regulations will not permit a lowering in the standard of qualifications required for these auxiliaries?
    Mr. Macleod: The very object of the qualification is that the Ministers may be satisfied that high qualifications are maintained in all hospitals.

    Nurses (Penicillin Sensitivity)
    Mr. Hargreavesasked the Minister of Health the number of district nurses who have developed a sensitivity to penicillin and cannot undertake further nursing duties; and what special precautions are available to protect nurses exposed to this risk.
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Health how many nurses have been reported as becoming allergic to penicillin; how many had to abandon their nursing career as a consequence; and what is being done to assist nurses who find themselves in such a position after undergoing several years of training.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The total number of district nurses affected is not known, but a special inquiry has shown that in 70 local health authority areas 73 nurses had become sensitive to penicillin, and had to give up nursing for varying periods. There is evidence that the incidence can be reduced by strict observance of technical precautions, and I have at once obtained advice on this from my Standing Medical Advisory Committee. I am circulating this advice urgently to local health authorities and others concerned.
    Nurses who have to give up work by reason of sensitivity to antibiotics are entitled to the normal sick leave allowances and may, in appropriate cases, qualify for incapacity benefit under the National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations. They may also, when the circumstances warrant it, qualify for industrial injuries benefit. The numbers, if any, who may have to give up nursing permanently are not yet known.
    Mr. Hargreaves: Would the Minister consider approaching the employing authorities in these cases, so that they may gain the requisite information from their nursing superintendents? Would he compare the means whereby penicillin is administered in hospitals where the incidence of this sensitivity is less, and possibly learn of a method by which this risk can be reduced for nurses who have to undertake the administering of a great deal of penicillin?
    Mr. Macleod: I will look carefully into what the hon. Gentleman says. I know there is a great deal of truth in it. Perhaps I might send him a copy of the advice I have been given by the Medical Advisory Committee, which covers many of the points he raises.

    Nurses (Pre-Entry Training)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Health if he will, in view of the shortage of nurses, take steps to arrange a system of pre-entry training and reduce the period of general training by a short period to all pre-entrants.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): Pre-nursing courses approved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and the General
    1180
    Nursing Council already exist in many areas, and the local education authorities are encouraged to provide additional courses wherever they are needed. Any reduction of the general training period for students who have completed such a course would be a question for the General Nursing Council. Such students are already admitted to Part I of the Preliminary Examination before entering on the nurse-training course.
    Mr. Awbery: Can an arrangement be made for the training of these girls between 16 and 18? Girls of 16 are anxious to train as nurses but cannot enter the profession at 16 and, during these two years, lose the desire to become nurses, with the result that we lose nurses from the profession.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: As I informed the hon. Gentleman in my reply, such courses were under way, and in the year 1951–52, for example, there were 655 attending full time and 987 attending part-time courses in further education establishments for just this age group of persons. The shortage now in the general nursing service is more limited, and our real problem is in mental nursing.
    Mr. Awbery: Is anything being done to encourage these girls to enter the nursing profession?

CORONATION DECORATIONS (REMOVAL)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. DRIBERG: TO ask the Minister of Works if, since many provincial and overseas visitors cannot come to London until the normal holiday period, he will consider the possibility of retaining in position some at least of the Coronation decorations, such as the arches in The Mall, until the end of the summer or until their condition begins appreciably to deteriorate; and if he will cause the floral decorations to be renewed, and Government buildings and parks to be floodlit, for as long a period as possible.
At the end of Questions—
The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to reply to Question No. 53.

1181
Some people want the decorations taken down and some want them left up. In an endeavour to hold the balance I have decided that with three exceptions the contractors shall begin the work of removal on Monday next, 22nd June.
These exceptions are: the poles in Hyde Park which will be left until after the ex-Service men's Review on 5th July; the Annexe which will remain until after the Abbey is closed to the public on 4th July; thirdly, The Mall, where the dismantling of the arches and standards will not start before 29th June. Sunday, 28th June, will be the last night of illuminations in The Mall. But a number of public buildings in Central London will be floodlit until the end of September.
Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is in consultation with the local authorities responsible for some of the best of the decorations, to see what they are doing about them? Can he also say a word, which he has not said, about the floral decorations? Even if it is not possible to renew those that came from overseas, there are plenty of flowers in this country, too.
Sir D. Eccles: I think that the local authority decorations are a matter for each authority to make up their own minds about having regard to the state of the decorations in their area. I have no money to replace the flowers on the route. My stock of plants is limited and they will be wanted for the replanting of the parks during the rest of the summer.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be regarded as rather mean and miserable—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]— as the meanest and most miserable pronouncement that he has made in connection with the Coronation festivities, and that his decision will deprive scores of thousands of people, both in London and in the provinces, of the opportunity of seeing something for which they themselves are being called upon to pay?
Sir D. Eccles: I cannot hope to please everybody, but I think that we have pleased a very large number of people.
Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Minister give priority to clearing Parliament Square and restoring it to its former beauty?
Sir D. Eccles: Yes, that will begin on Monday next.
Mr. Nicholson: What is the future of Eros, in Piccadilly Circus? Does the Minister presume to think that he can permanently cage the God of Love?
Sir D. Eccles: A distinguished Frenchman told me that only an Englishman could have thought of the idea. Eros is the responsibility of the Westminster City Council.

KOREA (ESCAPE OF PRISONERS OF WAR)
Mr. Wyatt(by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the sudden release of 25,000 anti-Communist North Korean prisoners of war by the order of President Syngman Rhee and against the wishes of the United Nations Command.
The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I have nothing to add to the statement which has been issued by the United Nations Headquarters at Tokyo to the Press and is now in the newspapers.
I have asked our Ambassador in Washington to ask for any further facts from the United States Government. Meanwhile, I have no more information to give the House.
Mr. Wyatt: Can the Prime Minister, first of all, tell the House how it came about that the United States guards were unable to prevent the escape of these 25,000 prisoners, and, further, whether he proposes to repudiate this deliberate act of sabotage of the truce negotiations by Mr. Syngman Rhee; and, also, whether there is any indication yet, on the Communist side, of any reaction to this incident?
Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while I agree that there is blame on the other side, so far as sabotaging the truce negotiations is concerned by the Chinese offensive at present—and I am not suggesting that the United States Government themselves are necessarily to blame—a very grave situation has arisen in which it looks as if it may well be impossible to conclude a truce effectively with Mr. Syngman Rhee in full possession in South Korea? Will

1183
he give consideration to the view, widely held in this country, that it may be necessary to declare a state of emergency and take this Government into preventive custody?
The Prime Minister: I think there is a general feeling in all parts of the House about the serious character of these events and also of the difficulty of measuring beforehand the consequences which it may have. In these circumstances, I would ask the indulgence of the House not to press me to try to say anything until we have further and fuller information.
Mr. H. Morrison: I do think that the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) was worthy of an answer. This is obviously a very serious event, and would it not be right that the Prime Minister should give some indication of the regret of Her Majesty's Government that an action should have been taken by the President of South Korea which is liable to complicate and make infinitely difficult the truce negotiations and a settlement?
The Prime Minister: I was both shocked and grieved to read this report. I think that is felt in every part of the House. I still think that there may be a hope that the truce which is so nearly arranged will not be prevented.
Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister consider whether he may make a statement tomorrow morning, if events enable him to do so?
The Prime Minister: That is a hypothetical question. Naturally, if there is any necessity to make a statement, I will have one made.
Mr. Bing: Does not the Prime Minister consider that one of the unfortunate factors which has led up to this situation is the acquiescence of everyone in allowing Mr. Syngman Rhee to suppress his Parliament, and will not the Prime Minister say a word in favour of the restoration of some form of parliamentary government?
Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Is there not a rule of this House against making references to the heads of Foreign States?
Mr. Speaker: There is against references of an abusive character.
Later—
Mr. Donnelly: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order No. 9, the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the escape of 45,000 —I understand now that it is 45,000— prisoners of war under the control of the United Nations in Korea.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House——
The Prime Minister: Before you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I most respectfully submit that it is not a matter of Ministerial responsibilty here. We have absolutely no control over the immediate course of events.
Mr. Speaker: That had occurred to me.
The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the escape of 45,000 prisoners of war under the control of the United Nations in Korea. I find this definitely not within the Standing Order. I cannot link it with Ministerial responsibilty of any kind on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers. Moreover, we are asking for more information. It would be quite outside the Standing Order to permit the Motion.
Mr. Driberg: On the question of Ministerial responsibility, if it is in order to ask a Question of a Minister, whether by Private Notice or otherwise, surely a fortiori it must be possible to debate the matter on the Adjournment, since the rules of order governing debates on the Adjournment are much less rigid and restrictive than the rules of order governing Questions?
Mr. Speaker: They are quite different. It is quite in order for a Minister to be asked by Private Notice if he has any information to give the House about happenings in foreign countries, but if every one of those were to involve the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 the purpose of the Standing Order would be defeated.
Mr. Donnelly: Surely all matters connected with the United Nations are matters of Ministerial responsibility. This is such a grave and important matter that it may indeed affect the whole peace of the Far East and, therefore, it is a matter both for urgent consideration by the Prime Minister and by this House, because we accept responsibility for having sent people to the Far East to undertake this war.
Mr. Speaker: I can find nothing in this incident, either on reading or hearing about it today, which involves any responsibility on Her Majesty's Government.

FOOD POISONING, PRESTON
Mr. Shackleton(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement concerning the mass outbreak of food poisoning in Preston and district as a result of which deaths have occurred and it is reported that hundreds of people are ill, and whether he is satisfied with counter measures that have been taken.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. Up to last evening 734 cases of food poisoning had been notified in the present outbreak. Fifteen cases are still in hospital. There has been one death. The distribution of cases is as follows:

Lancashire County Districts: 511 — 10 in hospital.

Preston County Borough: 162 — 4 in hospital.

Blackpool County Borough: 60 — 1 in hospital.

Blackburn County Borough: 1.

The outbreak appears now to have terminated.
The source of infection was meat pies, contaminated with a virulent form of salmonella. The manufacture of these pies has been stopped and investigations are continuing to determine the manner in which this contamination occurred.
I am satisfied that all appropriate measures have been taken to control this outbreak.
Mr. Shackleton: Will the Minister urge upon all the local authorities concerned the importance of giving precise information of this kind? His statement is the first bit of solid information that has been
1186
made available to the general public. It would help to allay alarm if precise facts could be given.
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. That is very helpful, and I am certain that this Question and answer will help in that regard.
Dr. Stross: As this is one of the most serious and widespread outbreaks that we have had for many years, will the Minister now use his influence, together with the Minister of Food, to ensure that the Government at last brings in the Food and Drugs Bill, which has been available for years and which would help to prevent this type of attack?
Mr. Macleod: I am very much aware of the importance of that matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Questions about it were recently addressed to the Minister of Food.
Mr. Amery: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the medical and hospital facilities are adequate to deal with this rather large-scale outbreak?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. The figure of 734 cases probably makes the outbreak sound rather more alarming than it is. There are 15 in hospital and there has been only one death. The facilities are quite adequate.
Dr. Broughton: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will do all they possibly can to encourage education in clean food handling and so raise the standard of food hygiene in this country?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. That is of the first importance. As a matter of fact, about 10 days ago I sent out most detailed instructions to all hospitals and institutions over which I have control.

MISS MARGARET BONDFIELD (TRIBUTES)
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I hope that hon. Members will allow me, however unusual it may be, to refer to an ex-Member of the House, to note with sorrow the death of Miss Margaret Bondfield, announced today. It is many years now since the right hon. Lady graced our assembly. She was not a Member for very long, but she will always have a unique place

1187
in the history of Parliament. She was the first Lady to be admitted to the Privy Council and the first right hon. Lady to be a Cabinet Minister. She was Minister of Labour at a very difficult period, but she was a good Parliamentarian. As one who had constantly to cross swords with her, I know that she was always a courteous and generous opponent. Let us then, as a House, salute her memory and express our sympathy with her relatives and friends.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Attlee: I should like to associate hon. Members on this side of the House with the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman has paid to Miss Margaret Bond-field. She was a very distinguished Member of this House and she gave unwearied service for very many years to the cause of women workers. She was a very old friend and colleague of mine. She was a very fine character.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for next week?
Mr. Crookshank: The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 22ND JUNE — Committee stage: Finance Bill.
TUESDAY, 23RD JUNE—We hope to complete the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 24TH JUNE—It is hoped to complete the remaining stages of the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation Bill.
THURSDAY, 25TH JUNE—Second Reading: National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (No. 2) Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution.
Report and Third Reading: National Insurance Bill.
FRIDAY, 26TH JUNE—I should perhaps remind hon. Members that Government business will be taken. We are proposing to take the Second Reading of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] and the Merchandise Marks Bill [Lords].
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the Committee stage of the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation Bill is not concluded today, we could take the Committee stage on Wednesday?
Mr. Crookshank: I expressed the hope last week that we might conclude it today. We had better see how we get along.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend say when time will be found to discuss the serious and shocking report on the sinking of the "Princess Victoria"?
Mr. Crookshank: My hon. and gallant Friend will probably have noticed that Questions are down for Monday to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. We had better await his replies before we go into the matter further.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to a Motion in the name of a number of hon. Members expressing dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister's statement about the return to Scotland of the Stone of Destiny? Is he aware that these doubts are shared by the leading Conservative newspaper in Scotland? We are not asking for any long debate, but does he think he could give us an hour to persuade the Prime Minister of his error?
Mr. Crookshank: I heard the reply which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday about this matter. I am prepared to leave it at that.
Mr. Marlowe: As there is now to be no more Private Members' time, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a Motion down for discussion tomorrow relating to officers' retired pay and that this subject was debated in another place yesterday? Having regard to the thoroughly unsatisfactory answer given by the Minister of Defence in another place, will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate here in Government time as it seems unlikely that we shall have a debate tomorrow because that Motion is second on the Order Paper?
Mr. Crookshank: I cannot anticipate the course of tomorrow's business. Any question about the matter had better be postponed until we see what happens tomorrow.
Mr. Shinwell: Is it not somewhat unfair to hon. Members that there should be a debate of this character in another place and that we should be precluded from having such a debate here?
Mr. Crookshank: We are not precluded at all. The Opposition have certain rights in the House, and they have Supply Days when they can raise all sorts of matters about which they have grievances. I do not think that we are entitled to criticise anything which takes place in another place.
Mr. Shinwell: I am not criticising what took place in another place. The other place has a perfect right to do as it pleases in these matters. A Motion on this matter is down for discussion tomorrow, but I understand that there is another Motion preceding the one on officers' retired pay and, therefore, the second one may not be reached. Is this not a matter for the Government to arrange?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. When there is a Motion on the Order Paper we could not possibly anticipate what will happen to it and promise to have other debates on the same subject.
Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is
1190
now an established practice that three days in the Session should be devoted to debates on public corporations. Can he say whether the Government are keeping that in mind and whether, as I presume is the case, they have every intention of honouring that understanding during the present Parliamentary session?
Mr. Crookshank: All honourable understandings are always kept by the Government.
Mr. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific and say that three days will be arranged for debates on public corporations?
Mr. Crookshank: I certainly hope so, so far as it is an honourable undertaking, but I am not tying myself down to any specific dates at present. I was asked only about the business for next week, which seems to me to be fairly full.
Proceedings on the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation Bill 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 BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 9th June].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND FEDERATION BILL

    Clause 1.—(POWER BY ORDER IN COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH FEDERATION, ETC.)
    Amendment proposed, 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:" —(Mr. Dugdale.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    3.54 p.m.
    Mr. James Griffiths: May I seek your guidance, Sir Charles, upon the Amendment which has already been moved and partly debated and which is now before the Committee? Towards the end of the sitting on Tuesday of last week, you indicated that this Amendment, was to be taken with another Amendment as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 9th June, 1953, column 171. May I ask whether you will state again what Amendments are being taken in conjunction with this one; and secondly, which Amendments you propose to call so that they may be divided upon?
    The Chairman: With this Amendment, which was moved at the last sitting of the Committee, I said it would be convenient to discuss the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), in page 1, line 10, after "Legislature," insert:
    "in which there shall be an equal number of Europeans and Africans."
    Also with these Amendments the following new Clauses should be considered— those in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—(Reserved powers), (Co-operative societies), (Entry of British citizens), (Deportation of
    1192
    British Citizens), and (Federal Assembly), and the one in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley)— (Saving for trade unions).
    On the question of Divisions, I understand that it is the wish of the Opposition to divide not on the first Amendment but on the second one. If the first Amendment is withdrawn after discussion, then the second one can be divided upon. I do not know whether any Divisions are wanted on the new Clauses, but I should say now that that will be out of order.
    Mr. Griffiths: A number of new Clauses are associated with these two Amendments, and they deal with the Legislature and its power over trade unions, co-operative societies, and so on. Would it not be the most convenient course to vote on the Amendment before us, and then link up with one or more of the new Clauses dealing with trade unions and so on?
    The Chairman: When we come to consider those new Clauses they will be out of order, because Clause 1 will then be part of the Bill.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: May I venture to suggest that whether we divide or not is a question which we have to determine when we have heard the Ministerial reply? The question whether there is to be a Division rests in the bosom of every single Member of the Committee when he has heard the statement from the Government Front Bench, and how he votes and whether he votes in support of or against the right hon. Gentleman is a matter for himself. I am always perfectly willing to leave everything to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), and I am sure I shall do so today, but it would be unfortunate if it went out that we have decided what way to vote before hearing the discussion and the Ministerial reply. It would certainly be an unfortunate inference to go back to Central Africa.
    On the second point, may I mention one difficulty? I understood, when you ruled on this matter last week, that you were rather accepting the view of these new Clauses being called together and collectively moved by one person. That would be unfortunate in the sense that

    1193
    there are a number of the new Clauses to all of which that person's name might not be attached; indeed, he might be in violent disagreement with some of them. Therefore, I should like to indicate to you, Sir Charles, with regard to those new Clauses for which I am personally responsible, that I shall try to catch your eye to move them. It would be unfortunate if one hon. Member moved seven or eight new Clauses collectively some of which he sponsored, some of which he agreed with and some of which he did not agree with.
    The Chairman: I should have made it perfectly clear earlier that there is only one Question before the Committee at the moment, the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich, in page 1, line 10, after "Legislature," to insert the words on the Order Paper. On that Amendment we can discuss various new Clauses but they cannot be moved because by the time we get to them they will be out of order.
    Mr. John Dugdale: I am afraid I arrived in the Committee a few moments late and I have not heard every word of the discussion. Might I suggest this? The trouble about my Amendment is that it refers to powers, and you, Sir Charles, told us when the Committee last sat that it would cover all the other powers that were mentioned. I have moved the Amendment and I cannot go back on it. We are going to discuss it further, but when it comes to the point of dealing with it I would suggest that I should withdraw it in favour of the other Amendment to page 1, line 10, after "Legislature," to insert:
    "in which there shall be an equal number of Europeans and Africans."
    That, in fact, covers the main point which I have referred to in greater detail in the earlier Amendment.
    The Chairman: I understand that that was what was wanted, and that will be all right. I gather that after the discussion is finished, the first Amendment will be withdrawn and another Amendment will be discussed—that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in page 1, line 10, after "Legislature," insert:
    1194
    "to be elected on a franchise which shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and any change in which shall be subject to the like approval."
    With that Amendment will be taken the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), in page 1, line 10, after "Legislature," to insert:
    "to be elected on a franchise which shall be drawn up upon principles to be formulated and from time to time amended by the Secretary of State, as may be in his opinion best calculated to secure that the whole population in the Territories shall be fairly represented."
    After the debate a vote will be taken, but it will not be taken immediately after the debate on the Amendment now before the Committee.
    Mr. Dugdale: If that is done, then will it be possible to vote on the other issues covered by the new Clauses, such as trade unions and co-operative societies?
    The Chairman: No, it would not be, because by the time we get to them on the Order Paper Clause 1 will be part of the Bill, and, therefore, they will be out of order.
    Sir Richard Acland: Will all the new Clauses be out of order when Clause 1 stands part of the Bill, and if not, why will these particular new Clauses be out of order when Clause 1 is part of the Bill?
    4.0 p.m.
    The Chairman: Some will be out of order. One which will not be out of order is the one in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths)—(Disqualification for membership of Legislature)—which I shall call when we get to it.
    Mr. Dugdale: Do I understand, Sir Charles, that the difficulty does not arise from the fact that my first Amendment mentions a large number of powers? I understood previously that it was that Amendment which would prevent us from voting on various things later, but now I understand that it is something quite different.
    The Chairman: Yes, quite different. This is virtually a one-Clause Bill, and once we have Clause 1 standing part the new Clauses which we are now discussing will be out of order.
    Mr. Geoffrey Bing: If one takes these various new Clauses together, one has a general, broad picture of the type of controls which we wish to impose upon the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. All of us on this side of the Committee are regretfully forced into the position that the word of the Minister in these matters is not sufficient and that we ought to have some legislative control over his powers. On this side of the Committee we do not think that it is good enough for the Minister merely to say that he will not behave badly. We think that he ought to be asked by law not to behave badly— that he should be compelled by law to behave properly.
    If I may, I will use one of the Clauses which stands in my own name— (Deportation of British citizens)—to illustrate the way in which the right hon. Gentleman appears to be making use in a general way of the powers of deportation and the like by persons under his control to enforce a political policy. I will begin by referring the Committee to a question which was asked in the "Manchester Guardian" of last Tuesday, which seems to be peculiarly appropriate to our present discussion. That paper asked a question about a Mr. John Rex who, like so many hon. Members on this side of the Committee, is an opponent of Central African federation.
    What happened to Mr. John Rex? He had been appointed as the organising tutor to the extramural department of the principal college in Sierra Leone, a long way from Central Africa. What happened to him? His appointment was mysteriously cancelled. By whom was his appointment mysteriously cancelled? By the right hon. Gentleman, who now says that we do not need any safeguards about deportation or things of that sort. So, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, perhaps he will reassure the Committee in regard to this matter by dealing with the question asked in the editorial of the "Manchester Guardian." Let me read to the Committee what that newspaper had to say on this matter:
    "Two possible reasons for this change of attitude present themselves. First, Mr. Rex is a South African, though his views are at the opposite pole to Dr. Malan's; and it has been suggested that African students are now so hostile to any South African, whatever his views, that it is imprudent to appoint him.
    1196
    This seems unlikely, for a South African was recently appointed to a similar post at Kumasi, in the Gold Coast. An alternative reason is that Mr. Rex has been an outspoken critic, in our correspondence columns and elsewhere, of Central African Federation. It would be regrettable if such a consideration stood in the way of an academic appointment. Did it? If not, what did the Colonial Office say to the college about Mr. Rex?"
    We might have some guidance as to what is to be the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to deportation and in regard to the admission of European students.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I think it just as well to interrupt the flow of eloquence of the hon. and learned Gentleman on this matter to give him one assurance. It is that no question of Central African federation entered into the cancellation of Mr. Rex's appointment. It had nothing whatever to do with it.
    Mr. Bing: What did, then? I am glad not to talk under an error, and to realise that this is another one of those irresponsible acts which march equally with the other type of acts in which the right hon. Gentleman indulges. Let me turn to another case of deportation, the case of Mr. Peter Evans. In this case Mr. Peter Evans was expelled from the Gold Coast for the serious and grossly improper crime of having appeared as a lawyer in a court in Kenya without charging a fee. He was expelled from Kenya and he was expelled subsequently from Tanganyika for an equal offence. His expulsion has been justified by the right hon. Gentleman. But what were the events immediately preceding that expulsion? The event which immediately preceded it was that Mr. Evans sat down to examine a number of murders of Africans which had taken place and which were alleged to have been done by Home Guards and by Europeans.
    The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State for Colonial affairs know the matter quite well because, as soon as I heard of it, I sent to them photostatic copies of the declarations made by the various people concerned. The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs knows perfectly well that the Senior Superintendent of Police regarded the matter as so serious that he suggested that Mr. Evans should be present in the police station so that it would be possible for people to give their evidence without any worry or fear. What happened?

    1197
    The Government of the right hon. Gentleman suddenly found that Mr. Evans had committed this terrible crime. Of course the right hon. Gentleman will be on his feet in a moment to assure us again that this was just a coincidence, just another one of those extraordinary coincidences, which have no relation at all—perhaps I could have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for a moment?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am listening.
    Mr. Bing: May I pause for a moment, Sir Charles, until the right hon. Gentleman has finished his reading matter? I am sorry that he reads so slowly but perhaps that explains why he is so out of touch with his Department.
    In the case of Mr. Evans here is someone whose presence is obviously necessary if this matter is to be investigated. It would be quite wrong in this Committee to prejudice the matter or go into it and argue whether the evidence he had collected was true or not. However, I have read all the evidence and it appears to me to be a formidable indictment of two Europeans. There are many statements made by witnesses, some of them Home Guards. What happens? The very man who is collecting all this evidence, who is presenting this case, is deported, and the right hon. Gentleman comes forward and defends it here.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May we have all the evidence that is supposed to be being discussed?
    Mr. Bing: I should welcome its publication as a While Paper by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to whom I passed it.
    Mr. Craddock: Where did the hon. and learned Gentleman get it?
    Mr. Bing: I received it from Mr. Evans who is a colleague of mine at the Bar. I do not think there is anything improper about that. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt again?
    Mr. Craddock: I should like to ask for information, Sir Charles. Is it not right and proper that any document which is referred to in debate here ought to be laid on the Table?
    The Chairman: No, only if a Minister is quoting from a State document. That has nothing to do with this question.
    Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his facts, but should be encouraged in his views. I hope he will use his utmost endeavours to get his right hon. Friend to publish this material. I will give him every facility. The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs has the photostatic originals and I will provide the hon. Gentleman with them if he so desires, if the Minister will let me have them back. I should value greatly his views and support in this matter.
    I now turn to another aspect of this matter, the question of trade unionism. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) and I have put our names to an Amendment which seeks to secure at any rate the same trade union rights in the Federation as exist in this country. Nothing can be more important than that trade unionism be allowed to exist as an outlet for an expression of political opinion. Already the right hon. Gentleman is resisting any political representation; he is against that. How, then, are people to represent their views unless they can represent them through a trade union? That is practically the only existing alternative method of expressing opinion. Are we to close that down, too, or are we to be told that only those trade unions can exist which undertake in advance always to express the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, whatever that may be from time to time?
    Then we come to the question of cooperative societies. I hope once again that this will be safeguarded in the Constitution. It is through co-operative endeavour that it is possible for the African inhabitant to challenge the economic position at present occupied by the white settler. He does not have the same amount of capital available. He needs to get together in some form of co-operative organisation if he is in any way to challenge the economic domination, not only of the white settler, but of organisations like the United Africa Company—great companies of that sort, which have played a very mixed part in African development and the activities of which now deserve to be curtailed in so far as it is possible so to organise locally.

    1199
    The new Clauses which we have put down attempt to provide some safeguard for there being some political outlet, some opportunity for the expression of opinion other than by revolution. How does the Colonial Secretary think that other than by revolution people will express their views if he does not allow them to be represented in Parliament, if he does not allow them to have trade unions, and if he puts their co-operatives at the mercy of the class who have always been most opposed to co-operative endeavour?
    The Prime Minister once said that it was not going to be his fate to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. I do not think he fully appreciated the effect of taking the Colonial Secretary into his Cabinet. Those of us who have the opportunity occasionally to go down to the lower Smoke Room will see there the portrait of one of the British Prime Ministers, whose distinction has not yet been sufficiently appreciated. He looks out sadly over the scene, wearing the robes of the Order of the Garter. He was a Prime Minister who also suffered from his Cabinet. He was Lord North, who lost another Colonial Empire because he did not ever believe that the Colonies ought to be represented in any way. That is what I am asking the right hon. Gentleman—not to repeat that pattern of Tory folly in dealing with colonial peoples, which starts with their relations with the American colonies and goes on, for example, with their relations with Ireland.
    A famous speech was once made in this House by Mr. Tim Healy on the subject of Ireland in a debate on Uganda. If one so wished, one could very easily make a good speech on the whole issue of African federation in a debate on Ireland. There are exactly the same problems arising: the land question, the denial of representation and the refusal to agree with the views of the inhabitants—the whole same question, ultimately leading to the same horrible solution, a solution of civil war and of misery, a solution which leaves people far worse off on both sides than had they taken a sensible and reasonable view.
    4.15 p.m.
    There is every danger that this country may, like France, find itself led into
    1200
    a series of colonial wars up and down Africa and over the world. It is against that danger that this Committee has a duty to guard. Our Amendments and proposed new Clauses are framed for two purposes. One is to show that the Members on this side of the Committee are all united—I think I can speak for all my hon. Friends—in saying that for the African inhabitants of Africa there must be every democratic institution provided and that we are not entitled to deny them any advantage of democracy that we have here.
    But the Amendments are also designed for another purpose. They are an attempt to persuade the Colonial Secretary and his hon. and right hon. Friends to desist from a course which, in the view of many of us, is likely to lead to the break-up and the collapse of the colonial Commonwealth, upon which, after all, the wealth and prosperity of every person in these islands depends.
    Mr. Hale: I do not think any of us here today would doubt for a moment that the reason for debating newer and fuller precautions in the Bill is much more serious at this moment than it has been, that the situation is certainly getting worse and that the news we are getting from Central Africa tends to indicate a rapidly worsening situation. One says that with great reluctance and one has to speak with a sense of responsibility in view of that situation. It does, however, become incumbent upon the House of Commons to consider the question of reopening altogether the consideration of African opinion in this matter.
    I remember that on one of the early occasions when this matter was discussed the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations wound up the debate. I am sorry I do not have the actual quotation with me, but somebody else has borrowed the volume before me. Speaking, apparently, with great sincerity —I do not for a moment doubt his sincerity—the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "We really are going to consult the Africans. We have a deputation coming over and we have every intention of consulting them." Most of us were greatly impressed when the hon. and learned Gentleman said that.
    What really happened?. A movement in Nyasaland originated to send African

    1201
    representatives here. I do not challenge the fact that the African representatives who were invited here to form that deputation on the whole were invited by one of the usual methods. They represented the proper and constitutional organisations of the Africans in the Territories. They were not elected delegates; they were not the representatives of a rising African feeling at that moment. Even they have gone back completely opposed to this scheme and completely mortified by what happened.
    There was, however, a movement to send African representatives here. A ban was put on the collection of money for the purpose. They were not allowed to subscribe their coppers. When a Question was asked, the right hon. Gentleman said the reason was that something had gone wrong with a collection in 1948. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) joined in with the information that, anyhow, the collection had been stopped, because of the poor response, before the fund was banned. Why the Government should ban a fund that had ceased, I do not know; but we were not surprised later to find out that £6,000 had been collected in the Territories and that chieftains were coming over—and they did come over. That money was collected from some of the poorest people in the world.
    In debates on another Territory in East Africa some time ago, I produced the labour agreements for farm workers in Kenya. Conditions are very much the same in Nyasaland. I brought before the House the signed and executed agreements, in which men were being employed at the rate of 3s. a week. Those agreements were handed to a number of Conservative Members for inspection. They were produced at the meeting attended by Mr. Michael Blundell, who was a party to some of them, and shown to him. They were the subject of dissertation and correspondence in the Press.
    Then, in my absence a few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Colchester, without any notice to me and without giving any reason, thought fit to suggest that they were all forged documents and questioned their authenticity.
    Mr. C. J. M. Alport: On a point of order. In this debate, will the rules of order permit me, if I catch your eye later on, Sir Charles, to refer to the
    1202
    particular matter which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has raised and which deals with the problem of Kenya, whereas, in my submission, there is no reference to that matter in this Bill?
    The Chairman: I thought the hon. Member was giving this in support of his argument for one of these new Clauses being adopted.
    Mr. Hale: I am obliged to you, Sir Charles. I refer to page 47 of the Report on Nyasaland, which gives the actual wages. I know that they take some collating, but it is regrettable that these Reports should take so long to prepare; this one is the Report for 1951. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Colchester, having made a savage personal attack on another hon. Member in his absence and without notice, should rise on a point of order to suggest that in taking an early opportunity to reply I am going outside the rules of debate.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I fully understand that the hon. Member for Oldham, West is entitled to make an illustration to bring home a point on the matter of Central African Federation, but is it in order to argue these matters in detail and bring up questions which concern only Kenya?
    The Chairman: I thought the hon. Member was making the point in support of the new Clause—(Saving for trade unions)—and was showing how the wage rates were unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Bing: Further to that point of order, Sir Charles. Surely it is perfectly proper to refer to one area where unions are completely barred to show what the rates are likely to be if we do not have trade unionism in another area?
    The Chairman: That is what I thought the point was.
    Mr. Hale: I am very much obliged. I had in fact come to Nyasaland by the time the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State rose. I was quoting from the Report on Nyasaland, which, after all, is in the area, and which gives the wages on field labour as varying from 25s. to 30s. per month. I was saying that these are the poorest people in the world, and I was not dealing with a trade union matter. It is very difficult to localise each observation. I was dealing with African Federation and was saying that these

    1203
    very poor people who sent chieftains over to represent them really have a case for added representation and are disturbed at the progress of affairs in this direction.
    The new Clause to which I want particularly to draw the attention of the Committee, and on which I desire particularly to speak, is that on "Reserved powers" and, consequential upon that, the proposed new Schedule. It seems to me that this is a matter of very great importance. We have seen what happened in South Africa and have read debates on the South Africa Bill. From all sides of the House, in a debate which included such distinguished hon. Members as the late Keir Hardie and the late Ramsay MacDonald, fervent and passionate speeches were made saying that we were not able to give the African democracy at this moment but that he would get it eventually.
    The case was made time after time that under the new, independent Government that would be created the African would have full democracy and full representation. What has happened? It is not putting it too high to say that the whole unity of the British Commonwealth of Nations is being imperilled by the African policy of Dr. Malan. We were told there were reserved Clauses. Constant reference was made in the debates on the South Africa Bill to reserved Clauses. Some of us have been looking to try to find them. It is, of course, technically and academically correct to say that this House could repeal the South Africa Bill tomorrow if it wanted to——
    Captain J. A. L. Duncan: The South Africa Act.
    Mr. Hale: If it is a correction, I should like to hear it.
    Captain Duncan: The South Africa Act.
    Mr. Hale: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member who has made a most substantial contribution to the debate. We could repeal the Act tomorrow, but that would have no effect. Only by force or resort to the arbitrament of war could we alter the status of South Africa today. No one in his senses would suggest that, or desire it.
    Throughout the series of debates we have had, the right hon. Gentleman has
    1204
    time after time assured the House that all sorts of powers are vested in this House in respect of the new federated Central Africa. What are they? The Schedule which my hon. Friends and I have put down suggests specifically that among the reserved powers should be such matters as:
    "External Affairs, including (a) the making of and implementation of treaties, conventions and agreements with other countries.
    Copyright, patents, trade marks, design and merchandise marks.
    The imposition of duties upon goods imported into the Territories.
    The procedure for the deportation of British subjects.
    The generation, supply and use of atomic energy."
    I do not want to labour this matter unduly because I know that many hon. Members want to speak and I am anxious that the debate should be a reasonable and proper one, so I shall confine myself to two of these subjects today. The first is:
    "External Affairs, including (a) the making of and implementation of treaties, conventions and agreements with other countries."
    For what reason is it suggested that this Federation should deal with its own foreign affairs and have its own foreign policy? For what reason is it suggested that the policy of this country in foreign affairs will not be the foreign policy of the newly-federated Central Africa? Is it really to be the case in our relations with the United Nations, events in far Korea and a whole series of problems which come up in the realm of foreign policy that there will be an independent foreign policy conducted by the Governor-General and the Prime Minister of the new Federal Assembly which can differ from ours and can come into conflict with ours?
    Most of us had hoped we were moving a little towards the conception of one world or larger unities in world affairs, and it seems to me a vicious and retrograde step to say that an area of this kind shall be able to conduct its own foreign policy and, presumably, in those circumstances, as it develops, have its own embassies, its own consuls and its own diplomats.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely this is not the intention. Perhaps the Minister could assist us; there is no intention that this Federation should have

    1205
    control of foreign affairs, is there? The question is whether it ought to be in the Bill.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am rather reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) until he has finished the whole of his argument, but I confess that it had seemed to me that he was off the lines here. This only vests in the Federal Legislature such powers as are exercised in external affairs by the individual Constituent Assemblies. It does not mean, of course, that a totally different foreign policy is contemplated for the Federation. It only means that, insofar as they are exercised, they are exercised by the Federation and not by the Constituent Assembly.
    Mr. Paget: Surely the foreign policy of the Federation will be conducted by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Foreign Office.
    Mr. Lyttelton: It is completely unaffected.
    Mr. Hale: I would refer the Committee to the White Paper, Command 8754. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, because it may very well be that we are a little at cross purposes on this point and the intervention was very helpful. The White Paper says:
    "The Exclusive List
    (Matters on which the Federal Legislature alone will be empowered to make laws.)
    Item
    1. External affairs, including—

    (a) the implementation of treaties, conventions and agreements with, and other obligations towards, other countries or organisations;

    (b) extradition and fugitive offenders, and the removal of prisoners."

    Now I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be saying that they are not given and more powers than they were exercising before. All it means is that the limited powers exercised by Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia will go from them, but they have no powers in external affairs. Nonetheless, I am grateful for the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman. I was certainly labouring under some misapprehension. It may he that that is to some extent the answer to this point that has been made.
    4.30 p.m.
    At the same time, it is not in the Bill. The House of Commons has no protection whatever except for the word of the
    1206
    right hon. Gentleman which I certainly accept, but I can accept it only while he remains Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I doubt whether that will be very much longer—[Interruption.] I am not looking forward to such an event at all. I was hoping for some more suitable place: perhaps another, or a terrestrial other place, maybe, for the right hon. Gentleman. This is a question of great substance. I do not know, and I do not know how anyone can tell me, how any hon. Member can find out what powers in connection with foreign affairs are given to the Federal Assembly and what powers remain here. How are we to know?
    The procedure for dealing with this matter is to be by Order in Council. The procedure for making an Order in Council is very unusual. It is not necessary for more than four or five of Her Majesty's Privy Councillors to be present at the scene out of the many hundreds who are entitled to be there. They will be presented with a document. I am trying to put the point with great respect to the Privy Council but, speaking frankly, they will accept it. There will be no further debate or discussion on the matter except the simple debate in the House of Commons on whether or not we accept the Order in Council.
    There is nothing in the Bill and there is nothing in the scheme which makes it clear to anyone what powers they will have and what powers they will not have. I understand now that the theory of the right hon. Gentleman is that the reserved powers which remain vested in this House are those which have never been exercised by Southern Rhodesia or the other two Territories and which are not being specifically vested and handed over to them in the Order in Council. I know that this is a difficult and highly complex matter.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I really do not know whether to interrupt the hon. Gentleman or not. I hope that he will not think that I am trying to interrupt the flow of his argument and eloquence. I think that I can help in one sentence. Words to the effect that such external affairs of a federal nature as are entrusted to the Federal Government by Her Majesty's Government will be in the Order in Council.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I may be wrong, but I understood that it was proposed that the Federal Government should have the same powers in external affairs delegated to them by Her Majesty's Government as are now delegated to Southern Rhodesia. The position is rather difficult. I hope that the Minister will explain.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I thought that I had cleared up the point—such control over external affairs as Her Majesty's Government may delegate to the Government of the Federation.
    Mr. Hector Hughes Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose——
    Mr. Hale: If I may continue, I should like to come to my second point. In the proposed new Schedule there is a reference to:
    "Copyright, patents, trade marks, design and merchandise marks."
    I refer to them because obviously they are the sort of matters on which there should be international control if possible. Every Measure we approve to advance international regulation of matters of that kind is a progressive step. These matters are not mentioned in the reserved powers. Is it true that all that are passing under this Bill to the Federal Assembly are the rights in that connection already existing, or will the Order in Council particularise the additional powers that are being given?
    This does not apply merely to the two or three matters which I have illustrated in the new Schedule: it applies to a whole series of items. If it be the case that the Federal Assembly is getting no more powers than are vested in Southern Rhodesia at the moment, except the power to hold an Assembly, the matter looks very different from what it did when we were discussing it a few weeks ago. But, with respect, I do not think that that is the position, because, if that be so, then a lot of the other questions do not arise with the same force at all.
    But I hope that in the course of the debate the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point more fully and make it clear at long last to the Committee, after the six or seven days of debate that we have had, what powers are going over and what powers it is not intended to pass
    1208
    over. I do not think that I am ungenerous when I say that it would have been a good thing if that had been made clear at the start. It might have saved a good deal of discussion.
    The series of Clauses which we are now discussing includes one which will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), if he is called. It deals with the position of trade unions. Here we come to a matter of frightful complexity and difficulty. In Southern Rhodesia it is virtually true to say that black trade unions in many occupations are not permitted. In Northern Rhodesia they boast of the existence of trade unions in occupations which employ coloured men, but even there there are limitations upon the type of employment that coloured men can follow—some by agreement with the unions, some by local municipality regulation and some by orders made by the Governor.
    Surely this is the test of sincerity. If a Government object to the organisation of trade unions representing the rights of the workers in these days, then there is something wrong with that Government. I suppose that the conditions of coloured labour in Nyasaland are more exceptional than they are anywhere else. We start with the proposition that employment in Nyasaland of coloured labour varies by as much as 25 per cent. of the whole between April and November. We have 25 per cent. less in employment in November than we have six months earlier. There is a vast emigration of labour, some recruited to the Union of South Africa and some going over to Southern Rhodesia to work in the mines.
    That labour is subject to control and varying regulations. Laws have been passed which say in some towns that coloured workers cannot be out on the streets between eight o'clock at night and five o'clock in the morning. There are extraordinary regulations which make special provision for the boarding of trains by coloured workers. One says:
    "Every African boarding a train or public service vehicle must carry his registration certificate and, if in employment, a pass from his employer."
    In all these circumstances, with these wretchedly low wages, with irregular work and people treking vast distances sometimes on foot but much more often by rail, because it is fair to say that such

    1209
    transport is often provided, to seek temporary work, with provision for employers to send remittances home deducted from their wages—which would be a contravention of our Truck Act, though it is a beneficial provision—the one thing obviously needed is a full trade union organisation.
    I do not believe there is anyone on this side of the Committee who believes that Sir Godfrey Huggins wants trade unionism; I just do not believe it. I do not believe there is any one on the other side of the Cornmittee who thinks that if we pass this Bill there will be a wider chance of a trade union movement in Central Africa. I do not know whether any hon. Member opposite will get up and say that he anticipates an improvement in the trade union situation in Central Africa in any reasonable time after the passing of this Bill.
    That is a serious matter. It means that the passing of this Bill will deprive the African worker of his basic means of protection; it means that we shall rob him of the chance or organising which is the only way in which, in the main, he can hope to improve his situation short of——
    Mr. Paget: At the very moment when we are introducing an industrial revolution.
    Mr. Hale: At the moment when there are limited signs of the beginning of an industrial revolution.
    Mr. Paget: Which is what the Federation is seeking to bring about.
    Mr. Hale: I agree, meaning dormitory labour, transferred labour, immigrant labour—every one of the grave problems that used to confront the United States in its early developing days. There will not be trade unions—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is always charming but he is a little naive if he thinks that Sir Godfrey Huggins is going to——
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am again in a little difficulty to know whether to wait until the hon. Member has finished his argument or to interrupt him. He has been basing a large argument on a false premise. Trade union legislation is a territorial matter. The hon. Member talks about the abolition of trade unions in Nyasaland. No one has any power to do that; it cannot be effected by the Federal Government at all.
    Mr. Hale: What we are seeking to do is to say that the trade union law of Britain shall apply, which is not the case in these Territories. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have read the new Clause by which we seek in this Bill to give the Africans the right to have trade unions. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should really read the White Paper issued by his own Government on this matter, which gives details of the trade union position. He should read the reports issued by the Colonial Office which give details of the trade union position. Every maker of mineral water from sugar beet tries to have one lemon pip in each bottle. I know that in each case one can go to a Territory and say, "Here is a trade union of six or seven people" but in the main coloured peoples are segregated in the trade unions, and in Nyasaland there is no trade union movement which can be described as such. That is what the White Paper says.
    We are seeking, in a series of Amendments, to deal with the question of cooperative societies. I should have thought that there was no more important movement in Africa today and no movement which could make a bigger contribution to the welfare of Africa. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) will be fortunate enough to be called to move the new Clause dealing with this subject, and if he is called I know he will deal with it so fully that it would be an impertinence for me to add any observations at all.
    Co-operative organisation is the Cinderella of the African Civil Service organisation. If I may again take the East African analogy, we interviewed a co-operative officer appointed there who was told when he was appointed that he would receive training, but because of the economy cut he did not receive any training. He appeared to be young, able and an enthusiastic officer. The right hon. Gentleman has had reports on the cooperative situation there. He knows that those reports speak of almost complete bankruptcy and complete disaster so far as co-operative farming is concerned in that part of East Africa.
    4.45 p.m.
    In Uganda, we find a very enlightened Government winning much more confidence from the people, and a good deal more hope has been given to the African

    1211
    population. The colour bar does not exist and African, Indian and European can meet in friendly converse and in friendly contact and social relations. There we can see what a nascent cooperative farming movement can do. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, in his colonial policy, would wish most particularly to give every stimulus he can to the formation of producer co-operatives in almost every form of production.
    That brings me to the second part of the problem. The crop which Central Africa can produce in great measure, and which makes the greatest contribution to the sterling area, is the tobacco crop. Some weeks ago I was talking to a meeting of young students who asked me whether it was wrong to grow tobacco in territories where people are short of food. I confess that I have not been able to answer that question; but I am assuming that the present economy will go on and that increasing quantities of tobacco will be grown in Central Africa. But the African is not allowed to grow tobacco; he is not permitted to grow the one really successful catch crop available. It is said that he is not allowed to do it because the tobacco he would grow would not be very good. I have never been able to follow that argument because in Rhodesia all the tobacco is grown by Africans for Europeans—all the planting and gathering of the crop is the work of Africans. It is said that they must have some direction and they are not allowed to grow tobacco themselves.
    This limitation will go on if we pass this Bill. It seems to me that it will be a tragedy and disaster if it does. My right hon. Friend has not suggested that the Federal Assembly should be fully representative of the African population, or anything like it; no one has asked for that, but that we should give them something more like equality of representation on the basis of Europeans having half the seats and the Africans having the other half. There are two Amendments which produce slightly varying figures of representation. It would be a great and symbolic gesture if at this moment this Committee were to say that, in view of the difficulties in Central Africa, additional representation was to be given. It would be the most helpful thing to do at this
    1212
    moment; it would be a message of hope to Africans throughout Africa.
    I do not envy the right hon. Gentleman his difficulties at this moment—in Kenya and Nigeria; difficulties still in West Africa; and the difficulties which appear to be accumulating in Central Africa, difficulties which are made worse by the worsening of the situation in South Africa. I would only say that it is not always the great event which dominates history. It is not always the plan and the action of a Parliament which produces the results; it is often a little event of chance that appears to be something small and insignificant—Jenkin's ear, Clemenceau's cab being delayed by the guests at the Royal wedding, Boulanger's beard—these are the sort of things that have changed history, some of them quite a lot.
    It is a great tragedy that at this moment we should see British subjects being deported from British territory, and a greater tragedy still that the British subject selected for deportation from Nyasaland should be one of the most respected men of our time, a clergyman who is known throughout Africa as one of the best friends of the Africans, a man with no axe to grind, and who, so far as I know, has held no party political view but who has tried to serve his fellows. There could not have been a more savage blow or a clearer indication to the Africans that the policy was being directed against their interests. There could not have been anything more likely to convince them that they had little to hope from federation or the powers which were invoked in the case of the Rev. Michael Scott.
    It is part of the growing tragedy of our times that too little protest is made about these things. In this world, in which the arrest of one apostle of liberty moved the whole world, where one trial and one miscarriage of justice could shake a country for a generation, we wake up every morning to read that Mau Mau terrorists have been shot, and we use the terminology of loyalists and terrorists, though what loyalty a Kikuyu tribesman earning 3s. a week owes to Her Majesty the Queen I do not know.
    People shot without trial, casualties, indeed deaths, already over 1,000—this is not the way in which to convince the Africans that they can have confidence

    1213
    that, under a white-dominated Government, they can hope for that measure of economic progress for which they have all been looking.
    This is not the way to make them believe that the declarations which we have thrown out in hundreds—all the speeches, charters, Declarations of Human Rights, the Devonshire Memorandum and declarations about policy in colonial affairs —are anything but scraps of paper; but perhaps it was always intended that they should be regarded as such.
    I apologise for having spoken for some time, but I have tried to cover a wide subject of great importance. The Colonial Secretary, I know, is in a difficulty. Agreements have been come to, and it will be difficult for him to come to a unilateral repudiation of these agreements, but at the same time he could assure the Committee—and the Committee would welcome it—that he will again enter into discussions to see what amendments could be made so that the agreements might still give some liberty and some chance to Africans. If he is not able to do that, then the Committee will inevitably draw the conclusion that it would be a futile gesture, because the whites of Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland do not intend to grant these rights to Africans. If that be so, then it will be a sad stage in British colonial affairs, and will convince us that Central Africa is likely to go the way of the South African Union.
    Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I could scarcely disagree more with many of the insinuations implied in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). What always astonishes me is the progress which has been made in these Territories, but, listening to the speeches made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when this debate began last Tuesday, I found that the implication was that the most frightful horrors have been continuing the whole time throughout East and Central Africa.
    When we look back 50 years to see what the situation was in that part of the world, and when we realise the difficulties that have been overcome in those 50 years, I think credit should be given to those people who live their lives out in these Territories facing these tremendous problems, and, despite what has been
    1214
    said from the benches opposite, done such tremendous work for the health, wealth and happiness of all the races living in them.
    Those who live out there are the first to be aware of their own shortcomings. They see all that needs to be done much more than those of us who go from this country on brief visits, and I think one cannot stress too often or too constantly how we on this side, and, I believe, many hon. Members opposite who have not participated in the debate, believe that a tremendous job of work is still being done by them. That does not mean that we have not got both the right and the duty to put forward constructive suggestions, and I myself believe that, in the course of creating the Central African Federation, great goodwill will accrue to the benefit of all the races concerned.
    Mr. Paget: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think he can appreciate what the opposition to this Measure is. It is precisely because we recognise what a fine job the Colonial Office has done that we want to see it go on doing that job.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is certainly not the impression which was given last Tuesday when, for about eight hours, there was a series of speeches amounting to a denigration of the British in these Territories—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]— and I must make a strong protest against it. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not true."]
    I support what was said by hon. Members about the importance of trade unions and producer co-operatives, but, in so far as the hon. Member for Oldham, West has been critical in quoting from 1951 documents, he was criticising his right hon. Friend who is sitting rather quiet on the Front Bench, but who was responsible. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and Mr. Creech-Jones before him have had practical experience, and were producing results. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor did their best, and, at the time, we were critical, as we still are, of their best, but they did try to make an advance with trade unionism and producer co-operatives, but found how slow a process it is.
    I wish to come now to the point I really wanted to make, which is a very brief one, because, in view of what was

    1215
    said in the debate last Tuesday, I shall try not to enter into a long and, from my point of view, irrelevant discussions, but, when issues are raised which endanger relations between the House and this country and the people in the Dominions and Colonies, I think it is one's duty to nail these untruths. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale) concluded the debate last Tuesday when speaking on the first Amendment which was before the Committee, and he said this:
    "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."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1953; Vol. 516, c. 181.]
    I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman speaks for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I do not believe that he speaks for any of us on this side.
    Not very long before that debate, I had seen that magnificent South African contingent marching through the streets of London, and I remember how they stood by us in the dark years from 1941 onwards, when I saw them in East Africa, in the desert and in Italy at the end of the war. About the same time, I came across, in the Lobby outside this Chamber, a warrant officer of the Transvaal Scottish, who was wearing the unusual decoration of the Military Cross. I discovered that he had won it with the South African contingent which fought its way out of Tobruk with the Coldstreams—an epic of which both the South Africans and the Coldstreams can feel very proud. I feel it my duty to say that we on this side of the Committee, and many, I believe, on the other, would be glad to see a large migration of our countrymen and others from one British Territory to another in order to help in this great task of building Central Africa.
    Mr. James Johnson: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is rather harsh dragging in the Coronation and the South African contingent, but is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would welcome large-scale immigration of members of the Nationalist Party, shall we
    1216
    say, Malan supporters, with their well-known policy towards dependent African peoples?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I was not saying that. What hon. Members opposite, who affect a dislike of the policy of Dr. Malan —and I do not like it myself—often forget is that, in the South African elections, more than 50 per cent. of the votes were cast against the Nationalist Party, and, for reasons good or bad, many of those people who voted against the present Government of South Africa might soon move north of the border. I repeat that I know that many of my hon. Friends would welcome these people having the chance to help in the rebuilding of the great British tradition in Central Africa.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Would it be fair to suggest that the hon. Member is in favour of selected immigration of South Africans?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, I do not believe one can do that. I believe in moving between one British territory and another because, by so doing, we shall build up a society which will be of benefit to all races.
    Mr. Bing: Will the hon. Member permit me to interrupt him? He has been very good in giving way. Does he not consider, first of all, that his argument supports the Amendment which is down on the Paper to deal with the question of restrictions on immigration? Secondly, does he not consider that if people are coming from South Africa, whether they belong to Dr. Malan's Party or to the United Africa Party, they all have an identical view as to the way in which Africans should be treated and that special safeguards are particularly necessary? The hon. Gentleman will agree that he did not see a single African soldier marching in the South African contingent.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I saw many of them in 1940 and 1941. I do not believe that it is possible to amend this Bill for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend and which have been fully explained by him, as all these points have been explained, about six times over during the last 18 months. This is, as it were, the ratification of a treaty which cannot

    1217
    be amended, and I am sure that when the Orders in Council come to be drawn up the points made by hon. Members opposite will be taken into account.
    Mr. James Hudson: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) made reference to the way in which he was moved by the sight of South African soldiers marching through the streets of London. Although I have a very great respect for his views in a matter of that sort, I hope he will agree with me that the reference was just as irrelevant to the matter in hand as, for example, to say how wonderful it was to see Russian ships participating in the Naval Review. However wonderful that was, it has nothing whatever to do with the problems that arise in connection with Russia, and in the same way what the hon. Gentleman said just now did not deal with the problems which arise in Central Africa today.
    What we have been saying in this debate is that this country was woefully careless at a time when African interests should have been safeguarded by us. Though we were full of the best possible desire to be of help to Africa, we were woefully careless on the sort of matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) referred, and, in particular, to the matter I now propose to raise, that of the co-operative movement.
    I readily admit that in the course of his speech the hon. Member for Banbury referred to the producer co-operatives, and not without sympathy, although, having made the reference, he passed quickly away from the problem. In the same way, it would be just as easy for the new authority which is to be set up in Federated Africa to do as the hon. Gentleman did and pass quickly away from what must be regarded as the vitality of this matter if anything approaching success in the new Federation is to be obtained.
    I know that hon. Members, and perhaps not merely on one side of the Committee, sometimes look upon the Co-operative movement as the more humdrum of the social movements about which we speak when matters of this sort arise. Although I am entirely in sympathy with all that has been said about trade unions and the necessity to provide
    1218
    effectively in the law for their development when the Federation of Africa comes about, I believe that even more important is the question of safeguarding the right of a people to climb by its own efforts to the practices of democracy in its own affairs and its own institutions in the same way that the Co-operative movement in this country has provided such opportunities for our people.
    It is of the greatest importance that that right should be properly safeguarded. I am certain that if it is, and if due regard is paid to it by the new Government, no harm will be done to what the Colonial Secretary has said is the aim of the Government in bringing in Federation. I am willing to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman wants to see a general improvement in production and in the economic situation of the peoples in the areas concerned. If co-operation is properly watched he will be doing something to secure that end.
    The question of co-operation in the Colonies and in our Dominions is a very much newer question than it is in this country. Within my lifetime I have seen co-operation arise in practically all the British non-self-governing Territories. I saw it arise in India. Before we handed over India to be governed by the people of India, co-operation was well established in many parts of the country. It was also well-established in Ceylon. When India was handed over, we were probably well justified in not pressing the matter, but in leaving it to the Government that became responsible for India to pursue the matter of co-operation in their own way, which, in fact, they are doing.
    It is not the sort of organisation that makes spectacular progress. It depends a great deal on education and the learning of new habits of working together, which do not come in a day. But it is remarkable what can be done when a great social experiment like the Federation of Central Africa is undertaken by seeing that those responsible for the educational part of co-operative development are fully acquainted with the subject, and by sending out to Africa those who know something about it. Then there is the further access by Africans in the new territories to the Co-operative organisation here where, not only in Co-operative colleges, such as the one we have in this

    1219
    country but in the actual Co-operative shops, workshops and societies they can see what is going on.
    If all these things are in the minds of those who begin the new experiment in Central Africa, there may be a chance that what some of us have predicted will be the results of Federation will be minimised. When I press upon the attention of the Government the necessity to defend from the very beginning the right of the Africans, with no loss of their right to continue the development of the cooperative movement, I am putting forward a proposal which should be of real assistance to the Government in what it hopes will be done in Central Africa. I know that is a pretty big claim, but I cannot be accused of any bitterness in what I have said.
    The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): I can reassure the hon. Gentleman at once that under the Federation all the co-operative schemes and developments remain under the Territories as at present, except as will be seen in item 50 of the concurrent list, which concerns agricultural co-operatives; and, again, they remain with the Territories if there is a majority of Africans in the co-operative. We know that the co-operatives have done exceedingly well: they are doing very well in Nyasaland, as I saw, and they are doing well in Northern Rhodesia. It is provided, therefore, that plans for developing the co-operatives remain in the hands of the Africans and the Territories, as at present.
    Mr. Hudson: The same point was made about trade unions when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West was speaking, but although the Territories may have considerable rights in continuing this work——
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): All the rights.
    Mr. Hudson: Not necessarily all the rights, because some of the rights are not merely legal; they are the rights of the ordinary economic method and procedure. For example, there is the right and the custom which arises where one raises one's credits for the co-operative movement. If there is a thorough-going
    1220
    capitalist government, credit may be raised by recourse to central joint stock banks, which is not the co-operative method at all. The co-operative method is that of encouraging people to save for themselves, to use their own money, to manage their own money and to watch their own money co-operatively, and in the process to be assured that, generally, proper use is being made of the money which has been collected together for co-operative purposes.
    That is the sort of issue in which reserve powers do not cover the issue, if, in the Federal Government, a body of people who are capitalists in outlook expect to obtain the development of reliance upon joint stock banks rather than the development, underneath, of the co-operative credit facilities. That is not purely a legal matter or a question of the reserve issues but is an extremely important question from the co-operative point of view.
    Mr. Dugdale: The Minister said none of these matters would come under the Federal Government but would be under the Territorial Legislature. If that is so, is there anything to prevent the Government from accepting the new Clause which asks that the Federal Assembly shall not pass certain laws. If he says these matters are to be left to the Territorial Governments, would it not be better to accept the new Clause which is in line with the Government's intention.
    Mr. Hopkinson: There are two lists— the exclusive list and the concurrent list, which will embrace both Federal and Territorial. All residuary powers remain with the Territories, and we do not want to pull one thing out and alter it by accepting such a new Clause as this.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hudson: I am sorry that the Minister missed the chance which my hon. Friend offered, for had he accepted it, it would have put an end to my argument. Let me turn to another economic issue. The success of the co-operative movement in the Colonies and Dominions in the past has been largely due to the tremendous help given to them by a central authority—our own authority. I am not accusing the Colonial Office of neglecting this matter in the past; I think the co-operative department of the Colonial Office has done wonderful work,

    1221
    and the setting up of special officials and the use of public money in order to help the co-operative movements get started, to encourage them and audit them and watch them and guide them, has played a considerable part in the development of the organisations of which I speak.
    But now we are losing the direct control and contact of the Colonial Office which has existed in the past. It is no good the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations shaking his head. It is inevitable in the establishment of this Federation, and the political power which operates in the Federation, that an obstacle will be placed between the beneficence of the British Colonial Office and the needs of the ordinary people at the bottom of the great social scales. I am not talking about reserve powers; I am talking about the processes of economic development which have gone on in the past, and I am saying that unless at this stage we can indicate clearly to the House that there is to be no falling off, either legally or in economic custom, in what we expect in the new experiment— namely, the development of a co-operative movement where people will be responsible for their own economic affairs—we cannot be satisfied with the Government's proposals.
    I therefore strongly press that far more should be said by the Government if we are to be satisfied in meeting the situation which faces us. We talk about educating the world in our way of life. We are teaching the Germans democracy and we are hoping to inspire in the Russians a different attitude towards the problems of government, but we seem to do very little to ask ourselves what our way of life really is. The people who talk about it forget, for example, that there are more than 10 million co-operators in this country with more than 100 years of experience of co-operation behind them—members of a movement in which people hold regular meetings of their own, elect their own committees and find their own managers of shops and workshops. They do the job despite opposition and sneers and do it successfully, so that hundreds of millions of pounds worth of trade is carried on in this country by co-operative means. Happiness is brought into the homes of ordinary people—a happiness which has certainly been increased as a
    1222
    result of the efforts they themselves have made co-operatively.
    That is a vital part of our way of life, and we hope we can see developed in Central Africa the growth of the cooperative spirit which we have seen in Tanganyika, where the most amazing success has been achieved in a very short time. Indeed, since the days of Donald Cameron in Tanganyika there has been wonderful success on the slopes of Kilimanjaro amongst native African cooperative producers who today are prosperous because of their own efforts and because of the good will which has been shown to them by the Colonial Office in the past. It is because I see the possibilities of the diminution of the encouragement which should continue to flow from some central place, as it has been flowing in the past, that I have a right to ask that in the new organisation there shall be no slackening, no loss of legal or any other right, in the development of this very necessary part of what may become the prosperity of Africa.
    Mr. Alport: The Rochdale pioneers laid down as one of their main rules that the movement should have no connection with or play any part in politics. I think that they would have been rather surprised, therefore, not only at the presence of a spokesman of the Co-operative Party in this Committee, but at the proposed new Clause on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) that I think producer co-operatives have a great part to play in Africa. The reason why I say that is the reason to which the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) referred, namely, that it is one way in which the African who at present has no capital can be enabled to accumulate by co-operative effort sufficient capital to provide himself with the basis from which to expand economically in business and commerce.
    Mr. Hudson: Is it not clear that all that I have been speaking of in the non-self-governing Territories has been accomplished in the last 50 years—a long time after the Rochdale pioneers—because some organisation has encouraged people in the Territories to try what the hon. Member now agrees with me is a thoroughly beneficent process. That encouragement has been effected through

    1223
    the Colonial Office very largely, especially when there were working at the Colonial Office politicians of the character of the late Sidney Webb and men like the predecessors of the present Colonial Secretary. Is it not clear, therefore, that politics came in all the time?
    Mr. Alport: I do not want to get into an argument on history, but I think that the real progress of co-operation in the Colonial Territories and of Government assistance dates from 1937. That was when the first co-operative schemes were set up in many of the Colonies. I am sure, however, that it is pleasant for both the hon. Member and myself that on this question we agree.
    We have listened to a number of highly provocative and tendentious speeches during the course of the Committee stage of this Bill. The fact that not all the points that have been put forward have been answered by hon. Members on the back benches on this side of the Committee and all the inaccuracies corrected does not mean that we do not resent bitterly the attitude that a number of hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have taken. Nor are we unconscious of the immense damage which their statements do not only to their own party but also to race relations in Africa and elsewhere. Their statements have given the impression and confirmed the opinion of many people in Africa that hon. Members opposite are not pro-Africans mainly, but actively anti-European, and that if one is a European in Africa and one wants to find one's enemies one has to look for them in the party opposite.
    Nothing is more likely to bring into disrepute the Parliament of this country than the idea that there is a large section of hon. Members who are against a single racial community anywhere in the Commonwealth and the Empire. I would hope that there are other hon. Members opposite who will take the opportunity in this debate to disabuse opinion overseas that this is the attitude of the Socialist Party.
    I gave public notice to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that I intended to reply to him when I rose to speak. He accused me of making a personal attack upon him in asking
    1224
    whether the document which he produced relating to Mr. Michael Blundell was a forgery. I certainly asked that question on a previous occasion. I ask it again and, having been given personal notice, perhaps the hon. Member will take the opportunity after he reads HANSARD to reply to my question.
    I ask the hon. Member whether he took any steps before he produced that document to the House of Commons to find out whether it was a forgery. He came to the House very shortly after his return from Kenya and made a very slanderous attack on Mr. Blundell. He had an opportunity of meeting Mr. Blundell. Did he realise that when he met Mr. Blundell he had the opportunity of asking him whether it was his signature that was on the document? Actually, when he met Mr. Blundell the hon. Member spoke to him in an extremely friendly manner.
    Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose——
    Mr. Alport: The hon. Member for Oldham, West is perfectly capable of looking after his own interests in this matter, and if he had accorded me the normal courtesy——
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: On a point of order. Surely it is intolerable that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) should be pursuing a personal dispute which has nothing to do with the Committee stage of this Bill or with this Clause and justifying it on the ground that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West notice? This is some squabble which the hon. Member for Colchester is anxious to pursue, and he should do it in a statement at the end of Questions.
    Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. Is the hon. Member for Colchester aware that this being the Committee stage no names appear on the enunciator and it is quite impossible for my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West to be aware of the moment when the hon. Member for Colchester would be called?
    Mr. Alport: May I explain that, earlier in this debate, before the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)——
    Mr. Benn: On a point of order. I have been here the whole time since 3.30 p.m.
    Mr. Alport: It may have escaped the hon. Member that this matter was raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who I see has at last returned to the Chamber.
    Mr. Bing: Now repeat it.
    Mr. Alport: The hon. Member for Oldham, West challenged me earlier in this debate and said that I had made a vicious attack upon him. He said that in relation to a document which he produced with reference to a certain wage agreement in existence in Kenya, affecting particularly Mr. Blundell, I had asked whether that was a forgery. I asked that purposely in order to find out whether the hon. Member had made any attempt before he produced it in this Chamber to make certain that it was a forgery or not. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the hon. Member for Oldham, West made an extremely slanderous statement with regard to Mr. Blundell immediately after his return to the United Kingdom from East Africa.
    Mr. Hale: On a point of order. The hon. Member is saying that I made a slanderous statement. He has not referred it to me and I have not the faintest idea of what he is talking about. If the hon. Member makes an accusation of this kind—and I welcome mud from Colchester—he should at least say to what statement he is referring, when it was made and to whom it was made.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers): In any case, I do not see that the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester have anything to do with this debate, and I think that he had better change the subject.
    Mr. Hale: I have been called back to the Chamber because, as I have been told, a personal attack full of calumny was being made in my absence. I submit to you, Mr. Rogers, that it is impossible for you to terminate the discussion without giving me the opportunity to answer after having permitted the hon. Member for Colchester to make that attack.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bing: Further to that point of order. When Sir Charles was in the Chair I think there was some discussion on this matter and it was then ruled, according to my recollection, that it was very appropriate
    1226
    to discuss what were trade union rates in Kenya and what were the rates paid for employment in Kenya because this was a matter which enabled us to decide whether or not it was necessary to have safeguards with respect to the neighbouring Territories, and it was upon that basis that this discussion proceeded. The issue seems to be, what are the rates paid in Kenya? The suggestion by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) is that the wage sheets have in some way been forged by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
    Mr. Alport: I put this point particularly in order to make certain from your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Rogers, that I would have a right to reply to the allegation which the hon. Member made against me that I had made a vicious attack upon him, and I was under the impression that I was in order in doing so. I had always felt from the very beginning that the hon. Gentleman's remarks had no relevance whatever and were never intended to have any relevance to the matter. I therefore fully support your Ruling that this subject is out of order. This incident reminds me of the incident that often takes place——
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order.
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Colchester is speaking to a point of order.
    Mr. Alport: It reminds me of the incident that takes place on a Rugby field when one of the opposition side loses his shorts and all his colleaues gather round to prevent any unseemly result from it. If I may continue with my remarks——
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Now that the hon. Gentleman has finished his point of order about the Rugby player's trousers, may we get back to the point of order which my hon. Friend raised just now? The hon. Member for Colchester, when my hon. Friend intervened, was talking about some alleged slanderous statement which, he said, my hon. Friend had made about Mr. Michael Blundell. The hon. Member having been challenged, now seeks to run away and protect himself under your Ruling from telling us what he was talking about, presumably because he is afraid to continue with the attack once it has been

    1227
    challenged. I submit to you, Six, that that is not within his rights and it is not a thing in which he would be supported either by the Committee or by the Chair.
    Having begun to make a charge, I submit that he ought to be told that he must state precisely what his charge is or withdraw the charge unreservedly. Surely it is not to be permitted that a man should say enough about a charge to leave a smear and then shelter himself behind the Chair when his accusation is challenged?
    Mr. Frederick Gough: Were not the remarks of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) a criticism of the Chair? I heard distinctly "Tell the hon. Gentleman not to pursue that line of argument."
    The Temporary Chairman: I was not in the Chair at the time, but I understand that this issue was started by the hon. Member for Oldham, West—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—who accused the hon. Member for Colchester——
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Hale: May I intervene in order to assist the Chair? I referred in the course of my speech to an observation recorded in HANSARD, which I quoted, in which the hon. Member, without previous notice to me and without telling me that he intended to suggest it and without any inquiry from me or any request for production of the documents, had suggested that I produced false documents to the House. If in the view of the Chair that is starting an issue in which I am now accused of slander, then of course I did it, but for the moment I am trying to find out what I am accused of. Surely, having been fetched back to the Chamber by my colleagues and told that I am being subjected to a vicious personal attack, it would not be unreasonable that I should be told what is the nature of the charge of slander, when it was made and to whom it was made?
    The Temporary Chairman: I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West that it might not be unreasonable, but I still think that the discussion of this issue is out of order. Therefore, I must rule that the hon. Member continues with his speech.
    Mr. Hale: On a point of order. I have been accused of forgery and slander. Is the Chair ruling that that can be said, published and circulated in the Press and that I shall not have a chance of rejecting it and showing how foul and vicious a calumny it is? This is an unprecedented state of affairs and is one in respect of which I shall ask the leave of the Committee to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair in order that I can debate the proposition that has been made.
    The Temporary Chairman: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member, but I think he should raise that point on the proper occasion. This charge to which he refers was made some time ago. It has now only been raised again —[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Order. There will be every opportunity on the proper occasion for raising the matter again.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    The Temporary Chairman: I think we should now continue with the debate.
    Mr. Paget: An accusation has been made, Mr. Rogers, of producing and uttering forged documents. An accusation of slander has been made. Those were repeated by the hon. Gentleman— I suppose one must so call him—today. I ask you, Mr. Rogers, to rule that those observations were unparliamentary and ought to be withdrawn.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I have not had an opportunity of saying a word yet.
    The Temporary Chairman: Is the hon. and learned Member rising on a point of order?
    Mr. Hughes: Yes. If my recollection serves me aright, a moment ago you said that the proper course for my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West was to raise this matter at the proper time. You used the expression "proper time." I submit to you that no time is more proper than the moment immediately after such a grave charge has been made for my hon. Friend to have an opportunity of repudiating it—indeed, of having an opportunity of having it defined so that he may repudiate it.
    The Temporary Chairman: I understand that the charge referred to was made some time ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Member for Oldham, West himself referred to it in his speech, and therefore, I assumed that it was made some time ago.
    Mr. S. Silverman: May I suggest that there are two misconceptions which have crept into the matter? One is that my hon. Friend interven ed to complain about a reference to something said long ago. That is not so, as I understand the matter. What he intervened to do was to challenge what the hon. Member for Colchester was saying, namely, that my hon. Friend had produced forged documents and secondly and more particularly that he had on some unspecified occasion made some unspecified slanderous statement about a Mr. Blundell.
    I know that this is not the occasion to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Rogers, about whether those matters were ever in order, and I therefore do not challenge your Ruling that one cannot continue to discuss them now. But if that is so, does it not inevitably follow that the hon. Gentleman, having been assured by you that he would be out of order in completing his charge and that my hon. Friend would be out of order in answering it, should unreservedly withdraw the charge which obviously he never had any right to make?
    Mr. Alport: Perhaps I can help. Hon. Members opposite are getting into a state of some confusion and agitation. What I asked the hon. Member for Oldham. West was whether on these previous occasions to which reference was made by him, he had taken steps to ensure that this was not a forgery.
    On this particular occasion, Mr. Rogers, before you ruled me out of order—thereby, by implication, ruling the hon. Member for Oldham, West out of order—I went further and said that the hon. Member for Oldham, West had had an opportunity which in my view put an obligation upon him to make certain that the documents were not forgeries before he made an attack on somebody which I regard as being of a slanderous nature. The words I regard as slanderous were those he used in referring to this particular individual as a "slave master," or "slave driver," or "slaver."
    Mr. Hale: That is false. On a point order. [Interruption.] This is another point of order.
    The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Alport.
    Mr. Alport: That is the line of argument I was developing in making my answer to the attack which the hon. Member for Oldham, West made upon me quite out of the blue, without giving me any warning that he intended to do so. A vicious attack was made upon me. When I raised the point of order—when Sir Charles MacAndrew was in the Chair —I wanted to make quite certain that he would give me an opportunity of making the statement which I have made and which I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing unless I am ordered by you to do so.
    Mr. Hale: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Rogers? If I refer to this matter in unparliamentary language, shall I be told that the hon. Member for Colchester cannot refer to it? This is an additional allegation, made in defiance of the Ruling of the Chair. Am I to be allowed to make an observation about this? Have I the right to make a personal statement now? What right have I?
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member will be quite in order if he makes a personal statement.
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, Mr. Rogers. I should like to make a personal statement without being controversial. I have never used, in private or in public, the words attributed to me by the hon. Member for Colchester in reference to Mr. Blundell. I have never, either in private or in public, said a derogatory word about Mr. Blundell. My relations with him in Kenya were perfectly friendly.
    What happened was that in the course of the debate on Kenya I produced a large number of employment agreements. I did not quote the names of the parties set out in those agreements. When I had finished giving the details of the rates of wages an interjection came from the other side of the House, which is not reported in HANSARD. An hon. Member said, in quite a friendly way, "That must be an Asian employer"—or he may have said "an Indian employer." I forget which word he used. I then said that the

    1231
    employer in these agreements was Mr. Michael Blundell, the leader of the European members of the Legislative Council in Kenya. To the best of my recollection that is precisely what I said, and no more. In a later debate I certainly referred to the conditions of employment as "slave conditions." I said that this was the nearest thing to slavery existing today throughout the world, and that I repeat.
    The documents which have been referred to were in fact produced to Mr. Blundell when he was here. He made no suggestion whatever that there was anything wrong with them. These are legal documents, covering four foolscap pages, appended with the thumb prints of the workers—because they cannot read —and bearing the rubber stamp and the signatures of the employers. Most of them are certified by the official representative of the Kenya Government, whose duty it is to supervise these agreements.
    These documents have been produced to a number of hon. Members opposite who asked to see them. They were handed out at a meeting which Mr. Blundell addressed, and he was questioned by one of my hon. Friends about them. I observed, on the front page of the "Daily Worker," a report of an interview in which a representative had questioned Mr. Blundell about these agreements immediately upon his arrival, and my name was given as having produced them. Mr. Blundell never made the slightest suggestion that the agreements were not authentic. Those are the facts. It is for you to decide, in those circumstances, what is the appropriate course to take with the hon. Member for Colchester.
    The Temporary Chairman: The Committee have now heard the facts from both sides, and it is for them to make up their minds. As this discussion is quite out of order so far as the Amendment is concerned, it is time that we got back to the Amendment. Does the hon. Member for Colchester wish to continue his remarks?
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. We are not now on the question whether the whole incident was ever in order; we are now on the question only of the actual charges which were made by the
    1232
    hon. Member for Colchester. I am willing to believe—as we all are—that the charges were made in good faith and in ignorance of the facts. You allowed my hon. Friend to make a personal statement in which he set out the facts.
    It is the invariable custom of the House—and it has been for many generations—that in such circumstances the hon. Member who makes a statement about his own part in the controversy shall have his statement accepted by the House as true. In that case my hon. Friend has established that the charge made by the hon. Member for Colchester was untrue, though it was perhaps made —and we are all ready to believe that it was—in all innocence and good faith, and in ignorance of the facts. In those circumstances is it not now the duty of the hon. Member for Colchester fully and unreservedly to withdraw the charge— and if he does not willingly do so. is it not your duty to tell him that he must?
    The Temporary Chairman: If one hon. Member denies that he said certain words another hon. Member ought to accept his explanation. I was hoping that the hon. Member for Colchester would accept that point of view and withdraw what he had to say. I cannot compel him to do so, but I trust that he will.
    Mr. Alport: In regard to the misconception which there has been the whole way along—that I accused the hon. Member of producing forgeries—that has never been true. What I asked was whether he took steps to see that they were not forgeries before he produced them here. I am perfectly willing to accept his statement that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the documents he produced were perfectly genuine. Nobody has denied that, but the Committee will remember that this incident goes back some six weeks or longer.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. We cannot continue to argue this matter. It is the general wish of the Committee that the hon. Member for Colchester should accept the explanation given by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and withdraw his remarks.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I put it to you, Mr. Rogers, that the hon. Member for Colchester said that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West had made a

    1233
    slanderous statement. You asked the hon. Member for Colchester to accept the statement of my hon. Friend about what he said, to the best of his recollection. Would it not be conforming to the best traditions of the House for the hon. Member for Colchester to withdraw the charge of a slanderous statement which he made earlier?
    Mr. Alport: To be quite frank, my recollection differs from that of the hon. Member for Oldham, West as to the circumstances of the matter. If my recollection is wrong I willingly withdraw what I said, and I am sure that if his recollection of this incident is wrong he, on his side, will withdraw any allegations he made either against me or against Mr. Blundell.
    Sir R. Acland: The hon. Member came here to make this accusation——
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. My Ruling is that we must now leave this matter and proceed to the debate. Mr. Alport.
    Mr. Alport: I wish to follow the point I made by referring to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing). He and the hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke for some length about the right—
    Mr. Dugdale: On a point of order. Has the hon. Member withdrawn these charges or has he not?
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member said that he had withdrawn his charges.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: In my respectful submission, the hon. Gentleman said he withdrew the remark conditionally, subject to his recollection being right, and that is not a withdrawal. The hon. Gentleman should be called on to withdraw categorically and without any qualification.
    Mr. Alport: To continue with the point that I was trying to make——
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Bing: On a point of order. Now that the hon. Member has reached myself, shall I be in order in replying to
    1234
    him? I do not wish to find myself in the same position as my hon. Friend, that after a series of accusations have been made any reply to the hon. Member is out of order.
    Mr. Alport: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would wait to hear exactly what I want to say about his speech before deciding whether to reply to it.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order, I hope that the Committee will accept the hon. Member's explanation. He was perfectly in order in withdrawing what he said, with certain qualifications. The Committee should accept that. It will be better for the Committee if we now proceeded with the discussion on the Clause.
    Mr. Alport: I was referring to the legislation under which the Deportation Order was made. The Committee should recollect that that legislation was passed while the previous Government, the Socialist Government, were in power. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side were in the position at that time to protest against it and try to ensure that it was not operable against British subjects in the way in which it was used on recent occasions. To the best of my knowledge they did not do so.
    The truth of the matter is that that power is quite essential in the hands of any Government. It is most important that a Government should have the right to remove from their boundaries people who, not being citizens of the territory concerned, use their influence not for the maintenance of law and order in a proper and responsible way but for the contrary. That was the principle accepted by the party opposite when in power and they cannot repudiate it when they are in Opposition.
    My third point concerns trade unions. I listened not long ago to somebody from Northern Rhodesia putting the case for the European trade unions there. His arguments, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) will realise, were exactly those which we hear week by week, month by month and year by year in this country from the trade unions in the United Kingdom. They are arguments against the dilution of labour and against trying to reduce the rights and status of members of a trade union by

    1235
    introducing other elements in order to force down wages, or whatever it might be.
    It is all very well for us to take a rather light-hearted attitude to this problem. I deprecate, as I think all Members of the Committee do, any form of racialism whether it be in the trade unions or in any other aspect of community life, but it is not possible for us to solve this problem by introducing an Amendment to a Measure of this sort. It is something which can be changed only as the result of education over a considerable time of the European trade unions in the Rhodesias. That can be done only by establishing confidence about the future of European work, settlement and conditions there.
    This debate has done a lot to damage that confidence because of the speeches which we have heard from the other side, but I hope that in some way that will be changed now by trying to reassure the European communities that their future is not to be recklessly jeopardised by the misrepresentations of their point of view which we have heard from the other side. I hope, as I said earlier on before this long interruption took place, that we may be able to reassure them that in the work that they have to do there they will have the full support of Members on all sides of the House of Commons.
    Mr. W. E. Padley: The incident which has just occurred brings to my mind the point that it may be as well to put the trade union position right with regard to Central Africa so that such altercations as that which has taken place between my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) will not occur in the future. I regard this matter as a crucial issue in respect of Central African Federation.
    As a trade unionist, I regard the attitude towards free trade unionism for all men and women as the acid test of a man's belief in human rights and liberty. When I hear a reference to the liberal attitude of Southern Rhodesia, my acid test of free trade unionism for all men and women, whatever their race,
    1236
    colour or creed makes me doubt that general statement. It may be said that paragraph 12 of the Federal Scheme adequately deals with this question because it says that trade union law and the settlement of disputes between unions are matters exclusively for the territorial Governments. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to three points in connection with that matter.
    First, the Federal Legislature has certain powers with regard to the employees of the Federal Government. I have a very real fear that the first act of the Federal Government will be to repeat in some respects the reactionary trade union laws at present in existence in Southern Rhodesia. Secondly, I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that the trade union issue naturally creates the maximum of suspicion about the Federal Scheme. In both South Africa and Southern Rhodesia the Industrial Conciliation Acts have been used to prevent the establishment of free trade unions among African workers. Moreover, those Acts have been a principal vehicle of racial discrimination. Those things have happened despite statements made in this House in 1909, 1922 and 1923 that there were adequate safeguards against them.
    My third reason for saying that paragraph 12 is not an adequate answer to the question of trade union rights is that the main purpose of the Federation seems to be economic development. There can be no healthy economic development without a proper growth of trade unions, because all healthy trade unionism is shaped by and responds to the growth of the industrial structure. As I shall hope to show later, it is doubtful in the extreme whether there can be federal economic development while restricting trade unions to a purely territorial basis.
    I recognise, as do the hon. Member for Colchester and his colleagues, that the trade union issue in Central Africa is complicated because dilution and the fear about undercutting the rates of skilled men get mixed up sometimes with the racial issue; but let no one have any doubt that there is no solution of these complex problems by adopting the trade union legislation of Southern Rhodesia. It is legislation which, in my view, is likely to influence the development of the Federal Government.

    1237
    6.0 p.m.
    It ought to be more generally realised that these Industrial Conciliation Acts prevent the growth of real, free trade unions among African workers. There are about 10 pages of the White Paper on comparative native policies on this issue. I need not, therefore, go into details, but the fact is that there are, with the sole exception of the railway workers' union in Southern Rhodesia, no real, genuine, free trade unions in Southern Rhodesia. Such small associations as exist do not enjoy the right of collective bargaining. Instead, we find a bogus set-up of so-called Whitley Councils, and we find that native associations have a cap-in-hand relationship with the native board and the Southern Rhodesian Government.
    The exclusion of Africans from the definition of an employee in the Industrial Conciliation Act has also had the effect, in addition to preventing the establishment of genuine, free trade unions, of maintaining, indeed, giving legal force to the colour bar in industry, and it is strange that some hon. Members opposite should argue that it is the attitude of white trade unionists that is responsible for undesirable features of trade union law and relationship in Southern Rhodesia when they have never raised their voices against this legal perpetuation under the Industrial Conciliation Acts.
    Let us be frank. The Southern Rhodesian Government are quite blunt about their attitude. If we refer to paragraph 74 of the White Paper on comparative native policies we find these words:
    "The Southern Rhodesian Government consider that African labour has not yet become sufficiently stabilised and that the African himself is not yet sufficiently advanced to be capable of organising and managing trade unions successfully with a due sense of their proper purpose."
    In Southern Rhodesia practically all the semi-skilled work in manufacturing industry is done by African labour, and much of the semi-skilled work in the mines is done by African labour.
    I agree with the hon. Member opposite who said that the trade union picture in the Northern Territories is by no means a perfect one, but there can be no doubt that one of the most hopeful things in Africa in recent years, in an otherwise rather grim picture, has been the success
    1238
    of the beginning of building genuine, free trade unions in Northern Rhodesia. Following the appointment of a trade union officer under the late Government there has arisen in Northern Rhodesia a number of unions which promise excellent development. The outstanding case, of course, is that of the Miners' Union, now over 30,000 strong. The Colonial Secretary himself paid a tribute to the leaders of that union the other day in the House.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) had the honour and privilege to go to Rhodesia recently to assist that union in presenting its case before the Arbitration Board. He returned to this country, and his testmony impressed his colleagues of the trade union movement in this Committee. This Miners' Union succeeded in running a strike, a substantially successful strike, towards the end of last year. They organised that strike with determination and discipline. There was no calling out of troops, there were no riots or people being shot down, and there was no deportation of leaders, which are common features of labour unrest in Central Africa. I should say, therefore, that though what is happening in Northern Rhodesia is but a beginning it is an effective reply to the view of the Southern Rhodesian Government which I have quoted from the White Paper on comparative policies in the three Territories.
    Under paragraph 12 of the Federal Scheme the Federal Government will be able to set up some kind of conciliation machinery to deal with disputes relating to federal employees—presumably, in the public service; but I find that in the Report of the Conference, paragraph 21, it is also said:
    "This does not extend to the rights of association of federal public servants."
    I am not a lawyer, but I am a trade unionist of considerable experience, and for the life of me I do not see how it is possible to draft a conciliation Act which is to settle disputes between the public servants and the Government without also dealing with questions of trade union law, and without guaranteeing or denying the rights of public servants in all three Territories within the Federation.
    Paragraph 21 says:
    "This does not extend to the rights of association of federal public servants."

    1239
    I would ask the Colonial Secretary whether this means that any Africans employed in the public service are to continue to be denied the right of free trade union organisation, because surely, this is the position, that if the Federal Government do carry through an Act which sets up conciliation machinery, while maintaining for Southern Rhodesia the definition of employee which prevents the African public servant from being covered, it means that the Federal Government themselves, in the only field where they have any power over conciliation and trade union law, adopt precisely the Southern Rhodesian formula on the question of conciliation and trade union law.
    Mr. Lyftelton: The object of those words is to protect the right of federal servants, and to protect the conciliation machinery and the trade union machinery in relation to the federal service of the Federal Government. I think the hon. Member is on the wrong line.
    Mr. Padley: I am sorry, but that intervention certainly does not allay my fears, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look into this matter a little closer, because paragraph 21 of the Report of the Conference says, quite clearly:
    "This does not extend to the rights of association of federal public servants."
    After all, "public servant" is a very wide term. In Britain, at any rate, it covers manual workers and many grades of skilled workers.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but he really is on a false track here. Those words were put in to protect the rights of federal servants in relation to the Federal Government.
    Mr. Padley: I do not doubt for a moment that that was the intention of some of the people concerned with this agreement, but I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to examine my argument, because it seems to me that since the Federal Government will exercise their power under paragraph 12 to draft an Act governing conciliation for public servants, unless they intervene and change the present set-up in Southern Rhodesia, they will give the position away in
    1240
    principle at the very beginning of Federation.
    The second danger to which I wish to call attention is this. Looking down the list of powers to be given to the Federal Government and the list of powers to be concurrent between the Federal Government and the territorial Governments, we notice that they deal principally with economic matters. For the life of me, I cannot see how there can be a federal development of economic life, with federally registered companies establishing works and enterprises in various parts of the three territories, simultaneously keeping the trade unions on a purely territorial basis, with African trade unions, for practical purposes, illegal in Southern Rhodesia and legal with some restrictions in the Northern Territories. It seems, to me at any rate, that, sooner or later, and probably sooner than later, this will give rise to much industrial trouble.
    There may be a company registered by the Federal Government with works in each of the three Territories. In Northern Rhodesia, with a strong free African trade union, they may by collective bargaining raise rates and wages, but if it is discovered that that company is directing more of its orders to Southern Rhodesia, where trade unions among Africans are illegal and where wage rates are lower, there is a real danger of the African trade unionists in Northern Rhodesia quarrelling with their employers, not only about their own grievances but about the danger of their standards being undercut by what happens in the same firm's employ in Southern Rhodesia where trade unions are illegal.
    Therefore, at a time when there is the beginning of some hope of the growth of an effective free trade union movement in Central Africa, it is a matter of serious concern that in this Bill there is no specific reference to the question of guaranteeing the right of all men and women in the Territories, of whatever colour and whatever race, freely to combine in real trade unions which enjoy the rights of collective bargaining.
    Mr. J. Grimond: I intervene in this debate with considerable diffidence, and I shall do so very briefly. I realise the difficulty which has been mentioned by hon. Members opposite. If, in a debate on this subject, an

    1241
    hon. Member stresses points which seem to favour either the native African or, on the other hand, the European he is apt to be represented, or misrepresented, as being wholly against the opposite party.
    I think that is untrue, as will be appreciated if hon. Members will only cast their minds back to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in a recent debate on this subject, and many other speeches made from this side of the Committee in which hon. Members have gone out of their way to say, "We realise that now, for better or for worse, this scheme is launched, and we certainly wish it well. We hope that it will bring benefits both to the white people in Africa and to the native Africans themselves." I also see that when considering this Bill in Committee it is an extremely difficult Bill to amend.
    But the form of the Bill is certainly not the fault of anyone on this side of the Committee, and the fact that it may be difficult to write Amendments into the Bill does not, in my view, make it any less necessary to stress certain points which are proper Committee points on this subject.
    There are many points on the series of Amendments we are now considering which are of very great substance and importance, but I should like to mention only two. First of all, there is the Amendment which seeks to safeguard the position of the trade unions. Now, I am a supporter of private enterprise, but it is undeniable historically that private enterprise can work satisfactorily only within a certain framework of law and within a society in which there are reasonable safeguards, not only for employers but also for employees. In a society in which the employees are in a very much weaker position than they are in Europe today it is particularly vital to make quite sure that their rights will be protected.
    I do not know whether this Amendment will be acceptable to the Government, but I certainly hope some assurance will go out from the Government that they are in sympathy with its objects. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members on all sides must be seriously alarmed at some of the wage rates paid in Africa today. They are quite indefensible. In a country in which it is not organised, in which trade unionism is not built up.
    1242
    labour is at a very serious disadvantage in bargaining, and I do feel that this is one point on which the Government should give us some serious assurance, not only that it is their hope that wages will be raised and proper working conditions enforced, but that they will take steps that it is given effect to.
    6.15 p.m.
    The other point I wish to mention is the subject of deportation. Again, I think that to hon. Members on both sides it must be a matter of the deepest regret that British subjects should be deported from parts of the British Commonwealth in the way that has sometimes occurred.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is talking about deportation in the sense in which it is used here. It does not necessarily mean deportation from where the person originally resides.
    Mr. Grimond: I hope the time is coming when we shall regard ourselves as citizens of the whole Commonwealth. The fact that I happen to reside in Orkney or in London does not, to my mind, make it any better if I am deported from another part of the Commonwealth.
    I agree that there may be peculiar difficulties in these Territories, but I find it very difficult to believe it is essential to deport a man like the Reverend Michael Scott in the circumstances in which that was done. I find it very difficult to believe that the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, brought up on the law of this country, could really defend it. I think that it was repugnant to most people in this country and in the Commonwealth. I do not claim to know Mr. Scott particularly well, but from what little I do know of him I find it hard to believe that it was necessary to deport him, if it was, it need not have been done in the way it was done, and I cannot help feeling that the fault cannot have been entirely with him.
    I do not think that is a useful matter to pursue too far, but I do say that the Government should give us very serious assurances about their attitude on this matter, also. I do not think it is something about which concern is felt by the Members of one particular party, or even only by politicians. There have been all sorts of requests from people right outside politics that the Government should go rather farther than they have gone in

    1243
    reassuring opinion in this country on these sorts of points. If they reassure opinion in this country they will also do something to remove the suspicions in the minds of the Africans.
    There are many other points, such as the encouragement of the co-operative movement, upon which the Government could still do a great deal to remove suspicion and give a further impetus to their scheme, since it is to go through, and to give some further signs of good will, and to remove what are, to my mind at any rate, the justifiable suspicions which still remain among the native inhabitants of these Territories.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Part of the difficulty we have got into in this debate, both on Second Reading and in Committee, is the different circumstances in which the two sides of the Committee feel that this new Federal State will function. When I hear the Colonial Secretary holding forth I sometimes think that he imagines himself to be launching a great ship of State, which is to go out on calm seas and under clear skies.
    We believe—and I think this is a fair representation of what is in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the Committee—that we are setting adrift three rafts loosely tethered together. We are anxious to see that there is enough food on the rafts for the people who have to guide them, that they know where they are trying to make for and are equipped to deal with all sorts of weather conditions.
    I realise the difficulties, and, therefore, there seems to be greater justification for our persistent anxiety to see that proper safeguards are put into the enabling Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), who has now left the Chamber, should credit us with sincerity in what we say, and realise that we are as anxious as he is that racial relations in Central Africa should be as good as they possibly can be.
    We are anxious that there should be safeguards, and we are discussing now a great number of safeguards, including those affecting trade unions, deportation, and so on, which we want to put in the Bill, because we believe that it is our responsibility as the British Parliament to
    1244
    look after the interests of the Africans in this matter. Hon. Members opposite are always proud of the affection and loyalty which draws Africans to the Crown. We have stressed today in this debate and in other debates on this subject the loyalty, affection and regard which many Africans feel about Parliament, the House of Commons and, indeed, this Committee; and it is because we are at this moment, and until this Bill becomes law, charged with responsibility for them that we are putting these safeguards into the Bill.
    Why are we so anxious about safeguards? I am not one who seeks to belittle or attack the Europeans living in Central Africa. I have lived there myself for a year, and I know many of them and the difficulties under which they work. It is because of those difficulties and because of their geographical position that we are anxious to put these safeguards into the Bill. Europeans have the responsibility for operating the Federal Constitution, and they are surrounded on the one side by the Union of South Africa, whose racial policies we believe will lead ultimately to disaster, and further north they see Mau Mau and the chaos and crisis in Kenya.
    It is impossible for a constitution operating in Central Africa to operate without regard to the circumstances in other parts of Africa. Although the African racial policy of Dr. Malan may be limited by the boundaries of his own territory, the fear, hatred, suspicion and lack of confidence engendered by this racial policy will spread and have their influence into Central Africa as well. Europeans trying to work this Constitution are bound to be deeply involved in the psychological struggle which is going on in Africa and are bound to be affected by it. We are particularly anxious to put safeguards for Africans into the Bill, because if there is any trouble in Central Africa—and I think that it is essential that we should speak frankly about the prospect of trouble there—we want to be certain that the Federal Government will not deal with that trouble by suppressing every possible expression of African opinion.
    One of the tragedies of the situation in Kenya which we see is that the Government of Kenya, in order to deal with the emergency there, have chosen, one by one,

    1245
    to suppress, for reasons we are not concerned with in this debate, the only organs of African opinion. It would indeed be a very serious situation if the Federal Government of Central Africa, with experience of what has happened in other parts of Africa, had the right and power to do that sort of thing.
    I must say that when I saw Mr. Nehru in London before the Coronation, I could not help thinking that had the Colonial Secretary been responsible for dealing with the situation in India after the war, Mr. Nehru would probably now be held in prison as leader of a nationalist movement. I do not think that we can treat a nationalist movement as if it were a sort of crime wave and I do not think that we ought to put into the hands of the new Federal Government the power to do that.
    Let me deal with one argument which has constantly been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his interjections in these debates. He has constantly pointed out to us that the things which we were discussing were reserved powers for the Territories and had nothing to do with the Federal Government, or were the very limited concern of the Federal Government. That may be a good legal point, but the fact is that this Bill is sending Central Africa out on her own and is going to provide for a Constitution there which will be amended within itself. Although there will be certain safeguards, inevitably in a federal State, particularly in these days of large industrial concerns, the Federal Government will get increasing power.
    The founders of the American Constitution would have been horrified if they had been alive today to see the extent to which the Federal Government at Washington exercises control over the States in the American Union. I put it to the Colonial Secretary that it is right and proper for us to draw attention to that general movement, which is the movement for centralisation in Central Africa, and that we must try to provide safeguards to the things which we feel important and the power which the Federal Cabinet will have over them.
    When we on this side of the Committee talk of the colour question in Africa we are accused of being idealists. I have never been ashamed of it, although
    1246
    attempts have been made to belittle practical suggestions which have been made on those grounds. In the Amendments which we propose, dealing with co-operative organisation, trade unions and the Federal Assembly, we are being intensely practical. It is in the immediate field of what concerns the African that he is best able to get experience in running his own affairs. It is because a group of people together realise that as employees they are not having a fair chance, they band themselves together, set up a committee and get practice in public speaking as members, perhaps, of a deputation. That is the way in which the trade union movement educates people for democratic self-government later on.
    It is absolutely essential that the trade unions in Central Africa should not only be free to develop among the African members, but that they should be blessed by an Act of this House. That is what we are asking for today. The Africans are very quick to learn and to co-operate. I remember talking in Rhodesia, during the war, to British fitters of the R.A.F who had Afrioans helping them with the aircraft and in repairing engines at the Rhodesian air training centres and realising how men who had come out of the bush only a few years before were able to pick up semi-skilled operations—I do not say skilled operations—with very great speed.
    We must do nothing to hold them back in developing their own trade union movement. It is also on the general point not only what we ought to do but what is inevitable that we must address ourselves today. It is the inevitability of African development that makes us on this side of the Committee feel that we should be a step ahead and see whether, while we have yet the time, we can guide that movement. I shall be 75 in the year 2000, and I think that by then we may see a far greater degree of African development in Central Africa than today. In the end, the African racial group in Central Africa will be the dominant political influence.
    What we must do is to look ahead and see that the framework which we are establishing there from this House of Commons is a framework which will encompass that development and guide it into fruitful directions. One has only to look at the experience of this country

    1247
    to see how much we may learn from our own experience. Long before the people of Britain thought to operate universal franchise they had the right to petition the Crown. Bills in this House of Commons were based on a form of a petition to the Crown long before the franchise was granted. Every day, on the Adjournment, we celebrate the right of the people to air their grievances before the House can be adjourned. It was by the free debates in this Chamber, long before there was universal suffrage, that political development in Britain came about.
    What we are doing in the Bill is to lay down in a document the means by which African development and European development in Central Africa will take place. It may seem a very small thing to the Colonial Secretary now, but we wish to insert a word about trade unions. His answer so far has been that he is very much in favour of trade unionism itself, but it has nothing to do with the Federal Government. The arguments that he advances will seem of trifling importance with the passage of time.
    6.30 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) gave us some curious examples of the way in which things have consequences which they were not intended to have. I do not believe that Magna Carta was intended to have the effect on British political life that is now attributed to it. Yet that is one of our proudest constitutional documents. The people who amended the American Constitution made special provision about a member of the public not having to answer a question if it tended to incriminate him. I doubt if they realised the effect that it would have on Congressional investigations in Washington at the present time.
    We must not be too legalistic and too narrow in our approach. What we do now will be embodied in a document which, long after it has passed this House and is forgotten by hon. Members, will be in a museum in Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, or wherever the capital of these Territories happens to be, and will be exercising its influence on the people there. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider our plea that he should incorporate in this historic document the rights
    1248
    of trade unions to be organised, the rights of co-operatives to develop, civil rights regarding deportation and right of entry, and the rights of the African, though not yet fit for universal franchise, to equal representation in the Federal Parliament.
    Mr. John Rankin: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) wanted his raft properly provisioned. It is because of that fact that some of my hon. Friends are very anxious that the safeguards to which he has referred should be given by law to the Co-operative movement. Besides being a great provider, the Co-operative movement is, as I am sure the Colonial Secretary, with his experience, knows, a great instrument for thrift. If there has to be an incentive to provide the capital which is necessary for development, then thrift has to be encouraged. Membership of the Co-operative movement is a method of creating the money which will be the source of further development. It is also a means of personal saving. Millions of people in this country can pay tribute to that fact arising out of their Co-operative experience.
    It is also a method of democratic control. I take it that it is still the intention of the Government not merely to do something to help the economic development of this part of Africa but, at the same time, also to bring the people of that area along the road that will lead to political emancipation. The Co-operative movement is a means of teaching people the art of government.
    The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport)—this is only a minor point, but I feel that a correction should be made —said that when the Rochdale pioneers first started——
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member is not in order in reviewing the history of the Co-operative movement.
    Mr. Rankin: I was simply referring to a point made by the hon. Member for Colchester, Mr. Hopkin Morris. In your absence, he referred to the fact that the Co-operative movement was pledged by its pioneers to take no political action. I only wanted to say that that was not true. The pioneers of the Co-operative movement made no such pledge, nor did those who preceded the Rochdale pioneers, the Fenwick weavers.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member should pass on to some other subject.
    Mr. Rankin: I wished just to refer to what the hon. Member for Colchester had said. I am sorry that I am doing it behind his back, but I have no evil intention in doing so.
    The reason why it is important that these proposals should be accepted by the Government is that there is a fundamental difference between the Co-operative movement in Britain and the co-operative movement in Africa. In Britain, the movement springs directly from the demands of the people. Our experience has shown that if the movement is to be developed in Africa it requires to be sponsored and to have Government assistance, and that is why our new Clause is important.
    I know that during the course of the debate the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs has assured us—I hope he will give me his close attention in case I misquote him—that existing relations between the home Government, the Colonial Office and the protected Territories will not be disturbed and the existing powers of the Colonial Office to grant assistance for the development of the co-operative method will remain when the Bill comes into operation. We accept that, but this is just where we find our difficulty. Why could not this be incorporated by statute into the law and practice of the two Protectorates?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East said that we were creating a new form of Government to cover Southern and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and that, however honest and sincere the intentions of the Government may be at present, it is difficult to see how they will resist the almost inevitable demands which will arise from the central authority to expand its control over Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. It is because of that fact that many of us here who are deeply interested in the Co-operative movement would like to see its future safeguarded within the Bill itself.
    There is another reason why we feel so. We are not quite sure that many people on the other side of the Committee are so fond of the Co-operative movement as the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. Reference has already
    1250
    been made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) about what has been done in co-operative development through Government encouragement in days gone by. It is not so great as many people imagine, and I am not seeking to score any party point when I say that most of that development took place between the years 1945 and 1951.
    I want to quote from a document issued by the right hon. Gentleman's own office, in which we are told that in 1945 there were six marketing societies and one credit society in Northern Rhodesia.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am not quite sure how this is relevant to the new Clause because that Clause, as I understand it, seeks to make sure that there shall be no limitation on the activities of the Co-operative society.
    Mr. Rankin: It is because I fear that there may be limitations that I am seeking to advance this part of my argument, and I hope it is relevant to the point I am seeking to establish. There may be limitations. There have been limitations in the past, or at least there has been lack of appreciation of the great functions that the Co-operative movement can play in building up the lives of the people in those territories where it operates.
    I was quoting from a document issued by the Colonial Office to show that in Northern Rhodesia there were only eight registered societies in 1945 and that by 1951 the number was 97. There was a membership of 763 in 1945, but in 1951 it had grown to 15,560 and the paid-up capital had risen in the same years from £18,450 to £277,000. This emphasises the point I made somewhat earlier that if there is to be co-operative development in these areas the approach has to be different from here. There must be Government assistance, and we are entitled to press that point and ask the Government to accept a new Clause of this nature.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that this comes within the terms of the new Clause, which does not deal with Government assistance but seeks to make certain that there shall be no restrictions upon development.
    Mr. Rankin: It may be that I am not reading it properly, but the Clause says:
    Nothing hereinbefore contained shall authorise or shall be deemed to authorise the Federal Assembly to pass any law, statute,

    1251
    order, statutory instrument, rule or ordinance abrogating or limiting the right of co-operative societies, both consumer and producer, to be established within the Territories or limiting the rights or powers of co-operative societies as established by the laws of the United Kingdom.
    Our case is based on the fear that if that is not accepted then those rights may not necessarily be extended to the cooperative movement.
    6.45 p.m.
    I am seeking to show from these figures that we have a statistical and experimental basis for our fears. There was very little encouragement in the past until we had a Labour Government in power. In Nyasaland, there were no marketing societies, no credit societies and no consumer societies. The party which is now charged with giving effect to this Measure was the party that had the power to give the assistance that was necessary for development, and they did not do it. Little was done until 1945. As a result the membership in Nyasaland rose to 3,097 within the six years and there were 35 marketing societies. The people responded when they got encouragement, and that is what we are pleading for here. Encouragement is necessary and though we have been assured that that encouragement will be forthcoming, we cannot accept lightly the pledges given by the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. We respect them, but we feel that, having given those pledges, they should take the consequential step of giving them the sanction of law.
    I hope there is nothing in that which is out of order. We are not asking for too much. There is a vast and abiding interest in the Co-operative movement in the development of the Colonies. At their annual congress in Margate, in June, 1952, Congress, representing nearly 11 million British co-operators, noted with considerable pride and satisfaction the progress made in developing co-operative societies in overseas territories and in the British Commonwealth. The figures provided by the Colonial Office bear witness to that progress, and we feel that if such progress has to be maintained then the Government ought to accept the new Clause, which I am glad to support.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have a very large field to cover and I hope the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), both of whom made thoughtful contributions to our debate, will bide their time because I will deal with the matters they raised as I go, but I think the best way in which I can conduct myself is to go through the Amendments more or less one by one.
    Therefore, I must begin with the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), 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:"
    That Amendment, if passed, would involve radical changes in the scheme, so radical as to alter it entirely. I do not object to that in any way, but I do not think he put it forward with the expectation that it would be accepted, but rather in the expectation that I should cover the subjects which he raised and on which he seeks certain assurances. It would be unacceptable to us because it would tear up weeks and months of careful negotiation.
    Indeed, in many speeches made on the other side of the Committee one might have thought that the speakers were entirely against the principle of Federation. Again and again remarks have been made which seemed to show that the idea of Federation was repugnant to hon. Gentlemen who were taking part in the debate. Yet the Labour Party not only subscribed to the general idea of Federation, but also regarded the official scheme in which the proportions of African representation were laid down as generally acceptable.
    During the entire debate upon this matter I do not recall much discussion about the composition of the Federal Assembly in detail. I want to be strictly fair—and my memory is notoriously unreliable—but I think I am entitled to make the point that Amendments which

    1253
    are intended to alter and distort in every way the Federal scheme are not apparently in accordance with the policy of the party of the hon. Members who move them. However, I do not want to go into that very far because I hope we shall make quicker progress when I have dealt with——
    Mr. Benn: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want his words to go on record about greater representation for the Africans representing a distortion of the Federal scheme since it is an Amendment which, though not acceptable at this stage, must inevitably come. Therefore, I give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to withdraw his use of the word "distort."
    Mr. Lyttelton: I was using the word "distort" not merely with regard to the first Amendment, as I should have done, but also with regard to the whole debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it alters in a material way the scheme which has been agreed, and, therefore, we could not accept it, but if he would like me to withdraw the word "distort" I am willing to do so.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: May I make a further point? The right hon. Gentleman said that during the debates here there had not been opposition to the composition of the assembly, but surely he will agree that the larger part of the opposition from these benches to the scheme has been because it gives domination to a white minority and that domination is expressed through the composition of the assembly.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is not quite doing my argument justice. The composition of the Federal Government was published in an official report. We all agree that the composition of the Federal Legislature is one of the fundamentals upon which the entire scheme rests. The Labour Party of that day said that the official scheme, although they did not subscribe to every jot and tittle of it, was generally acceptable.
    Mr. Dugdale: May I ask——
    Mr. Lyttelton: No, I must be allowed to develop my argument. I will give way periodically, but I must be allowed in
    1254
    this debate to say a few connected sentences without continual interruption on every point. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I have finished this passage.
    I will now discuss the other reason why we cannot accept this Amendment. It has nothing to do with the fact that we are more or less pledged to it. I will deal with it on its merits. When the right hon. Gentleman was moving this Amendment, he said:
    "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'." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1953; Vol. 516, c. 180.]
    That sneer is entirely unjustified. I do not want to reiterate the arguments I used last week but perhaps partnership can be summed up in the words of other people. I know of no better way of expressing it than by using the words which Sir Godfrey Huggins himself used on this very matter—if I can find them——
    Mr. Dugdale: We are the only people fit to rule?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I could go on to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that the idea of Federation would foster the conception of partnership.
    The right hon. Gentleman, whose mind is confused on these matters, discloses ignorance in confusing equal shares and partnership. What we are doing now is bringing a junior partner into the business. Within the Federal Assembly of 35 there will be nine members specially selected to represent African interests. What we are doing is to bring a junior partner into the business, and we shall not be acting properly to that partner unless we do all we can to train and teach him to earn and deserve a bigger share in Government.
    It would be most unfair to ask him to share equally the responsibilities and liabilities and obligations of government at this moment in the present state of his training. That has to be made perfectly clear. When I come to discuss, later, some matters connected with the African Affairs Board, I shall show that one of the difficulties at this stage is to find sufficient people of all races to carry on government.

    1255
    If the Amendment were accepted by all the four Governments concerned—and negotiations with all four would be necessary—the cause of economic development would be damaged and retarded at this moment. For example, those who are realistic know that at this stage of African training and development, if we gave them equal representation in the Federal Parliament as this Amendment seeks, we should completely dry up the flow of overseas capital, for example. In that way the political advancement of Africans would be retarded.
    The claim is frequently made when we want to go patiently at a matter that it is reaction. There are many instances now of difficulties which have occurred because we have gone a little too quickly. Often we have gone too quickly because, in the past, we went too slowly. In these matters I sincerely believe that if we had now a Federal Assembly consisting of half and half we should be retarding the political advance of Africa.
    The cause of self-government is set back when inefficiency, corruption, and what not, appear. I am not suggesting that corruption would appear in this case, but I think the cause of self-government would receive a set-back when it is clear that we could not find the necessary number of Africans of sufficient experience and skill to exercise the responsibility.
    On that matter it seems to me that our duty is quite clear. It is to see that this condition of affairs does not continue. That must be done by the promotion of education, and particularly of higher education in these Territories. I shall not pursue that now, but that is the right line. It is not the right line to be unrealistic and to create a Federal Assembly in which there are not sufficient people of the necessary experience and skill to conduct the Government.
    I often wonder what kind of evidence I would think was a sign of a true partnership having grown up. I believe that it will be true partnership when an African is elected to a Federal Legislature by European votes or a European is elected to the Assembly by African votes. Then I think we shall have got near the kind
    1256
    of society at which we aim. We in this House are able to pronounce upon national matters whether we are Scottish, Welsh or English, and we are able to take a British point of view while retaining a lively difference of opinion on Scottish and Welsh affairs, even working up considerable enthusiasm in the House when part of the British race beats the other at football or outwits the other in business. The last category, of course, is the almost exclusive function of the Scots who are particularly adept.
    But when the clouds begin to pass or larger matters are before the House, we are one, and any attempt to divide the House on racial lines would push us back to the state of affairs before that noteworthy act of Federation, the Act of Union. I really think that in these matters patience will yield the best dividends to Africans and everybody else concerned with Federation.
    7.0 p.m.
    I now turn to the matter of co-operatives, and particularly to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). In the scheme we are careful to circumscribe the Federal Legislature's power to legislate about co-operative societies. The hon. Member was speaking to an Amendment which tried to prevent the formation of co-operative societies being impeded by law. The cooperative societies are already there in all the three Territories, and I do not think that anything that we can write into the Constitution will alter that position. They are legal.
    What we have to do is something quite different. In this I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Member, and also with the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who spoke on the same matter. We have to try to push on the co-operative movement, and particularly producer societies; but I do not mention only producer societies, because there is also the distribution side. One is, perhaps, apt to over-emphasise the producing aspect. We must encourage the movement by positive means. The present position is that the formation of these societies is in no way impeded by law. In the two Northern Territories, which still retain a large measure of Colonial Office supervision, the position will be exactly the same after the passing of the

    1257
    Bill, if it becomes law, as it is today. What I think the hon. Members want is an assurance from me that the beginnings —they are not very much more—of these co-operative societies will be fostered in every way possible.
    So far as the Northern Territories are concerned, the policy is based on the despatch of Mr. George Hall, now Lord Hall, of 20th March, 1946, from which I might mention one passage:
    "First, that there should be an officer of the Colonial Government, usually called the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, assisted by a staff of the necessary quality and strength, charged with the duty of guiding and assisting the development of the co-operative movement."
    I point out to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, in particular, that these are administrative matters which, during the short life in which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) thinks I shall enjoy my present responsibilities, remain matters entirely within my competence. There is no legal bar to these societies being promoted.
    The then Mr. George Hall went on to say:
    "… and secondly that there should be a proper legal framework for the movement in the form of a co-operative societies ordinance."
    Then, he said:
    "The policy should therefore be one of cautious, but not too cautious, experimentation in the gradual relaxation, as the societies gain in experience and competence, of the full supervision which is necessary at the initiation of the movement."
    I recognise the cadence of this language, which, I agree, is deplorable, but nevertheless that sentence is full of wisdom. So much for the matters of the co-operative societies.
    The next thing that hon. Members will wish me to discuss is the matter of trade unions in these Territories. The Amendment on this subject wishes to make the trade union legislation in these matters exactly the same as in the United Kingdom. I do not think that that would be wise. Although agriculture is still the largest industry in the United Kingdom, ours is a highly industrialised country. That is not true of the three Territories, whose economies are still, in spite of copper, and so on, largely agricultural. I do not think there could be any case for the rigidity such as the Amendment would
    1258
    seek to impose and which would be indefensible over trade union legislation in these three Territories.
    I again remind the Committee, and especially those in whose names the Amendment appears, that the Federal Legislature has no powers with reference to trade unions other than regarding disputes between the Federal Government and its own officers. Again, as I tried to say in an intervention during a speech by an hon. Member below the Gangway opposite, the trade union law in the two Northern Territories is unchanged by the passage into law of Federation.
    On the matter in Southern Rhodesia, the views of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia on this subject are well known. He believes in the gradual evolution of trade unions. He is probably not going as quickly as hon. Members opposite would like, but I have not the slightest doubt that he is perfectly sincere. I find it a little difficult to listen to adjurations about how necessary are trade unions to industries. I have spent many years of my life in one way and another in industry, and I do not require any convincing that no properly constituted industrial system can exist without the bargaining power between the trade unions and the employer.
    Mr. J. Johnson: I asked a question in the last debate and I got a rather vague answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Do the words on page 14 of the White Paper mean that there will be unions under a federal basis for both white employees and African employees? The important question is whether Northern Rhodesian Africans who come south—to the postal and telegraph services, for example, at Salisbury—will still have their union and will still bargain, by their union, with the new Federal Government that is to be set up?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I will identify the point again, but I think that that is so.
    Over the trade union matter, as over the co-operative societies, we must do much more than merely show that legislation permits these associations and gives them in the main, with appropriate variations for an agricultural community, the right of bargaining which is embodied in trade union legislation in this country. In the short time that I

    1259
    have been in office I have had some experience of these matters, particularly in Malaya, where I have carried on negotiations and conferences with trade union officials when the unions were in their very early days—almost at birth, in fact. I take this opportunity of saying that the T.U.C. and the trade union movement have always shown themselves willing to help in every way possible by lending us the services of skilled officers to show how trade unions can be built up.
    One cannot make a healthy trade union movement by legislation any more than one can make a good man by legislation. What we can do is to see that the legislation does not prevent, but rather is inclined to foster, the building up of these trade unions. Here, again, the position is unchanged by this Measure if it becomes an Act. We must do very much more to foster trade unions than merely to take the negative attitude that legislation should not circumscribe them or hamper their growth.
    There were one or two matters raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West regarding external affairs. I think that the position is now quite clear, but I might as well reiterate it. Such external affairs as are entrusted or delegated by Her Majesty's Government will be a Federal, and' not a territorial, settlement. I am a little uncertain about the point made by the hon. Member about trade marks and other things included in the proposed Schedule.
    All that it means—I think this is in accordance with his own thought—is that instead of having three people dealing with copyrights, patents, trademarks, the imposition of duties, and so on, there is only one person. I think that the hon. Member's idea behind his Amendment was that these matters are international matters of great importance. I can only suggest that we are making a step in the right direction by centralising these things within the power of the Federal Government and making it in the Exclusive List.
    Mr. Hale: When the right hon. Gentleman said that the external affairs passing to the Federal Government will be only those already there in those departments, does that apply to all the reserved Clauses?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot quite follow the point; I do not know what the hon. Member means by the reserved Clauses. I think the position is that the Federal Government legislates on those things which are on the Exclusive List and matters in the Exclusive List have been designed particularly so that they do not affect what we might call the daily life of the African.
    Mr. Hale: I am anxious not to interrupt unnecessarily, but item 2 in the reserved Federal list is Defence, item 3 is Immigration and item 4 is Aliens. Does it mean that in all those matters the Federal Government are only taking over such powers as exist in Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland? How do we know the extent of the powers given?
    Mr. Lyttelton: That reservation clearly would not apply to defence, but I think it would apply to the other matters mentioned by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Paget: Why not to defence?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Because once we organise defence federally there is a change in regard to Nyasaland, which has not any defence of her own. It becomes a Federal subject and blurs the demarcation line of grant aid to Territories as they are now and what they will be under Federation.
    I think the last point which was raised is related to the so-called deportation of British subjects and also the matter of emigration and immigration within the Federal boundaries. The reason why emigration and immigration should be a Federal settlement can best be illustrated —I have picked my words very carefully —by an entirely imaginary illustration. Suppose there were a great economic slump in South Africa and very large numbers of South Africans wished to emigrate to the Federation. If there were no power of the Federal Government to restrict such an immigration there might be an employment crisis of the first order, a move to restrict wages, and so on. It seems important that emigration and immigration should be within the competence of the Federal Government. I am not a great advocate of economic planning in the sense in which the words are usually used, but it seems a quite necessary part of Federal Government that the

    1261
    Federation should control the influx of labour to protect the labour situation within its own boundaries.
    As I have now covered all the points raised I may perhaps go back to the beginning and say that in laying down this composition as the officials did—I think that, generally speaking, at the time it had the support of the Labour Party —we are making a move for increasing African representation in the management of their own affairs. No one wishes to see that composition photographed, or frozen, permanently. On the contrary, the whole idea is that by proceeding in a sensible and patient way, by increasing education and opportunities for responsibility Africans should get an increasing share in the management of these Territories.
    That is our object. We may differ upon how quickly, how slowly, or patiently, or rashly we are going. Nevertheless, I have some reason to feel that this original composition was not widely out of the idea of the Labour Party at the time when they espoused the cause of Federation.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Dugdale: As the right hon. Gentleman has returned to the same subject, I think I am correct in saying, speaking offhand, that the words used were that the Labour Party considered the Government should make a constructive approach. I do not think that can be said to be a wholesale acceptance of the scheme.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I think the right hon. Member does me an injustice. I always made the reservation that I must be fair and that the Labour Party did not accept the scheme line by line and every jot and tittle of it, but, on a matter of this importance, I think I am entitled to say that the Labour Party were sufficiently in agreement with the composition of the Federal Assembly, to use the words used by the right hon. Member. The Amendment moved by the right hon. Member is so wide that I think I am entitled to say that I understand why his Amendment is not officially supported by the Front Bench opposite.
    I hope the Committee will realise that Her Majesty's Government are most anxious that all these matters should have
    1262
    full discussion and they certainly have had full discussion. I think this is about the tenth day on which we have been over parts of this course. The fences are already beginning to show signs of being broken down by the feats of hon. Members jumping them. I hope we may make much quicker progress after this group of Amendments has been dealt with. If there are any matters that I have not covered, I will try to see that they are rectified shortly.
    Mr. Paget: On some occasions recently I have somewhat fiercely attacked the right hon. Gentleman. It is, therefore, with considerable pleasure that I am able to express, for myself at any rate, considerable welcome to the speech he has just made, which I believe in many particulars will do a lot of good in Africa. All who know him here know that the right hon. Gentleman is far less reactionary and far more human than he appears to be. The trouble is that Africans do not always know that and they gain the wrong impression. I feel that by the attitude he has taken today he has at least done something to reassure them.
    For my part, I am one who agrees very profoundly with the Prime Minister that if we are to have Federation we must all hope that it works satisfactorily. I have found great difficulty in making up my mind on the whole question as to whether Federation is desirable, although I am bound to say that recent events have confirmed me in my opinion that it is unwise to do it now. But, if it is to be done, let us hope it will succeed.
    There is one general point I wish to make. That is the kind of sneer which comes from the back benches opposite whenever one of their not very vocal hon. Members gets up to speak—the idea that the attitude of the Opposition in opposing Federation is somehow anti-British. That seems extremely difficult to understand because if we oppose Federation what we are supporting is that Britain should retain power in these Territories. If we support Federation what we are supporting is that Britain should give her powers away. We for our part believe that Britain has a very fine record there through the Colonial Office and we want that retained.
    Having made those general remarks, I wish to ask for some elucidation on particular and perhaps rather narrow

    1263
    points which I find difficult. We are accustomed here to an unwritten Constitution. An unwritten Constitution is not available to a federation. It is of the very nature of federation that the powers shall be defined.
    I should have thought that it was vitally important here to define the powers not only as between the Federation and the Territories but as between the Federation, the Territories and the Government in Westminster. All those three will be exercising powers within that area. Surely it is essential to the well-being and success of this Federation that it should be clearly laid down who exercises what powers and where. One cannot leave it to custom. Here is a Federation for which there must be a written Constitution.
    This Bill is the mere foundation of the Constitution. The Constitution as I understand it—and I hope that the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will correct me if I am wrong—will be the Order in Council when it is made. It may well be that the new Clauses which we propose will be more properly placed in the Order in Council than in the Bill. I turn to the new Clause about reserved powers which, together with the new Schedule, seeks merely in a suggestive way to define what are the powers retained here in Westminster.
    If we do not define those powers then at some future time we shall get ourselves into a muddle. We have put down a Schedule and a Clause which we do not for a moment expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept. We put them down to suggest the task which will need doing when we come to write the Constitution. As I understand the position, the right hon. Gentleman says that the powers which in the White Paper are referred to as the Exclusive List are powers now exercised by the Territories which are being transferred to the centre.
    That is a very difficult proposition when we come to external affairs. Is the Federation to conduct external affairs for itself on three different levels of power for three different Territories? The power to conduct the external affairs of Southern Rhodesia is at one level, the power for Northern Rhodesia is at another and that for Nyasaland is at a third. Therefore, we should have one
    1264
    authority exercising a common power for three Territories but at a different level and with a different quantity of power in the three different areas of its territory.
    Mr. J. Foster: The external affairs of the Federation.
    Mr. Paget: As the right hon. Gentleman said, the power in the Federation to conduct external affairs is no subtraction from the powers of the British Government. It is simply the combination of the powers already delegated to the three separate Territories. That is what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say.
    Mr. Foster: No. The Government have the power to delegate and can keep the power. It is not a question of the combination of the powers already delegated: it is the powers which may be delegated.
    Mr. Paget: I should be glad if this could be cleared up because I think that it is the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier. What I noted down was that the powers existing now in the Territories shall be exercised by the Federation. He said that it meant no more than that. That is what I noted at the time.
    Mr. Foster: The powers in the Territories. If Her Majesty's Government care to give them the powers they will have them. That is the point.
    Mr. Paget: Powers derived from Her Majesty's Government—directly derived in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and in a rather different category in the semi-Dominion of Southern Rhodesia—but all powers admittedly derived originally from Her Majesty's Government are now there. Those are powers which have been delegated.
    Mr. Foster: No. The whole thing is concerned with the power to delegate. The hon. and learned Member should not bother about what is delegated but with the power to delegate. Her Majesty's Government have the power to delegate to the three constituent territories. In practice the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. They have delegated those powers at different times and in different degrees, but I should like to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he

    1265
    should not bother about that. He should confine himself to the power of Her Majesty's Government to delegate. The Government will have the power to delegate external affairs and, in so far as they delegate, the Federation will exercise the power. So far as that Territory has a Treaty entered into on its behalf by the Government, the Federal Government will be entitled to implement it by internal legislation. That is all in the same area.
    Mr. Paget: I am afraid that I find it difficult to depart from what has already been delegated. That is where the difficulty arises. At present we have powers to delegate at different degrees in the three areas. If nothing else is done and there is no new delegation then the powers previously delegated to the three Territories will become exercisable by the Federal Government.
    Mr. Foster: That does not matter.
    Mr. Paget: Surely it does matter, because the powers are different within the three areas. Does not that involve, if we are to delegate, a further delegation to bring the degrees of delegated authority in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland up to that of Southern Rhodesia?
    Mr. Foster: The hon. and learned Member is under a misconception. Foreign affairs are not delegated for universal purposes. Each case is a separate delegation. Therefore, this does not involve the transfer of delegated powers to the centre. That is why I say that the hon. and learned Gentleman is neither right nor wrong. I do not think that it is in point.
    Mr. Paget: Here is an assurance which I think will help us a great deal. Can I understand the position, because I think it will relieve my hon. Friends if this is understood. Foreign affairs or external affairs will be dealt with exclusively by Her Majesty's Government here, but where these decisions are taken there will be questions of implementation necessary within this area. Whatever is necessary to delegate for the purpose of implementation will be delegated ad hoc and nothing else will be delegated. If that can be said, I should be satisfied.
    Mr. Foster: No, that is not quite right. I think that it is impossible in talk backward and forward between two lawyers to arrive at it. I am afraid that is not
    1266
    right, because Her Majesty's Government might delegate to the Central African Federation the right to make a treaty on some subject, and the exclusive decision would not then be made by Her Majesty's Government.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Paget: If it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion by a debate between two lawyers surely it is all the more important that this subject, which is so difficult to elucidate, should be explained somewhere. I should have thought that the only proper place for it to be explained is the Constitution; that is where I would ask for it to be put.
    Mr. Foster: It will be.
    Mr. Paget: I am delighted to have that assurance that there will be a clear definition of what this amounts to, of what are the powers of Her Majesty's Government. [Interruption.] How else can one define what may be delegated and what may be not without saying what shall stay here and what shall go there? The Secretary of State must realise that he cannot expect blank cheques from this Committee. He really cannot expect us to agree, and we should not be doing our duty if we agreed, to things which he was wholly unable to explain. Incapacity to explain can only arise from incapacity to understand.
    Let us look at the various other subjects. Does defence, which is to be in the Exclusive List, mean the defence rights existing in the Territories now or is it to be a new power subtracted from Westminster and given to the Federation? If it is not, what is it? After all, the only power which this Federation can have is something which we give it; that is the point of this Constitution and the Bill on the consideration of which we are now engaged. Either this Federation is given powers which now exist in the Territories or powers which exist here. Is the defence power which we are giving a power which exists here, which we are subtracting from ourselves to give to them, or is it a power which already exists in the Territories and which we are taking from the Territories to give to the Federation? It is important that we should know.
    What will be the position if we wish to send United Kingdom forces into this Territory? How do we stand if we give all these defence rights away? Surely these are matters on which we are entitled to elucidation, and if they are not

    1267
    elucidated clearly in the Constitution they will raise awkward questions in future. I wish to point out the sort of problems which arise and why we consider that the Constitution should clearly define what are the reserved and residual powers remaining at Westminster.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I wish to clear up the point of the hon. and learned Member's question. I think it will be better to wait for the Order in Council and then, if the hon. and learned Member is not satisfied, this matter can be discussed again. We shall, however, get into an awful tangle if we proceed by question and answer on these complicated matters which, when we come to discuss them, will be clarified.
    Mr. Paget: But we cannot amend the Order in Council. Secondly, we are very concerned about what goes in it. The whole trouble which has become obvious in the course of the debate is that these problems have not occurred to the Government.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The problem on this point does not really exist except in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He says that by making defence into a federal subject we are adding it or subtracting it from somewhere else. That is not so. Her Majesty's Government can delegate such defence matters as they like to the Federal Government. The Federal Government are perfectly able to raise a couple of regiments of cavalry if they like to do so, but that is not necessarily subtracting from powers elsewhere. I think that the hon. and learned Member is making difficulties where they do not exist.
    Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman is thinking in terms of soldiers not of power. If this non-existent Federal Government have no powers, as they do not exist, and if they are to have powers, these must come from somewhere. They will either come from the Territories or from us. In so far as they come from somewhere they are subtracted from the place from which they come; that is inevitable in logic. I apologise to the Committee: where it can possibly be avoided legal argument should be avoided here.
    Mr. Foster: Even assuming that I accept the hon. and learned Member's terminology, what unfavourable conclusion does he draw, supposing that I agree with him about subtraction?
    Mr. Paget: I am not drawing any unfavourable conclusion; I am only asking for the matter to be defined.
    I am contending that we shall not get this matter straight unless there is a list of reserved powers. This Federation will be a growing thing. There are powers reserved to Westminster and there must of course be the right to delegate those powers, but we must clearly define the powers which we are reserving the right to delegate. I should have thought that foreign affairs and defence were eminently the sort of powers to be reserved and to be subject to the right of delegation. Each delegation should be specific—we might delegate the power to raise a regiment, or whatever it may be, for defence—but the general power of defence, the right of command when we wish to exercise that command, the right to send in United Kingdom or Dominion troops should strategic conditions require it, should reside in Westminster. This should be made clear or we shall get into this sort of muddle.
    I shall not labour this point further but it is an illustration of the sort of legal difficulty we shall get into when this area becomes more and more independent and arguments arise as to what we have the right to do. That must be defined. So far there is no indication that the powers reserved to Her Majesty's Government are anywhere defined.
    My only other point is with regard to trade unions. I welcome tremendously what the right hon. Gentleman said on that subject. It is something which it is the duty of the Government to foster. Agricultural trade unionism may require laws rather different from those applicable to a more general industrial trade union. I welcome tremendously what has been said but after all the Constitution will be and must be a written one, and the right of human beings to organise themselves industrially is among the most important of basic human rights. Where there has to be a written Constitution human rights must be written into it. Some clause is required in the Order in Council expressing in whatever terms seem good to the Government this fundamental right of trade union organisation to be recognised because the whole purpose of the Federation is to bring about the industrialisation of this area.

    1269
    It is during the phase of industrialisation that the great human brutalities of the industrial revolution occur, and it is just during that phase that the protection of the trade unions is most vital, because it is during that vigorous time that trade unionism comes under the most bitter and violent assault from employers. That has been the history of the matter, and the constitutional rights ought to be protected.
    This has to be a written Constitution, and I hope that, when the Government come to draft this tremendously important Order in Council, which will govern the lives of the people in what we hope one day will be a great country, and perhaps govern the future of Africa, the reservation of these elementary rights will be considered. This must be a document to which both heart and mind must be applied. It cannot be a document which is only half-thought-out, because that will only lead to disaster.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In this debate, we have had to cover an enormous number of subjects, and, therefore, it is perhaps a good thing to divide them up into compartments. Because of the details and complications in this Bill, if it had been sent to a Committee upstairs, hon. Members would have had a better chance to discuss them all in detail, and I am sorry that that proposal was not accepted.
    The speech of the Colonial Secretary has reassured us on some points, but there are still one or two questions which I should like to put to him. The first concerns the trade unions and the co-operative movement, both of which can and will play a very important role in the development of these Territories. It is not only in a colonial setting that trade unions and the co-operative movement render services of an economic and social character. They provide for people who have been taken out of their own setting, and they provide a new kind of discipline and a bond to keep them together, and they play a big part in the new social organisation being built up.
    The Secretary of State said that, under the scheme now before us, trade union matters are the exclusive right of the Territorial Governments, and that means that, in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, trade union law and regulations and practice will remain what they are, and,
    1270
    therefore, under the aegis of the Colonial Office. That is an assurance which we very warmly welcome. The record of the Colonial Office in promoting, developing and encouraging trade unions and the co-operative movement, with the very full support of our Trades Union Congress and the International Federation of Free Trade Unions, as well as our own Co-operative movement, is one of the most hopeful developments of the past few years.
    The point that remains is this. Trade union law and practice in Southern Rhodesia differ rather fundamentally from what they are in the Northern Territories, and the question which we have to ask here is what trade union law and practice will apply to the employees of the Federal Government? That seems to me to be a narrow but important field. We may get, in these Territories, a Federal Government with federal employees, but on page 14 of the White Paper we read:
    "Subject to sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph the Legislatures of the Territories wilt have exclusive power to make laws with respect to—
    (a) trade unions and other like associations;"
    As I understand, it will be reserved to the Federal Government to determine what trade union law shall apply to federal employees. I believe I am right, and that is the issue.
    What I want to ask the Secretary of State is this. In the federal structure, the federal employees may include African employees; what trade union law is to apply to them? Is it the trade union law of Northern Rhodesia, which permits Africans to have trade unions, and indeed encourages them? I think they now have very strong and important unions, as is the case, similarly, in Nyasaland, where they have not developed in the same way, because the country has not been industrialised so quickly.
    7.45 p.m.
    Why should not the Secretary of State accept this Amendment, which would write into the Constitution the provision that the Federal Government, which would only be able to legislate to allow trade union organisation for those in federal employment, should apply the trade union law and practice of this country? For this purpose, it is

    1271
    eminently desirable, and it also gives an opportunity to the Ministers to write into the Bill something that will give an assurance that the Bill itself is not intended to retard the development of the Africans.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I should like to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to say this. I think I nodded my head at the wrong moment, because I may have given the impression that the Federal Government would have power over trade unions when "conciliation machinery" would be the correct phrase. I do not wish to be inaccurate, even in a small particular. The Federal Government will handle the conciliation machinery between itself and its own employees, but that does not apply to the railways and the outside corporations.
    Mr. Griffiths: So far as the employees of the Federal Government are concerned, it is the Federal Legislature and the Government that will determine the trade union law under which the federal employees will be organised. Southern Rhodesia will have a majority in the Legislature, and, if they import into the federal structure and apply to federal employees their own trade union law and practice, as it operates in Southern Rhodesia, they will make it very difficult, indeed almost impossible, for Africans to organise in trade unions.
    I therefore say that the only way in which we can safeguard this position is by an Amendment of this kind. I speak as a trade unionist, and as one who is proud of the way in which trade unions are developing in these Territories. I will not go into the question of the relations between the black and the white trade unions, or in the situation in the Copper Belt, though that is a problem that could not be entirely dealt with by legislation. The thing is to get black and white miners together, and I hope that the efforts which are being pursued, and are being supported, will be successful.
    What arises here is that, under the federal structure, we ought to make sure, as we are entitled to do, that none of the barriers which now exist in Southern Rhodesia should be imported into the federal structure to prevent Africans from enjoying rights which they now
    1272
    enjoy in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
    I come now to the matter which has been raised by several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who has just spoken—the question of defence. I understand that, on all these questions of external affairs and defence and powers that are delegated, the Federal Government will have such power as Her Majesty's Government delegates to them. What has not been made clear is whether the powers which are to be delegated are already determined in the scheme.
    Mr. J. Foster Mr. J. Foster indicated dissent.
    Mr. Griffiths: They are not. As I understand, therefore, as time goes on and the Federal Government are in operation, Her Majesty's Government will determine from time to time what authority in external affairs will be delegated to the Federal Government. This is rather important. Do I gather, therefore, that it is not Her Majesty's Government's intention, nor is it incorporated in this scheme, that sole authority for external affairs or for defence is to be delegated to the Federal Government. Her Majesty's Government have at times delegated some authority in matters such as treaty rights, and so on, to dependent Territories, but they always kept control in their hands and were able, so to speak, to pull back that authority. Will power be retained by Her Majesty's Government to say to the Federal Government, "You cannot do that in external affairs and defence"?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "sole right to be delegated." That certainly confuses me because what happens, as I understand it, is that Her Majesty's Government delegates certain things to the Federal Government, and, obviously, they cannot be determined in advance because Her Majesty's Government may delegate anything at any time. They may say to the Federal Government, "We authorise you to make an agreement as you think fit relating to tsetse fly with the Belgian Congo," and the day after tomorrow it may be that Her Majesty's Government will delegate power to the Federal Government to make a trade treaty forbidding the importation of oil cake from

    1273
    Basutoland. I do not know. The point the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to make, I think, is that the Federal Government cannot exercise powers in external affairs which are not delegated to them by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Griffiths: Let me put it this way. Would the Federal Government, for example, be entitled on some issue of foreign policy to pursue a different policy from that of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Lyttelton: No.
    Mr. Griffiths: Therefore, the final control in external affairs rests with the Government here, and if the Federal Government wanted to do something which was not in conformity with the policy of Her Majesty's Government the authority would be withdrawn.
    What, in effect, my hon. and learned Friend is saying is that when we are creating this new Federal Government we should make it much more clear in the Bill or in the Orders in Council that these powers are reserved. His view, and my view, is that the best way to do this is not by Orders in Council, but by the Bill.
    Finally, I wish to say a word about the composition of the Legislature. The Secretary of State is quite right in saying that in the original proposals the present composition was embodied. The Secretary of State knows that because the composition had to be inserted at that stage special provisions to safeguard the Africans were made which have since been removed. Had they provided a Constitution in which there was an equal number of Africans and an equal number of Europeans, they would not have bothered about an African Affairs Board or a Minister. It is because in this partnership there is to be a senior and a junior partner that it is absolutely essential, in their view, to have these special provisions in order to ensure that the African is safeguarded.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman said that the safeguards have been removed, or he thinks that they have been weakened. They have certainly not been removed and I, personally, think they have been strengthened. That is where we differ. The right hon. Gentleman must not say that they have been removed.
    Mr. Griffiths: If I said that they have been removed I was at fault. What I meant was that some of the particular safeguards in the final scheme have been removed, such, for example, as the Minister and some of the powers of the African Affairs Board. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, thinks that the existing safeguards are stronger than the original ones.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I should like to refer to the freezing of the Exclusive List, which is a new protection, and also to the Affirmative Resolution procedure of this House, which are both new and greatly strengthened safeguards for the Africans.
    Mr. Griffiths: So far as those things have been incorporated in the scheme they are an improvement, but I was thinking, in particular, of provision for African representation inside the Government through the appointment of the Minister, and through the powers of the Minister and of the African Affairs Board. In my view, those things have been weakened, and, therefore, there was a case for reconsidering the position of the Legislature.
    Last week we sought—and I thought we put our case without exaggeration— to get the Government to accept an Amendment which would ensure that there would be African representation within the Federal Cabinet. We were perfectly frank about it. We realised at this stage in their development that not only one of them should be in the Cabinet, but that someone with more experience than they should also serve.
    I believe that having weakened those safeguards we were entitled to raise this question of the composition, and I only wish that the Government had been ready to respond to this. I would not tie myself to equal representation because I know the difficulties about that. It is because I know the difficulties that I say again, and all my colleagues share my point of view upon the retention of the Minister, that while there is a senior and a junior partner we must be the trustees of the Africans. But have we not surrendered so much of the power of the trustees in the changes that have been made that it may be found in future that we cannot safeguard as much as we could have done under the original scheme?

    1275
    I have not sought to define partnership. The only recent definition we have had of it is that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to which the Secretary of State referred. The Archbishop said:
    "There has been a demand for a definition of 'partnership.' I have doubt whether it is possible to give a definition. I think it is more than anything else an attitude of spirit applied continuously in practice as one thing or another comes up. But I do not think you can anticipate the general questions which will arise for solution and say how they must be solved by partnership.
    I will give a definition of my own. I would define partnership as having two heads: first, a settled purpose to do everything possible with mutual good will for the progressive social, intellectual and moral advancement of the African peoples. That, I think, we all accept. Secondly, the inevitable result of partnership must be that the proportionate place held by Europeans will steadily diminish and the place occupied by Africans will steadily increase as the results of economic development and educational and social development have their effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 2nd April, 1953; c. 602.]
    One of my disappointments is that from Rhodesia and from the Government we have had no affirmation that there is only one inevitable and desirable end to a partnership, namely, ultimately to lead to full democracy. If we could have that assurance many of the fears would be removed. We have not had it so far, but I hope that before the debate ends we may get it.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir R. Acland: The right hon. Gentleman has accused us of inconsistency because we have moved an Amendment suggesting a constitution for the Federal Legislature which is different from that which was suggested in the original scheme brought out at the time of the Labour Government and accepted by us, not in every jot and tittle, but as a practical suggestion worthy of consideration.
    I think that the weakening of the other African safeguards which has taken place in the hands of the present Government since that scheme was brought out can be regarded as a justification for our changing our view about the composition of the Legislative Assembly, but there is another point; not only have we to take words into account but we have also to take deeds, and when the officials' report was brought out some three years ago I, for one, confidently expected that the
    1276
    three or four year period which would elapse between the publication of that report and the implementation of any Federal scheme would be used to put through many deeds translating partnership from a vague aspiration into a concrete reality.
    If those deeds had taken place between that date and this, it might by now seem not intolerable to introduce a Legislative Assembly with a high proportion of European members in it, but as there have been almost no deeds in these last three years advancing towards partnership, as the discussions on the subject broke down entirely, it seems to me that we are being at any rate not inconsistent in asking that assurances of future advances towards partnership shall be given in the form of a higher proportion of African members in the Legislative Assembly than was proposed in the original report.
    Passing from that point, I feel it right to answer the suggestion made once again by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) that we on this side of the Committee are the enemies of the whites, because as often as that false accusation is made against us it ought to be specifically answered, otherwise it will appear that we are accepting the truth of the charge by default.
    It is, of course, the fact—and I make a present of this to the hon. Member— that we on this side of the Committee do not desire that the white minorities in Africa shall have quite such untrammelled powers as large numbers of those white minorities would themselves wish to have. We cannot possibly escape from that position, which we make clear in debate after debate on one aspect after another of the great African problem.
    But I would make this point, and I hope that the hon. Member for Colchester will appreciate the sincerity with which I make it; this does not mean that we are the enemies of these white minorities. On the contrary, we appreciate the work they do and the efforts they make and, above all, looking into the future—perhaps 25, perhaps 50 years—to the days in which, as the Archbishop of Canterbury said in the quotation which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) read, when ever-increasing power will be in the hands of the African majority, we

    1277
    earnestly hope that all the qualities, the abilities, the skills, the technology, the sense of administrative responsibility, which exist among white people, all those great gifts and many others, will be available to these great African countries.
    Mr. Alport: I am very glad the hon. Member has made that point. What I said was that the impression which is given very often in Africa is that the party opposite is the enemy of the European communities there, and I hoped that that impression would be corrected in the debate.
    Sir R. Acland: In all humility, we believe that we look to the long-term interests of the whole of these communities and the white elements in them with perhaps a little more objectivity than do some hon. Members opposite and than do some of the white peoples now living in those countries, who must naturally be conscious of their short-term difficulties and short-term self-interests, which must often conflict with the long-term interests.
    The last time this subject was debated the wise words of Miss Margery Perham. in her letter to "The Times" of 8th June, were quoted. She wrote:
    "It is no defamation 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."
    Those who think that this statement contains great truths are not to be regarded or described as being the enemies of the white people in these African lands.
    I come to a point in which I find myself in disagreement with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I am sorry that he has left the Chamber for a moment. I must say that I did not share his satisfaction with the speech which we heard from the Government Front Bench to-day, for I felt that the right hon. Gentleman fell below the level of the opportunities which are available to him in these discussions on so many important points relating to this Constitution.
    I understand, although I regret, the position into which he and the Government have got themselves, in which they have to regard this Federal scheme as being almost of a treaty nature—one
    1278
    which cannot be amended without going back on the moral obligations which the Government have undertaken. Although I regret that they have placed themselves in that position, I understand why he is obliged to resist those Amendments which necessitate a reopening of all the discussions which have taken place with the leaders of the three territories concerned, particularly the leaders of Southern Rhodesia.
    I felt, all the same, that he might have shown a little more active and vigorous sympathy with the spirit of the Amendments which we have moved. On the day of our last debate on this matter, "The Times" spoke strongly in terms of which I thought the right hon. Gentleman himself might have taken note. I am sure every hon. Member has read the words, but I do not think they have been quoted in the House, and I should like to do so. After describing exactly the position in which the Government are bound at this stage in the discussions to resist Amendments, "The Times," in its leading article, said:
    "Yet the Colonial Secretary will commit a grave error if he does no more than this."
    It means, do no more than resist Amendments more or less mechanically because of their inconsistency with the discussions which have gone on with the African Governments.
    The article continues:
    "It is not to the letter of these Amendments but to their spirit that he has to address himself—and his voice should be heard all over Central Africa. He must say in words stronger than any he has yet used that the decisive test of the new constitution is that it shall preserve and extend the rights of all the inhabitants of the Federation, whatever their colour or race; that partnership shall be founded upon equality before the law and of opportunity—and facilities—to advance without discrimination."
    The right hon. Gentleman can speak charmingly and very eloquently when he is on a subject on which he feels deeply. Indeed, I well remember—this was nearly three years ago—when a matter of the National Theatre was discussed. It happened by chance to be my week to do "The Week in Westminster." I remember with what pleasure I described the charm, eloquence and real spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman discussed this matter, and the determination which he showed that this thing should go forward to a happy conclusion. I am

    1279
    sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that occasion with great pleasure.
    How very differently I would feel at this moment if he, with all the authority that he has—let us be clear about this— with the white rulers, as they very soon will be, of this Central African Federation, used the same kind of eloquence about this matter as he showed in connection with the National Theatre. They are much more likely to be influenced by words from him than by any words from any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on this side of the Committee.
    If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to say with real spirit and determination that co-operative organisation would be pressed forward, if he showed a determination that trade unions should go on from strength to strength, and if, while saying that we must reserve powers of deportation, he expressed regret at the deportation of Michael Scott and said that so far as he had any influence deportations would not be used merely to remove from the Territories those whose views happened to be a nuisance to the existing Government, the writer of "The Times" leading article and I would feel very much happier then we do today, after his rather uninspired handling of the theme raised by the Amendments.
    Before I conclude, I want to draw attention to one other matter which is covered by the Amendments, and particularly by that which deals with the composition of the Federal Legislature, which will have the dominant say on matters of major industrial development. It has been one of the chief arguments for Federation all the way through that with Federation we can attract foreign capital for economic development and that without Federation we cannot do so. It has been almost taken for granted by those who have used that argument that economic development of the kind which would be sponsored and undertaken by foreign capital would be beneficial to those Territories and, in particular, to the African majorities who live in them.
    That does not necessarily follow. Whether any particular part of economic development is or is not beneficial to the great African majorities of these Territories depends enormously on the way it is put through and the extent to which
    1280
    real, genuine African co-operation in the development is sought. It depends also on the purpose we have in mind in the economic development. Have we in mind that, first and foremost, European shareholders and directors are to get good money, good salaries, good positions and good jobs and that as an almost incidental by-product, out of taxation raised on company profits, we may be able to build a few schools and hospitals and a few Africans will be able to attend them? Or are we thinking of development aimed at raising the whole social life of African communities?
    On this point I want to quote a few words which, again, I suppose the majority of hon. Members now present have read, but I do not think those words have been put on the record of this Committee. They are:
    "Nothing could be more conducive to frustration and zenophobia than that the great mass of Africans should stand aside while people from outside develop their country and raise their standards of living for them…. African opinion views with mixed wonder and dismay the portents of economic development. Africans are impatient that they cannot participate more actively and they suspect that the developments may not be designed for the benefit of Africans…. It is as communities that their co-operation"—
    that is, the co-operation of Africans in economic development—
    "is required since a mob of de-tribalised workers with no social cohesion and no community spirit will achieve little in the campaign to improve their conditions."
    That is not written by a Left-wing idealist on this side of the Committee who has no experience or knowledge of East African affairs. It comes out of Dispatch 490/52 by the present Governor of Uganda. I seriously believe that the kind of consideration mentioned in those crucial sentences will have a better chance of being taken into account if the trade unions were strengthened and a better chance again if we had increased representation of Africans in the Legislative Assembly which will be dealing with major industrial developments. For all those reasons I regret that the Government feel inclined to resist the Amendments.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: We are all agreed that the Bill, the Amendments and the debate are of very great importance to the Rhodesias and to the white and

    1281
    coloured peoples not only of Africa but throughout the world. I am glad that the debate has been restored to the high level which such a topic deserves, and that we have passed from the personal note which was struck rather discordantly a little time ago. I beg the Committee to continue to consider this great topic according to the noblest of principles.
    The Secretary of State seems to pin his faith to an Order in Council in a way which seems to miss the real point in our Amendments and in the speeches supporting them. The point seems to be that the Bill should be fuller, more explicit, more informative and more like former federating statutes in the British Commonwealth of Nations. The secretive manner of this skeleton Bill is unfair not only to the Africans concerned but to Britons in this country and to the inhabitants of the whole Commonwealth of Nations. This is well calculated to arouse the suspicions which, in fact, exist in Africa concerning it. Further, the lack of explicitness is contrary to the best constitutional principle and practice and is at variance with most other federating statutes in the British Commonwealth. Africans and Britons alike are entitled to have the scheme fully before them in the form of a Bill which can be amended, rather than in the form of an Order in Council, with which the Secretary of State is so much enamoured.
    The Amendments would give this skeleton Bill flesh and blood, would breathe life into this dead Bill and give it vitality to work and to win success like the other federating statutes in the other parts of the British Commonwealth. The words of the Clause sought to be amended about Government and Legislature are indecently bare. They
    "provide for the establishment of a Federal Government and a Federal Legislature,"
    These words are bare bones. They give no indication of what sort of federal legislature, what is to be its constitution, how many members it is to have, what are to be their qualifications, how they are to be elected. The Clause as it stands is quite inadequate. The answer of the Secretary of State is that all these will be attended to in the Order in Council. That was not the procedure adopted when federation was proposed for other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
    1282
    Our Amendments ask for nothing new. They are well based on precedent. There are in the British Commonwealth many excellent models at which the Government might have looked when drafting this Bill, many federal statutes and constitutions which answer all the questions I have just asked. Our Amendments seek to add words which will answer some of these questions. They will complete the Clause sought to be amended and make sense of it.
    One of our Amendments seeks, after the word "Legislature," to insert words on the lines of an earlier model, words which will indicate the kind of legislature which it is sought to set up. The words are:
    "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."
    Another of our Amendments seeks, after "Legislature," to insert words which are also descriptive of the kind of Legislature. The words are:
    "in which there shall be an equal number of Europeans and Africans."
    These Amendments, in my submission, will complete the Clause and make explicit the democratic intentions of the Government with regard to this Bill.
    I, therefore, support these Amendments because they are clear, explicit, factual, and accord with constitutional precedent. The Clause as drawn is defective, confused, far from explicit or factual, and conflicts with previous British constitutional precedents. This is a constitutional matter which should not be the subject of party feeling such as that which was exhibited earlier today.
    I ask the Secretary of State, in absentia, if he will divest himself of his preconception about these Amendments and consider them afresh on their merits, and consider them in the light of the precedents in various other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Those precedents have succeeded. Some have succeeded better than others. This should

    1283
    be a non-party matter. I do beg the Secretary of State to consider this matter on that basis.
    Our Amendments are essential because this Bill, unlike its predecessors, is too streamlined. This Clause is a good indication of the Bill in what it expresses, but, more particularly, in what it withholds. The words are mere skeletons. "Provide for the establishment of a Federal Government." How is it to be formed? We are left at large. "Federal Legislature." How is it to be elected? What are to be its powers? We are left at large. Three observations should be made upon these obvious questions. One is that the Amendments answer them; the second is the Amendments answer them according to precedent; and the third is we should be guided in this matter by precedents which have been eminently successful in other parts of the British Commonwealth.
    Contrast the former models with the wording of this Bill. Similar problems of drafting were presented on the earlier occasions which arose in various periods of British history when federation was then implemented with clarity and has since been worked with success. Look at some of the earlier statutes briefly, now operating with such success in other parts of the Commonwealth. They were explicit and they have worked well. They were frank and they have won support. They were democratic and they have tended to consolidate the British Commonwealth and Empire.
    But this bare boned skeleton will have —I hope not, but it may have—the very contrary effect of causing disaffection in the Territories concerned and may tend towards trouble in the British Commonwealth. These Amendments recognise that a constitutional machine is to be set up which should be defined in the statute setting it up; otherwise it cannot and will not work with good will. It will not gain the public support which is essential for its success. Look at the earlier models and note how explicit they were.
    Mr. Hopkinson: The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to examples. When the Malayan Federation was set up in 1946, it was necessary to repeal the Straits Settlements Act of 1866, and the British Settlements Acts were applied instead.
    1284
    The Bill iself did not refer to the Malayan Union, but a White Paper was laid at the time and was debated. An Order in Council followed the Bill which was debated at the same time as a White Paper containing the details of the Constitution. That went through, and the Malayan Federation was set up. Unfortunately, it did not appeal to the Malays, and the thing had to be rescinded in a year. Next came the Federation now in existence, which was put through by Order in Council, in precisely the same way as we are doing now.
    Mr. Hughes: lam obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to the Malayan Federation, which is a much more modern one and departs from the series of precedents—indeed, the Minister is overborne by the weight of evidence— the series of precedents, which are all the other way.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: Did my hon. and learned Friend notice that a year after this proposal for Federation was introduced it was so much opposed by the people of Malaya that a new proposal had to be introduced, and does he not think that might prove to be a precedent on this occasion?
    Mr. Hughes: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that. He will recall that I did say a little earlier that one of the essentials of the success of federation anywhere is that it should be of such a kind as will win the good will of the people subject to it. My submission here is that this streamlined, skeleton scheme of federation is not of a kind which will win the support of the people who will be subject to it, and it is therefore likely to be a disintegrating rather than a consolidating influence in Africa.
    The instances to which I was about to refer the Committee and, more particularly, the Minister, are, first, the New Zealand Act, which had over 100 Sections. This Bill has only two. The Canadian Act had 150 Sections. This has only two. The Leeward Islands Act had 33 Sections. This has only two. The Australian Act had 128 Sections. This has only two. The South African Act had 152 Sections. This has only two. The Irish Free State Treaty and

    1285
    Constitution together consisted of 101 Articles. This has only two. More recently, those for India, Pakistan and Ceylon were long, explicit and careful models, the very antithesis of this bare-boned little Bill which does not indicate the kind of constitution to be set up.
    In my submission, this Bill is incomplete, and the Amendments which it is sought to insert are such as will help to complete it and to give it a better chance of working with success.
    The New Zealand Act is a very good example which contrasts with the present Bill. It was entitled:
    "An Act of Parliament establishing Provincial Councils and a General Assembly in New Zealand"
    in 1852, designed to grant a Representative Constitution to New Zealand. It consisted of 100 Sections. Section 2 established six provinces in New Zealand; Section 3 provided for the establishment of provincial councils, each of which should consist of no fewer than nine members.
    Section 32 was in the following terms:
    "There shall be within the Colony of New Zealand a General Assembly to consist of the Governor, a Legislative Council and a House of Representatives."
    Section 33 provided for the appointment of members of the Legislative Council being not less in number than 10. There is nothing of that kind in this Bill. Section 40 gave power to summon a House of Representatives to consist of not more than 42 members. There is nothing of that sort in this Bill.
    I shall not trouble the House with more of that New Zealand Act. This is a very brief adumbration of only part of the New Zealand Act, sufficient to contrast the present incomplete Bill with that past constitutional Act which was worthy of its task and has done well and brought peace, brotherhood and success to New Zealand. I want to see federation a success. To achieve this we must have a Bill which is explicit and complete, a Bill which will attract the support of the people who will be subject to it. This Bill, as drafted, may cause trouble and may wreck federation, which has worked so well elsewhere. In my submission, Government policy in this matter is short-sighted, anti-democratic, and indeed autocratic, and a grave peril
    1286
    to Britain, Africa and the Commonwealth.
    I have here particulars, with which I shall not trouble the Committee, of the Canadian Federation Act of 1867. That also was a good model which the Government would have done well to follow. It also gave details of the kind of constitution that was to be set up. I also have details of the Leeward Islands Act of 1871—another good model which the Government could have followed, because it gave details in a factual way which would attract the support of the people who had to live under it.
    Again it is my duty to point out to the Committee that this skeleton Bill is incomplete and the Amendments which it is sought to incorporate in it are essential to make it workable. The same applies to the Australia Act, 1900, another excellent model. Here again is the contrast with the present Clause. I shall not trouble the Committee with the details of it. The same applies to the South Africa Act, 1909, which I have here, and with which I shall not trouble the Committee. I have already mentioned the Irish Free State Constitution. I shall not trouble the House with that. But the same argument applies to them all.
    All down history, the successful instruments of federation in the British Commonwealth of Nations were those which incorporated in the Statute the details of the constitution to be set up. The statute, according self-government to India, Pakistan and Ceylon are recent and still in our memories. We recall that they were each detailed pieces of legislation, drafted with care, learning, humanity and dignity, each worthy of a great constitutional occasion, and as constitutional instruments of freedom and progress.
    They contrast with this Bill which is slim in every sense of that sinister word, furtive in the hidden evils it conceals, suspect by all because of its skeletonic ambiguity, a departure from the decent designs of precedent, rushed through and thrust upon an unwilling people. The Bill needs the Amendments which have been proposed from this side of the Committee to make it at all workable, and I hope that in the interests of good statesmanship, sincerity and good government, the Government will reconsider their attitude to these Amendments in order to

    1287
    make the Bill approximate, even in a distant way, to its great predecessors which have brought federation with such great success to other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
    Mr. Dugdale: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends on the understanding that the Amendment which appears later—page I, line 10, after "Legislature," insert
    "in which there shall be an equal number of Europeans and Africans."
    —will be called and that there will be a Division upon it.
    The Chairman: Without debate?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "Legislature," to insert:
    "to be elected on a franchise which shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and any change in which shall be subject to the like approval."
    In form, it is the purpose of this Amendment to insert these words in Clause 1 (1, a) of the Bill. In form again, what the Amendment purports to do is to write into the Bill those changes already in the draft scheme with regard to franchise and to go a little bit further, but further in a very important particular, than what appears at present in the Federation scheme.
    May I, at the outset, say this in moving this Amendment? I submit to the Committee that when we get on to the topic of franchise we really are touching the very nerve and root of this scheme. I am reminded of what the Northern Rhodesian African representatives said at the Victoria Falls conference. They said that they would be willing to consider the scheme provided that the subsection on partnership had been defined and when so defined had been put progressively into operation. I am sure the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will agree with me when I say that the working out of the concept of a real representative franchise lies at the root of any partnership scheme in the real sense. Without a live franchise, partnership must be a purely dead notion. It is with this all-important topic of franchise that my Amendment deals.
    1288
    Perhaps I might remind the Committee how the matter stands at present in the draft scheme. The arrangement is set out on page 16 of the scheme, and it is that for the first General Election, which is to be held when the Federal Legislature is to be set up, the existing franchise is to apply. If one asks what the existing franchise is one finds that in Southern Rhodesia—this matter is well-known because it has frequently been alluded to in our discussions about the scheme—only 4,000 Africans are on the register to represent an African population of two million, and there are 129,000 Europeans of whom 50,000 are on the electoral register. That is the scheme which is to operate under the terms of the federation for the first General Election in Southern Rhodesia. On page 17 we find that the existing electoral arrangements are also to operate in Northern Rhodesia and that in Nyasaland the franchise is to be governed by regulations to be made by the Governor-General.
    Paragraph 16 provides that the Federal Legislature may introduce amendments and changes in the existing franchise system. If such changes are introduced, they have to be passed by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the total membership of the assembly and they have to be reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure. What I seek to do in this Amendment is to write into the Bill a requirement that, when formulated, the Order in Council shall contain a provision than any electoral franchise which is to be applied not only for future General Elections but also for the first General Election and any subsequent changes that are to be made in that franchise shall be subject to the approval, and under the continual scrutiny, of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    I hope that we shall not be met by the stone wall with which we have repeatedly been confronted in our debates that the Secretary of State has already committed himself so far that he can make no change in the Federation scheme as it is at present formulated. That is a very sterile and wholly unjustifiable answer. As I have said before in these debates—I hope the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will agree with me—if the Secretary of State and he have committed themselves to a scheme which has defects, then they have acted with an extreme of unwisdom and it is their plain and patent duty, if

    1289
    that is the situation, when the defect is pointed out to them in the course of our debates, to go back and renegotiate that part of the scheme which contains the defect with those with whom they have already negotiated the draft scheme. Therefore, I hope that we shall not be met by the simple barren answer that nothing can be done at the moment.
    I also hope that we shall not be met with the answer that the right time to discuss franchise is when the Order in Council is before the House. That is too late. When the Order in Council is before the House no Amendment can be introduced into it, and we have either to accept it lock, stock and barrel or to reject it in toto, and if we disapprove of the electoral arrangements as disclosed in the Order in Council we are completely powerless to do anything about them. It follows that now is the time for us to discuss the franchise arrangements upon which the federal legislature is to be based.
    I hope this is the basis upon which the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will reply to us. If he is going to take refuge in the answer that he cannot now do anything because he has already unwisely committed himself to the scheme so far that he cannot alter any portion of it, I hope he will at least take this opportunity of telling us what the Government's intentions are about the franchise. We want to know that, and it is quite obvious that the question of franchise is a subject upon which the Government must have pondered long and deeply, as well as all those who are committed with the Government to the formulation of this scheme.
    8.45 p.m.
    Therefore, it emerges as a subject of crucial and first rate importance which must have been thoroughly examined by the Government, and a subject on which the Government must be in a position, if they are to measure up to their responsibilities in this matter, to pronounce on their intentions. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment, I ask the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs to say what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the franchise.
    May I follow that up by saying that I have pointed out what the existing franchise system is which under the terms of the scheme as applied for the purpose
    1290
    of the first General Election. I would ask the Minister to agree with me that it should be altered, because the existing franchise, which returns 14 out of the 26 elected members for Southern Rhodesia, is not a satisfactory franchise to form a permanent feature in this Federal scheme. In the course of its administration, there must be an alteration unless the term "partnership" is a merely empty phrase. A new franchise system must be gradually and rapidly introduced, which will provide for real representation for the African population of 2 million in Southern Rhodesia.
    In Nyasaland I suppose it will depend on regulations, and in the three Territories it is urgently necessary and of first-class importance that a scheme should be formulated for a franchise which will progressively give the Africans a greater measure of responsible representation in the composition of the Federal Parliament. If that is right I ask the Minister, what control is he retaining over the setting up of the franchise structure?
    Without, I hope, incurring the risk of being called anti-European—that is a cowardly accusation which hon. Members opposite are too ready to throw at my hon. Friends and it is an accusation which I entirely reject; I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) repudiated it —may I observe that a federal franchise in Southern Rhodesia, which gives the white population such an enormously preponderant influence and will continue unless changed to give the white population such a large preponderant influence in the return of 14 Southern Rhodesian members, must obviously be unsatisfactory.
    But is there really any likelihood that, unless the Secretary of State intervenes and makes his influence felt in the direction of producing some change in the system, the scheme which is to be operated for the first General Election will be changed for coming General Elections? It would be a matter of the greatest misfortune if that scheme, blocking, as it does, to all intents and purposes,, the growing measure of African representation, is to obtain not only for the first General Election, but for many General Elections to come. If that is so, this scheme, if it is introduced and made to operate, will remain something which

    1291
    is utterly sterile, unreal, and unable to cope with the developing situation in that part of Africa.
    I hope, therefore, that the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will agree with me that it is in the interests of everybody concerned that something should be done progressively to moderate and amend that franchise set-up as it at present exists in Southern Rhodesia. And the Southern Rhodesian representation, be it remembered, is the largest representation in the proposed assembly. The elected representatives in the proposed assembly are to be 26, and 14 of those —that is to say, more than half—are to sit for Southern Rhodesia and are to be elected upon that franchise which, I fear, may remain the franchise for the Federal Parliament for a long time to come unless the Secretary of State intervenes to change it.
    I want to follow that by asking the Minister a question. I have looked carefully through the scheme and through the report which accompanies it, which is Command Paper 8753, to find some indication as to the intentions of the Government in regard to the franchise. Unless something escaped me, the only reference in the report, which, after all, gives some indication as to how it is intended that the scheme is to work, is that contained in paragraphs 42 and 43. I shall be grateful if the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will indicate what is meant by the proposals contained in those two paragraphs. I shall not read them, but they indicate that it is proposed that there shall be two stages in the implementation of the Federal scheme.
    The first is to be a preparatory stage and, according to paragraph 42, during that there is to be a temporary Ministry which will be concentrating largely during this stage on setting up a Government machine and preparing "the interim electoral law." What is that interim electoral law to be? What is to be its form and what is it to provide? Is it a law which is designed to change the franchise? If it is designed to change it for the first general election, paragraph 2 would seem to be in conflict with paragraph 16 of the scheme to which I referred earlier and which provides that the existing franchise is to govern the first general election.
    1292
    Will the Minister please tell us what is meant by that? Paragraph 43 says:
    "The second stage will start, probably not later than the date when the interim electoral law is ready, with the official coming into force of the Constitution together with the necessary transitional provisions. During this stage the elections will be held and the temporary Ministry will increasingly take over day-to-day governmental functions."
    As I have said, it is possible that I have missed some reference to the working of the franchise, but that is all I have been able to find. What does that mean? What is the interim electoral law to be? Is it to govern the first General Election? If it is, or if it is to govern any subsequent election, in what way is it proposed that the interim law is to differ from the existing law which, according to paragraph 16 of the scheme, is to govern the first General Election?
    I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate clearly what the Government envisage as being the franchise system which in the future, both in the near future and the more distant future, is to govern the electoral arrangements for the new Federal Parliament. If he does not give us a detailed account of that. I suggest that he has been seriously lacking in his responsibilities if he has not yet thought out this fundamental feature of the Scheme. The whole Scheme rests upon it.
    The hon. Member behind the Minister is laughing. This really is not funny. We on this side treat the matter seriously, even if the hon. Member does not. I am glad to see, however, that he does, and that he withdraws the grin with which he greeted what I said before. I hope that the Minister will treat the matter seriously because that is how we on this side regard it.
    What we seek to do in the Amendment, in the wording we have chosen, is to provide that the Secretary of State is to be the approving authority, not only for the first franchise set up, but also for any change in it. The wording we have chosen is designed to give him not merely a power to veto the franchise scheme. Under the existing Federation scheme any proposed measure of change, being reserved for the pleasure of Her Majesty, can as such be subject to a veto.
    We desire to go a little further than that and to put into the hands of the

    1293
    Secretary of State, as Her Majesty's principal adviser in this matter, a power actually to initiate and activate proposals for change. We felt that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have it in his power to bring about changes from the existing system, for the reason that I have given: namely, that we feel there is a serious danger that if there is not some initiating power in the hands of the Minister, the existing scheme, which we on this side think is wholly unsatisfactory, will probably continue to be operated.
    Speaking from this side of the Committee, I do not venture to suggest what should be the actual form of franchise. I am conscious that there are grave difficulties in formulating an actual franchise scheme. Obviously, it is a matter that must be carefully thought out, and for that very reason we are entitled to a full and detailed answer from the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs giving the results of the Government's ruminations upon this subject.
    For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he can accept the Amendment. If he does, it will greatly reassure, not only my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee but, I feel sure he will agree, African opinion and the opinion, European and African, throughout various countries and in this country which is concerned as to the future operation of the Federal scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman can accept the Amendment—or, at least, if he cannot accept it, if he makes a statement which will reassure the apprehensions which are at present entertained— he will have done a very real service to the Committee and to all those who are interested in the future of this Federation.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: It seems to me that the Amendment is needed in the Bill for reasons of logic and of justice. First, to touch briefly on the question of logic, as I read the scheme there seems to me no doubt that changes in the franchise in future would be reserved subjects which would be subject to the direct approval of the Secretary of State.
    As I see it, any change in the franchise would mean a constitutional Bill. as defined in paragraph 144 of the
    1294
    Federal scheme, and, therefore, would be reserved. Even if that were not so, the African Affairs Board could, obviously, easily make any change in the franchise, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, if they thought it in any way was detrimental to African interests. And so I presume that any change in the franchise in the future would be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. Therefore, it seems a matter of simple logic that if changes in the franchise must be subject to the right hon. Gentleman's approval, a fortiori the original scheme, which is very much more important than changes in it, should also be subject to his approval.
    The Amendment also has relevance to the point, raised by my right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), of the interim period before the full Constitution comes into effect and has been got going. I share my right hon. and learned Friend's great difficulty in understanding how it is intended that this interim period shall be worked. By definition, there will not be safeguards. The safeguards in the Constitution come into operation only when the Constitution is there. Therefore, in the interim period the safeguards will not be operated.
    None the less, things will have to be done in this interim period which are the sort of things for which the safeguards were inserted. Consequently, the Secretary of State in this interim period will have an immense responsibility to see that the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, as it finally comes into force with all its safeguards, shall also operate in this interim period.
    I cannot understand any more than could my right hon. and learned Friend quite what happens to the interim franchise, but it clearly is possible that a franchise will be introduced in this interim period, when there will be no African Affairs Board. That only comes into operation when the full Constitution is working. Therefore, if the Secretary of State is to exercise the very great responsibilities that will fall on him to make sure that this is justly and properly run he must have the powers to do so. He will not have those powers unless this Amendment is incorporated in the Bill.

    1295
    9.0 P.m.
    It seems to me that the nature of the first franchise under this Constitution will be of vital importance. It is perhaps the most important single factor of all. It will make a great deal of difference to the general atmosphere in which Federation comes into existence—the general attitude of Africans and others towards it—if this is a good, progressive, forward-looking franchise on a common roll and with a fair and reasonable composition. It will make a vast difference to the atmosphere.
    If the consent of the Secretary of State is needed for the introduction of the first franchise, that will arm him with very great influence and enable him to make sure that this first franchise is of such a sort that it will give us the best possible chance for a good and happy launching of Federation and of the Constitution. I therefore think this Amendment is one of very vital importance. If the Secretary of State does not have the power to put into the Bill or into the Order in Council the powers intended to be given him by this Amendment he will not be able to discharge the duties he owes to us in this Committee and to the population, black and white, in this area for which we are legislating.
    Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I endorse all that has been said so far, particularly because I think it is highly necessary in order to go some way towards minimising the very great suspicion on the part of Africans to place the responsibility for the franchise on the Secretary of State in this country.
    I do so because we have to recognise that the Southern Rhodesian Government have not set a very good example of what may be pursued when once they have larger powers under the proposed Scheme. So far as Africans in Southern Rhodesia are concerned there is a literacy test, plus a monetary and a property test. I believe I am right in saying that at present franchise of Africans rests not merely on their ability to read and write but also on whether or not they have capital of £500 and an income of something like £240. If that is the standard already prevailing in Southern Rhodesia, we are justified in assuming that the Southern Rhodesian citizens in the new Scheme will do their utmost to establish
    1296
    the same criterion throughout the whole Federation area.
    I know that it has been said that even under the existing franchise in Southern Rhodesia far fewer have exercised their franchise than could have done. I am quite aware of that, but at least until comparatively recent years the percentage of voters in this country—who are literate—has been extremely small. I know that there have been county council elections in which 8, 9 or 10 per cent. of the total electorate have voted. But we have not proposed because of that that the vote should be taken away from the other 90 per cent. We have expressed our regret and dismay that only 10 per cent. or thereabouts have shown any civic interest in county council affairs, and we have gone on to try to educate the others to use their franchise better at the next election. We have succeeded in securing a much greater response.
    Therefore, the argument that only a small percentage of the Africans entitled to vote in Southern Rhodesia have exercised the franchise is to me not a sound one. Moreover, I would suggest that at least something can be said for the argument that because the Africans in Southern Rhodesia have heretofore been in such a minority in elections that they have been seized with a sense of futility and have thought it hardly worth while to trouble to vote. A great opportunity is presented to the Secretary of State to encourage Africans to recognise the significance and responsibility of the franchise by saying at once that he disagrees with the criterion of property or income.
    The right hon. Gentleman may perhaps agree with the criterion of literacy but if he agrees with that and not with the other two qualifications I hope he will say that the franchise for Africans under the new scheme shall be on that basis. I would say in passing that I do not necessarily say that literacy should be the only test, for in our great sister Power of India, now fortunately inside the Commonwealth, where millions were illiterate at the last election, they nevertheless had the most successful and largest democratic election in history. They surmounted the illiteracy difficulties by means of symbols which, in spite of a great deal of preliminary criticism, worked very well indeed on the whole.

    1297
    I suggest that even that might be considered in regard to the extension of the franchise for Africans throughout the whole of the projected Central African Federation.
    Be that as it may, if it is felt that some kind of test is required, I submit that the literacy test is all that is required. There is no assurance that that will be the sole test. One can understand why, because it is highly probable that the Southern Rhodesians would object to the withdrawal of the existing financial and property qualifications. In those circumstances is it not a responsibility on the part of the Secretary of State to set an example and give some reassurance to our African friends that although they may have disagreed so strongly and energetically with the scheme as a whole he will prove his interest in their well being from a political standpoint by insisting at once that the basis of the franchise shall be much more generous than that which has been sustained in Southern Rhodesia up to now?
    One argument that has been used today and might be used in connection with this proposal, and indeed in regard to the whole Bill, is that we must not suggest that it is impossible to trust our kinsmen on the spot. I am sure that quite a number of hon. Members opposite have used that argument and would use it again, and a good deal of what I might call, I hope not uncharitably, synthetic indignation has been expressed today at the mere idea that we suspect the possible infiltration of South African personnel who, if they infiltrate even more than they have done up to now, might try to prejudice the whole scheme in favour of a more contracted and restricted franchise throughout the whole of Central Africa than now obtains in Southern Rhodesia.
    No one suggests that the South Africans are not valiant or courageous men nor does one believe in the fallacy that they are all in favour of apartheid. It may not be accepted by the majority, although it seems to be. Certainly the severe form of apartheid to which Dr. Malan gives his support may not be acceptable to the great majority. But we have to recognise that there has been a considerable immigration of South Africans many of whom do hold these very severe apartheid convictions.
    1298
    In these circumstances, is it not worth while that, before they can secure that power which can implement their apartheid convictions, we should from this side see to it that Africans are guaranteed. as far as we possibly can guarantee under this scheme, against that contraction of their civic rights which we know full well they intend, if they can, to achieve?
    The argument that, because South Africans fought with us in the war, we should not criticise them now is untenable. The Russians fought with us in the last war. Does anyone, therefore, suggest that it is discourteous, unkind or irrelevant to criticise Communism? If we are prepared to recognise, as we do, the valour of Russian forces in the last war, and the fact that they were fighting for what we believed were sound principles, but, nevertheless, we criticise their political convictions, we can do the same in regard to South Africa, without being accused, as we have been accused today, of being anti-British, anti-white or anti-European, or of trying to disparage the courage and valour of those who fought with us in the last war. I hope that argument will not be used again, because it is an unworthy one.
    On the other hand, we must recognise that there are a large number of Europeans in Central Africa who may be prepared to have a wider franchise than that which operates in Southern Rhodesia, but who may be deterred from their advocacy by the fear of Europeans who do not possess the same convictions. If, therefore, the Secretary of State in this country could define and describe what shall be the terms of the franchise for Africans themselves, those who fear to express themselves can be relieved of that fear, and can, to use a colloquialism. "pass the buck" and declare that it is the responsibility of the home country.
    Indeed, it should be the responsibility of the home country, because we ourselves already retain a certain amount of administrative power and power in regard to the native populations in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. If we do that, it is for a reason. Whether it be that we suspect danger to the Africans if all their affairs are left to Europeans is not for me to say. What I do claim is that if, in fact, we are retaining in direct British

    1299
    control certain administrative functions in respect of native interests, there is a reason for it. Whatever that reason may be, it is as operative under the proposals in regard to the franchise as it is operative in regard to the administration of native affairs in their own particular area.
    There is one other point I should like to mention. Whatever may be our convictions regarding the advance of self-government in the Gold Coast, we must recognise it is highly improbable that Southern Rhodesians would have sanctioned the granting of such powers. Thus we are aware of the outlook on the part of many Southern Rhodesians to the status of Africans, on the one hand, and on the other, the disagreement with Southern Rhodesians which, I understand, is shared on that issue by both sides in the House. That is yet another reason why, because we believe we are above the local racial battle and because it is a fact that we could exercise authority and make decisions that are not involved in heated prejudice, responsibility should rest upon the Secretary of State himself to determine what shall be the scope and nature of the franchise for Africans immediately the scheme is put into operation.
    I conclude by hoping that the Minister who will reply will go some way towards meeting us. I am not suggesting myself that we should necessarily say there shall be no limitation, but the Minister at least can say that he will see to it that the initial franchise for Africans shall be purely a literacy test. Because I am afraid that large numbers of Europeans in Central Africa, whether of British or Afrikaan stock, would not even agree to that, but would want to preserve or to extend the existing property and financial qualifications, I suggest that one way by which a great deal could be done to restore the waning confidence of Africans is to say that for a given period at least the basis of franchise shall be purely a literacy one. That would go some way to restoring the confidence between the Africans and ourselves which at the moment is so weak.
    9.15 p.m.
    Sir Leslie Plummer: The Minister will be aware of the emergence already in Central Africa of new political groupings and new political parties
    1300
    among the white people. Some 10 days ago, the "Manchester Guardian" published a very important article from Salisbury describing the way in which Afrikaners coming into the Territory were now trying to develop a new Democratic Party described by them as an instrument to oppose the negrophile—it is not my word, but theirs—policy of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.
    Quite clearly, there is emerging as a result of the efforts on behalf of Federation a new line by all political forces. The Federal Party, led by Huggins and Welensky, is now seen to be faced by an Afrikaan Party consisting of men who are determined to take into this new federated country a political philosophy alien to our philosophy and which is practised in South Africa by the Nationalists.
    The language being used by these people and by the opponents of the Democratic Party in defence of their own party is not, if I may put it as conservatively as I can, designed to appeal to the African people. If, as is now happening, the Afrikaners are saying to the Federalists, "We are going to oppose you because you are too kind to the Africans," then there is a tendency for the Nationalists to say, "Hey, we are not so kind to the Africans at all; we do not like them any more than you do."
    Those of us who are engaged in the political battle in this country will recognise that those are the sort of errors of over-simplification which are likely to be made whenever a political battle is going on. But the net result is very serious for the Africans who now and in the future are to have a franchise which robs them of political expression and power to protect themselves against that form of racialism which is the basis of the Democratic Party.
    This Amendment, which I support, gives the Government an opportunity to say to the African people, "We are really seriously concerned about the depth and measure of the opposition you are showing, and it gives us a chance of making clear to you that most of your misgivings are groundless."
    The thing that worries me particularly is that Federation, without proper safeguards for the political future of the African people, has had the deplorable result of putting the whole system of indirect rule in jeopardy. There is no

    1301
    dispute between either side of the Committee as to the desirability of indirect rule. Both sides are pledged to its continuance, as, indeed, we must be, because anything else but indirect rule means, of course, that we go to a worn out and hopelessly costly system of Government.
    Unless there is an opportunity presented to Africans of being able to express themselves through a franchise which is acceptable, their opposition will take the shape of refusing to co-operate in the maintenance of indirect rule. Look what is happening today. In Northern Rhodesia, chiefs upon whom we are totally dependent are being deposed because they are refusing to co-operate, because they are worried about the future of themselves and their people under the terms of this scheme. In Nyasaland, although the figures of deposed chiefs seem to be in some dispute, it is clear that indirect rule is breaking down.
    If any of my hon. Friends wish to pay tribute to the Europeans in Africa, they can do so through the medium of indirect rule. Those of us who have lived in the country have seen the way in which chiefs and district officers and district and provincial commissioners have carried on the Governments of the country and have looked after the welfare of the African people through this wholly acceptable form of indirect rule, which is dependent for its success on absolute sympathy, understanding and confidence on both sides—the confidence which is now being destroyed and which this Amendment gives an opportunity to the Government to restore.
    I do not know whether hon. Members appreciate how absolutely dependent the future economic success and political advancement of the country is upon the maintenance and improvement of the relations through indirect rule. "The Times" correspondent, writing from Fort Rosebery on 7th February, wrote these words—and they are of very great significance:
    "These regulations can, in practice, be enforced only by the Native authority—that is, by the chiefs, who are being closely advised on these matters by Congress officials. If they should begin to set their advice over that of the administrative officials there would, of course, be a breakdown of the whole system of indirect rule in rural areas."
    1302
    That would mean the breakdown of the whole system of Government as it is understood, for there is nothing to put in the place of indirect rule.
    Hon. Members on both sides would reject direct rule. We turned our backs on it 50 years ago and we cannot go back to it; it is immoral, inefficient and costly. We must, therefore, maintain indirect rule literally at all costs, and the cost to us now is to take a step which removes from the minds of the African people this suspicion that a rejection of an Amendment such as this is an indication of a refusal on the part of the Government to trust the African in the direction in which he should be trusted. We have seen what happened among the Bamangwato, where we have destroyed indirect rule. It is not a pleasant picture. It will take years and years before the spirit of confidence which once existed between tribesmen of the Bamangwato and the central authority is restored.
    I beg the Government not to follow that example and not to get into a situation where this carefully fostered spirit of indirect rule, this confidence which has been built up between the people, is destroyed because we are not prepared to amend a scheme of Federation which is manifestly failing in what it should do.
    To get that confidence back is a simple thing. All that the Government have to do is to accept an Amendment like that which has been moved, as a demonstration to the African people that though their suspicions may have been founded in the past only too solidly on the absurd and indeed violent things said by some of the advocates of Federation in Africa, this House of Commons will restore that confidence by acceptance of the Amendment.
    Mr. Hopkinson: The two Amendments which we are discussing are limited to a comparatively narrow point compared with the very wide field of most of the Amendments and Clauses which we discussed before. It is certainly a rather narrow field but, as hon. Members have pointed out very clearly in their speeches, it is a very important field of discussion.
    Both Amendments deal with the question of the franchise on the basis of which members of the Federal Assembly are to be elected, but there is a major difference between them. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for

    1303
    Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) proposes an entirely new system from that laid down in the agreed scheme. The system of election in this scheme goes back to the original Officials' Report of March, 1951, in Annex VII of which, I think it was, suggestions were made for arrangements for the election of both the elected members and the members chosen to represent African interests. That was further developed in the draft Federal Scheme of April, 1952.
    The original proposal of the Officials' scheme was that the method of election for the Federal Legislature should be based on the methods of representation at present used in the three Territories. There was in that scheme apparently to be no difference between first elections and subsequent elections. This proposal has, in fact, remained intact in the present scheme, in so far as elections to the first Federal Parliament are concerned. I shall have something later to say about the questions which are raised in the report of the conference on which the right hon. Gentleman opposite sought information.
    There has been a departure from the original scheme in regard to the permanent arrangements for election. This departure first appeared in the April scheme of last year and it provides that, except in regard to Nyasaland, the Federal Legislature will be empowered to adopt its own electoral law, subject to the reservations which will be found in paragraph 16, sub-paragraph (2) of the present scheme. I gathered up to now that that was fairly well understood on both sides of the Committee. But from the speeches which were made today, particularly by the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), it has appeared that hon. Gentlemen have not understood that the Federal Legislature will draw up an electoral law as one of its first acts.
    The point I wish to make about the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East, is that at no time has it ever been suggested, as proposed, that elections should take place on a franchise loosely drawn up on certain principles formulated by the Secretary of State, which is what the Amendment suggests. Apart from that, the Amendment goes right outside the Federal scheme. I do not propose to go into
    1304
    detail, but it would constitute a retrograde step, not only for the self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia, but also for the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia, to go back to a scheme of remote control from Whitehall.
    9.30 p.m.
    The main Amendment we are discussing, which was moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend, is of a different character. It reproduces in somewhat different words what is already in the scheme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend has said that the intention of the Amendment is to provide that the Secretary of State should be the approving authority under the existing form of election and in the future. I have looked at the Amendment very carefully. The wording is that the election is to be
    "… on a franchise which shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and any change in which shall be subject to the like approval."
    That is, the approval of the Secretary of State. I cannot see that that contains any power for initiating changes in the franchise, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would care to explain it a little further I should be glad to give way.
    Sir F. Soskice: As I explained, the Amendment which I moved goes beyond the Federal scheme in that the Secretary of State is to be the approving authority for the first as well as the subsequent franchise arrangements. The Federal scheme, as I understand it, at the moment provides that the existing franchise is to apply to the first General Election, and that the Federal Parliament may but is not bound to change the franchise arrangements for the purpose of subsequent elections. What I propose in my Amendment is that for all elections, the first and every subsequent one, the form shall have the approval of the Secretary of State. That means, in the sense of his being the initiating approval. The approval which actually commends the form has to be obtained from the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Hopkinson: I still cannot see how the formula in this Amendment contains any provision for initiating changes or initiating methods of election.
    Sir F. Soskice: May I explain? If a change is proposed to the Secretary of State and he does not like it he will say, "I do not approve of this change." As he has to approve of each franchise for every election, unless they then alter the change that they propose and submit something else he does approve, there will not be any franchise or election, and there has got to be an election, and the Secretary of State has to approve some franchise. It follows that the franchise will have to be in a form which pleases him.
    Mr. Hopkinson: The position at the moment is that as regards the first election the approval of the Secretary of State has been given in this scheme, and it will be conducted on the present system in Southern Rhodesia; it will be conducted on the present basis in Northern Rhodesia; and as far as Nyasaland is concerned power will be in the hands of the Governor-General to lay down the arrangements with the agreement of the Governor of Nyasaland. That, as I understand it, is the present arrangement. As regards the future, it is quite clearly laid down in the Federal scheme, in paragraph 16 (1) that:
    "… the Federal Legislature will be empowered, subject to the provisions of this Scheme, to make provision for the election of Elected members. …"
    That means that there will have to be an electoral law, and the preparation of the electoral law will be one of the functions of the interim Government.
    Sir F. Soskice: The Federal Parliament is empowered but not obliged to. It can retain the existing electoral law, and the existing electoral law, I submitted to the Committee, was highly unsatisfactory for the reasons that I gave.
    Mr. Hopkinson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the scheme again he will see that the reference is to transitional provisions for Southern and Northern Rhodesia, and transitional provisions for Nyasaland. It makes it quite clear that there is intended to be a new law. That is the intention of the Secretary of State, and it will certainly be the intention of the Federal Government. There will be a new law, and that law will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State; any modifications afterwards will equally be subject to his approval. Not only that, but they will
    1306
    also be subject to the approval, and at any rate scrutiny, of the African Affairs Board, who will have the power and duty to draw attention to any differentiating aspects of the measure under which Africans might be subject——
    Sir F. Soskice: I am sorry to interrupt again, but this will be the last time. If the right hon. Gentleman maintains that my Amendment does not go beyond the Federal scheme as at present prepared there can be no objection, such as he and his right hon. Friend have previously urged, to writing my Amendment into the Bill. It does not go beyond the scheme and could, therefore, be perfectly well included in the Bill, and we shall be very content if it is.
    Mr. Hopkinson: There is one important reason why it cannot be included in the Bill, which is that the Federal scheme lays down certain methods of amending the Constitution. We know what those methods are—a two-thirds majority, matters reserved for the Secretary of State, and, if there is disapproval by the Territories, coming before the House of Commons——
    Mr. J. Griffiths: That is the Constitution.
    Mr. Hopkinson: I am saying, that is the provision with regard to amendment of the Constitution; and that will be the provision in regard to any amendment of this franchise. They will have to go through that process——
    Mr. Griffiths Mr. Griffiths rose——
    Mr. Hopkinson: Perhaps I might be allowed to explain. They will have to go through that process and will eventually come before the House. That is the process which has been laid down for the whole of the rest of the Constitution.
    Mr. Hale: Where does it say that?
    Mr. Hopkinson: It is laid down with regard to any amendment to the Constitution, if the hon. Gentleman looks at paragraphs 144 and 145.
    Mr. Hale: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to paragraph 16 of the scheme, there is no suggestion that detailed provisions giving powers to amend the franchise are regarded as the Constitution in this connection.
    Mr. Hopkinson: What I am saying is that this particular section in the Constitution is not necessarily sacred, and any amendments altering this section in the Constitution would have to be made by the method prescribed in paragraphs 144 and 145, or by paragraph 16 (2). If the words proposed in this Amendment are written into the Bill, any revision in that respect can only be carried out by an Act of this Parliament. It means introducing a totally different arrangement for amending a provision of the Constitution, and we see no reason for pulling this provision out and writing it into the Act in this way.
    The Committee will have noted that in addition to these safeguards there is the safeguard provided in paragraph 16 (2) and the safeguard provided by the right of the African Affairs Board to scrutinise any change of franchise, or indeed any initial franchise under the legislative law, which is not acceptable. Any property clause, or anything else attached to it, is subject to the African Affairs Board and to approval by the Secretary of State in the initial electoral law
    In addition to that, there is a further safeguard under which in the case of Nyasaland they cannot be brought into the scheme at all unless and until the Governor of the Nyasaland Protectorate so decides. So there is a series of safeguards written into this scheme which will form part of the constitution as attached to the Order in Council. I am only too glad to give the Committee a firm assurance that these three points will be fully covered in the Constitution.
    I had several other questions addressed to me by the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend and by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) which I should like to deal with because they are questions of importance. The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend asked me whether I could give any indication of the Government's intentions with regard to the franchise. I think that I covered that point when I explained that it is for the Federal Legislature themselves to introduce their franchise law after the first election. I therefore cannot give any indication of the Government's intention because it will not be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to initiate that franchise. But it will be our intention to watch over
    1308
    it very carefully as it comes to us and to scrutinise it with the greatest care.
    Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to refer to paragraph 42 of the Report, and to ask me how the reference to the preparation of an interim electoral law, under which the first assembly would be elected, fitted in with the arrangement described in paragraph 16. The explanation of that is that the federal law referred to in paragraph 42 is simply the arrangement for carrying out the election. The Committee will remember that the Governor-General has certain duties to carry out under paragraph 18 (2). He has power by regulations to delimit electoral districts, to make any alteration in the electoral laws of Southern and Northern Rhodesia required to enable them to be used in the federal elections and to deal with the physical question of drawing up the list of voters, the preparation of voting booths and things of that sort. That will be carried out under paragraph 42 of the Report by the interim Government.
    Another point to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to reply is what control we are retaining. There, I believe, I have covered the position by saying that there is complete control by the Secretary of State of the electoral law franchise as it will come forward in the first electoral law passed by the federal assembly and in later electoral laws. I entirely agree with the views expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself and by other hon. Members of the Committee with regard to the importance of satisfying to the best of the ability of us all the Africans' doubts in regard to this franchise.
    I would point out that when it has been suggested that the franchise has been raised from one time to another in order to keep pace with the improving economic position of Africans, that would be impossible under the present scheme. It would be quite impossible to do that because it would be subject to the veto of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it would be impossible to do it? It was thought to be impossible to make any alterations in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution. It was thought that there would be no discrimination there. It was then suggested that if such alterations were made it

    1309
    would be to the detriment of Africans. Are we certain that something of that kind cannot happen to this?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I would not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says in the first instance, but I am certain that the safeguards retained in this scheme which has been prepared after great thought, will in fact entirely safeguard the position in that respect.
    The right hon. Member for Smethwick put another question to me. He asked what was to happen during the interim period, and what safeguards were to be provided before the establishment of the African Affairs Board. I think that is an entirely legitimate and, indeed, important point. It was considered and although it was not thought possible to set up an interim African Affairs Board ahead of the Constitution we sought to keep the number of interim authorities down to the lowest possible number. It was laid down, as will be seen in paragraph 142 of the scheme, that
    "During the period between the establishment of the Federation and the first meeting of the first Federal Assembly, both the legislative and executive powers of the federation will be vested in the Governor-General, and the Governor-General will be empowered to use those powers for taking any action with respect to any matter which will be within the powers of the Federal Executive or Federal Legislature under the Constitution. …"
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the Governor-General be responsible to the Secretary of State for the exercise of those powers? Presumably, he will not be an arbitrary person. He has no one there to whom he will be responsible, so surely he will be responsible to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Hopkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the end of the paragraph he will see that power is given to the Governor-General:
    "….in his discretion, and in relation to any matter …"
    to
    "….decline to accept the advice of the …"
    interim
    "… Executive Council … so … that in that case he will be required to report his views to a Secretary of State and act on the instructions of the Secretary of State."
    Therefore, during that interim period all the guarantees provided for the Africans will be exercised by the Secretary of State himself.
    1310
    The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) raised some important political points arising out of the exercise of the franchise and talked about the possibility of a new Afrikaner Party being built up with an apartheid policy. Frankly, I do not share his anxiety about the possibility of the success of a party of that character in Southern Rhodesia, and still less in Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland. These people would find it just as difficult to create any effective movement under the new federal system as they have found it in Southern Rhodesia itself where, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Afrikaner group exercises very little influence.
    Sir L. Plummer: This fear is expressed by the "Manchester Guardian" correspondent in Salisbury, who warns the Federal Party that unless they look out they will find that the whole bag of tricks will be handed over to Dr. Malan. Those are not my words but the words of the "Manchester Guardian" correspondent.
    Mr. Hopkinson: I must entirely dispute that view. The poor showing they gave in the referendum is proof of that, and I believe that from the point of view of control of immigration by the Federal Government it will be far less easy for a party of that sort to organise itself in that way in the new Federal territory.
    Hon. Gentlemen have referred to the need to secure the co-operation of the Africans in this scheme. Of course, we fully agree with that. I am not as perturbed as the hon. Gentleman is about the dangers of the breakdown of indirect rule. I do not propose to take any risks about this. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) pointed out the other day, one must be cautious in these matters. However, I should not say that I am pessimistic about developments in either Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland. There has been a great deal of exaggeration about the attitude of the chiefs in both Territories.
    As I said before, I am very willing to give the Committee the assurance that the provisions of the scheme relating to the franchise, which I have tried to describe, or the safeguards which have been put into the scheme, will be embodied in the Order in Council. I hope very much that in view of that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 160: Noes, 173.

    Division No. 193.]

    AYES

    [9.50 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Grimond, J.

    Popplewell, E.

    Adams, Richard

    Hale, Leslie

    Pryde, D. J.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Rankin, John

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Hannan, W.

    Reeves, J.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hastings, S.

    Ross, William

    Balfour, A.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Royle, C.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

    Short, E. W.

    Bartley, P.

    Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Bence, C. R.

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

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

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

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Holman, P.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Blackburn, F.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Bowden, H. W.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Steele, T.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

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

    Swingler, S. T.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Keenan, W.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Kenyon, C.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Clunie, J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Collick, P. H.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    McInnes, J.

    Thornton, E.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Timmons, J.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    McLeavy, F.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Deer, G.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Delargy, H. J.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Viant, S. P.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

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

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Weitzman, D.

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

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    West, D. G.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Moody, A. S.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Morley, R.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Murray, J. D.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Nally, W.

    Wigg, George

    Follick, M.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Willey, F. T.

    Foot, M. M.

    Oswald, T.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Forman, J. C.

    Padley, W. E.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Paget, R. T.

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

    Gibson, C. W.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Glanville, James

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Paton, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Pearson, A.

    Mr. Kenneth Robinson and

    Grey, C. F.

    Peart, T. F.

    Mr. Arthur Allen.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Dormer, Sir P. W.

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

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Alport, C. J. M.

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

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A L.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.

    Fell, A.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Banks, Col. C.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Fisher, Nigel

    Barber, Anthony

    Campbell, Sir David

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Foster, John

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

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Black, C. W.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

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

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

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

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Godber, J. B.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Gough, C. F. H.

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

    Deedes, W. F.

    Gower, H. R.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Shepherd, William

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

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

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Hay, John

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Heath, Edward

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Spearman A. C. M.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Maude, Angus

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

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

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Medlicott, Brig, F.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Hope, Lord John

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Summers, G. S.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Horobin, I. M.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth. E.)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

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

    Odey, G. W.

    Touche Sir Gordon

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

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

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)

    Turton R. H.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Partridge, E.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Jones, A. (Hal, Green)

    Pearke, Rt. Hon. O.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Wakefield, Edward, (Derbyahire, W.)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Wellwood, W.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Redmayne, M.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Wills, G.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Russell, R. S.

    York, C

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Major Conant and Mr. Kaberry.

    Amendment proposed: In page 1. line 10, after "Legislature." Insert:
    "in which there shall be an equal number of Europeans and Africans."-[Mr. Dugdale.]
    Question put. "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes. 153: Noes. 171.

    Division No. 194.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Adams, Richard

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

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

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Anderson, Alexender (Motherwell)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Keenan, W.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Fienburgh, W.

    Kenyon, C.

    Balfour, A.

    Follick, M.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Foot, M. M.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Bartley, P.

    Forman, J. C.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Bence, C. R.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Gibson, C. W.

    McInnes, J.

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

    Glanville, James

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    McLeavy, F.

    Blackburn, F

    Grey, C. F.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Blyton, W. R.

    Grimond, J.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hale, Leslie

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Bowles, F, G.

    Hannan, W.

    Moody, A. S.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Morley, R.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hastings, S.

    Murray, J. D.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Nally, W.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Collick, P. H.

    Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

    Oswald, T.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

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

    Padley, W. E.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Paget, R. T.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Palmer, A. M. F

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Holman, P.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Paton, J.

    Deer, G.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Pearson, A.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Peart, T. F.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

    Pryde, D. J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    West, D. G.

    Rankin, John

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Reeves, J.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Ron, William

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Royle, C.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Wigg, George

    Short, E. W.

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Willey, F. T.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Williams Ronald (Wigan)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Williams W R (Droylsden)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Thornton, E.

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

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Timmons, J.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Mr. Bowden and

    Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

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

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

    Amory, Heathcoal (Tiverton)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Partridge, E.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Hay, John

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Heath, Edward

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Barber, Anthony

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Baxter, A. B.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Profumo, J. D.

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

    Hollis, M. C.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hope, Lord John

    Redmayne, M.

    Black, C. W.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon Henry

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

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

    Russell, R. S.

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

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Shepherd, William

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

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

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

    Bullard, D. G.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

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

    Stevens, G. P.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Lindsay, Martin

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Summers, G. S.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

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

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Crouch, R. F.

    McKibbin, A. J.

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

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Deedes, W. F.

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

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Turton, R. H.

    Dormer, Sir P. W.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Fell, A.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Marples, A. E.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

    Wellwood, W.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Maude, Angus

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Foster, John

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

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Mellor, Sir John

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

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

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Wills, G.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Godber, J. B.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    York, C.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Gower, H. R.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Odey, G. W.

    Major Conant and Mr. Kaberry.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if the next Amendment, to page 1, line 11, and the one following, to the same line, are considered together.
    Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11. after "Board," to insert:
    "the Chairman of which shall, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, be appointed by the Governor-General of the Territories."
    The African Affairs Board to which this Amendment relates is a vitally important part of the proposed new Constitution. It constitutes one of the main safeguards provided in the Constitution for the African population and has been referred to in all the three main documents we have been discussing during the course of this debate. The first outline of the suggested African Affairs Board was referred to in Cmd. 8233 presented by my right hon. Friends in June, 1951. It is the Report of the Conference of officials held in March, 1951.
    In that set of proposals the Chairman of the Board was to be the Federal Minister for African Interests.
    "The African Affairs Board"—
    the document said—
    "would consist, in addition to a Chairman, of three members from each territory, one being the Secretary for Native Affairs, one an official or elected member of the Legislature appointed by the Governor of the territory and the third an African, also appointed by the Governor of the territory."
    The ordinary members of the Board would be nine members of the Federal Legislature who would be territorial legislators including the Secretaries for Native Affairs. It was to be a powerful body semi-independent of the Federal Legislature.
    After that Report was received and presented to this House there was the London Conference in May, 1952. It produced the draft Federal Scheme in Cmd. 8573. In this plan we find already a substantial alteration of the constitution of the Board, in the position of the Chairman. There was to be the Chairman and six ordinary members, but the Constitution was radically changed; none of those persons was to be a member of a Territorial Legislature, as provided in the original scheme; none was to be a public officer. True, none of them was
    1318
    to be a member of the Federal Legislature; they were still outside that. They were an authority independent of the Federal Legislature, but not carrying the prestige attached to membership of the Territorial Legislatures.
    Perhaps even more significant is the fact that in this Constitution the Secretaries for Native Affairs were specifically barred from membership of the Board. The plan said that no public officer was to be a member of the Board. Many references have already been made to the trust which Africans repose in members of Her Majesty's Colonial Service; there is no need for me to repeat them again, they are well-known to every Member of the Committee who has followed these debates. Here we have, in the second Constitution, the dropping from the African Affairs Board of the Secretaries for Native Affairs of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, who are such officers, who are colonial servants and in whom Africans, as we know, repose great trust. They are dropped from the Constitution.
    The Chairman at any rate was, however, still to have some association with the United Kingdom Government because the plan said, and these are very important words in relation to this Amendment:
    "The Chairman of the Board will be such person as the Governor-General in his discretion may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, appoint."
    These are almost the same words as are contained in the Amendment which I am moving, the important words being:
    "with the approval of a Secretary of State. …"
    The second constitution of the Board, though it had weakened it quite considerably, in our view, nevertheless did provide for this continuing link with the United Kingdom and Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies by this particular provision.
    When the third proposal was brought forward, Cmd. 8754, there were still more changes made. The Board now ceases to be an authority independent of the Federal Legislature; it becomes a Standing Committee of that Legislature. I know there is something to be said for that; the Secretary of State himself has said it. He said that he regarded it as a great advantage that the members of the African Affairs Board would be able to

    1319
    speak to the Federal Government from the Federal Legislature as members of the Legislature. I will not discuss those arguments: there is something in them, I agree, though I think there is a lot to be said on the other side.
    I confine myself to the Chairmanship. In this scheme it is provided that
    "The Governor-General in his discretion will appoint a Chairman and a Deputy-Chairman from among the members of the Board."
    The Secretary of State has dropped out of the picture. The special link between the African Affairs Board, highly important body as it is, and the United Kingdom Government, has disappeared. We regard it as most regrettable that this specially provided link in the second draft Constitution should have been removed.
    The history of this conception of an African Affairs Board, which I have briefly outlined, is one of progressive weakening of its prestige. That is especially exemplified in the character of its Chairman. The Chairman was first to have been a Minister. After that he was to be appointed by the Governor-General after consultation with the Secretary of State. Finally, he is appointed by the Governor-General alone. If it were argued that this was a necessity of the change in the conception of the Board from being a body independent of the Legislature to being a committee of the Legislature, one could understand the argument, but, surely that cannot be the reason for the change. If the Board is still to be part of the Federal Legislature, it would have a Chairman, and the normal procedure would be for a Standing Committee to choose its own chairman and not for the Government to step in and appoint him.
    10.15 p.m.
    It is the results of these changes which are very confusing and somewhat mysterious, because virtually the same words as are in the Amendment were in the second scheme, and it is not at all clear why they should have disappeared. Is there any reason why these words should not be in the present scheme? I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why they were dropped. Was it an accident? Was it a mere matter of drafting which made them inappropriate, or was it deliberate? Did
    1320
    some member of the Conference object to one of the Secretaries of State taking a special interest in the affairs of this Board? It could hardly be because the Board is now a Committee of the Legislature.
    We do not base the case for this Amendment solely on technicalities, however. We put it forward principally because we believe that its adoption would be some small assurance to African opinion of the good intentions of the Government, and, indeed, of those persons of our own race who are to be in the majority in this new Legislature. We know that Africans have, for long years now, placed their trust in successive Secretaries of State for the Colonies. We know that some of those whom they most distrust have proclaimed that they want to get rid of what they call Colonial Office rule, and that that has caused alarm among the African population.
    We were told last week that the channel of communication will be the office of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and I fear that Africans may take that as meaning that he alone will be responsible for everything to do with the new Federation. We here in this Committee know that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is responsible for relations with India, Pakistan and Ceylon, as well as with the older Dominions of Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
    We know very well, and I myself know from my own personal experience, that many of his officers are men entirely free from colour prejudice, who are anxious to maintain and cultivate good relations with peoples of other races, and who believe quite strongly in the possibilities of democracy in less developed territories, but, to the African, surely, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is the man who maintains consultations with the Government of the Union of South Africa. That is what he thinks when he thinks about the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
    We have been assured that the two Secretaries of State will consult together, and also that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will keep very close contact with, and indeed maintain supervision over, activities in the Territories of the

    1321
    special affairs relating to Africans which are to be the responsibility of the Territorial Legislatures.
    But is it enough to say that? Is it good enough, when a Federal Government and a Legislature with far-reaching economic powers which will vitally affect the lives and interests of Africans is to be established? Is it good enough merely to say that there will be consultation, that the main channel of communication will be the Secretary of State of whom the Africans have had no experience and whom rightly or wrongly—no doubt wrongly— they distrust?
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reinsert in the new scheme what was in the draft scheme, and in this way to require that the Chairman of the Board when appointed by the Governor-General shall be so appointed only after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman so that there may be that direct and immediate link, and so that, as it were, the Chairman can look as if he has special and close contact with that Secretary of State whose actions, opinions, policy and general programme in regard to African affairs are most trusted by the African population.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I think I can help the Committee on this matter and that I may possibly satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) appears to me and to my legal advisers to be unnecessary and to be already covered. If we turn to the Federal scheme we see that paragraph 55 says:
    "The Governor-General in his discretion will appoint a Chairman and a Deputy-Chairman from among the members of the Board."
    I think this is the point which was raised on the last Amendment and on which we were able to satisfy the Opposition.
    The Governor-General has to appoint the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman in his discretion, and those words mean that he is then responsible to the Secretary of State. I am advised, therefore, that the object of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is fully covered, and I take it that he put it upon the Paper in order to obtain the assurances I am now able to give. I am very glad he did.
    I would also refer the right hon. Gentleman to Chapter IV, footnote 19, where it states:
    "It is provided in paragraph 52 of this Scheme that the Governor-General will act
    1322
    on the advice of his Ministers except in the exercise of those powers which are stated to be exerciseable in his discretion. In exercising his discretionary powers the Governor-General, while free to consult his Ministers, will not be obliged to do so, or to act on their advice; he will be responsible to the Secretary of State and, subject to that, use his own judgment."
    I hope that that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Marquand: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and the general tone of what his right hon. Friend said earlier in reply to the last Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The next Amendment I propose to call is that in page 1, line 11, after "Board," to insert "and." Perhaps the Committee could discuss at the same time the next Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in page 1, line 11, and the Amendments on page 1689 from that in the name of the right hon. Member for Llanelly in page 1, line 15, to the bottom of the page.
    Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "Board," to insert "and".
    I feel sure that the Secretary of State will be able to give us an answer to the questions which I propose to put to him when I tell him that the series of Amendments to which he has referred are really probing Amendments. We put them down to leave out a series of words to which they relate in order to ascertain what are the authorities, Governments, and so on, which the Government have in mind for incorporation in subsection (1). If the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary of State, would be good enough to look at subsection (1) he will see in paragraph (a, i) the words:
    "and such other Federal authorities as may appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient."
    I can well conceive a number of authorities where it might be expedient, such as the equivalent of the Board of Inland Revenue or the equivalent of the prosecuting authority or something of that sort, and it may well be that the Government have that kind of authority in mind. If that is what they have in mind, I at once recognise that it would be necessary, and

    1323
    if that is the answer I shall be satisfied, personally, because obviously such an authority has to be set up.
    I come to subsection (1, a, ii). The hon. and learned Gentleman will observe that there is reference to "other Governments, Legislatures, Courts and authorities." The object of the Amendments, as far as they relate to this sub-paragraph, is to ascertain what authorities are concerned and with regard to what other "Governments, Legislatures, Courts and authorities" these words are used. No doubt the Government have in mind that it would be necessary to confer some powers upon other Governments, but it is not apparent at first sight, when one looks at the subsection, what is the necessity to confer these powers or what other Government would be involved. I have no doubt that there is some reason which I personally have overlooked, but I should be grateful if the Under-Secre-tary would be kind enough to say what are the other Governments and other Legislatures which he has in mind in using those words.
    Mr. J. Foster: I think I can answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this way: that the Order in Council will correspond to the scheme. There are no Governments or authorities, therefore, outside the scheme. We thought it necessary to make this provision, dealing with the first point, for other authorities such as the Loan Council, Apportionment Commission, and the Interim Public Service Commission. On the second point, the kind of thing we have in mind is that the other Governments would delegate upwards and the Federal authority delegate downwards. Paragraph 48 (3) is a typical instance of the power delegated downwards; it concerns such powers and duties as may be specified under the Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can rest assured, because only the things in the scheme will be in the Order in Council.
    Sir F. Soskice: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The only thing I should like to ask him is this: he says that the other Governments which are referred to are the Governments of the Territories and the Federal Government. I gather that is what he means. I do not know whether he means that Her
    1324
    Majesty's Government wishes to confer power on itself. He will observe that the Governments of the Territories and the Federal Government are already covered. What is meant by the expression "other Governments"? He will observe that words are included in subparagraph (a, ii), in particular, for the Governments, Legislatures, Courts and authorities of the Territories, and presumably the opening words of the subparagraph include the Federal Government. What I wanted to know, and the point upon which I am not sure he has satisfied me, is what are the "Governments, Legislatures, Courts and authorities" to which reference is made in the intervening words:
    "And on any other Governments, Legislatures, Courts and authorities."
    Perhaps he can satisfy me on that point.
    Mr. Foster: That will include Her Majesty's Government, because it may be necessary in the Order in Council to confer power on Her Majesty's Government to take this action. This is only drafting. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can be assured that it is only in the scheme; it is only a way to facilitate the drafting. I do not think he need have any fear at all that anything will be inserted here which is not obvious to the Committee.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Dugdale: I understand that the word "authorities" refers to the list that we have seen. That is all right so far as it goes, but what is the position if, after the Bill becomes an Act, further authorities are set up? Is there complete power to set up authorities of any kind without reference to the Secretary of State? For instance, could an authority such as a Second Chamber be set up? Is there any safeguard to prevent these things happening?
    Mr. Foster: The instance of the Second Chamber would be a constitutional amendment and therefore would need the procedure laid down for amendment of the Constitution. With regard to any other authority we should have to look at the kind of authority it was and whether it had authority in the Constitution, using the word "authority" in a different way. These words are inserted here from a drafting point of view, because it is intended to set up constitutional authorities in the original

    1325
    Constitution. It is inserted ex abundanti cantela. Hon. Members can be satisfied that this is only machinery for setting up things in the scheme.
    Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: What is intended about the police? Is it intended that they should come under the central authority, or do they remain under the territorial authority.
    Mr. Foster: My recollection is that they are to be local.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does that mean that the central authority will be passing legislation which it will be the duty of the police under the territorial authority to enforce?
    Mr. Foster: Yes.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Would that mean that the central authority, the Federation, would be passing laws which this country, as the responsible authority for the Territories, would be responsible for enforcing?
    Mr. Foster: In a way, yes. The local police would enforce.
    Sir F. Soskice: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his statement and assurance. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "Court," to insert:
    "a Federal Human Rights Commission."
    I should like to associate with this Amendment the new Clause in my name and that of my hon. Friends which reads as follows:
    The Order in Council shall provide for the establishment within the territories of a Human Rights Commission to consist of not less than five Europeans and not less than five Africans whose duty shall be to report from time to time to the Federal Government on the measures necessary for a reduction of, and the ultimate elimination of all practices of racial discrimination within the territories, and the reports, both majority and minority reports, of the Human Rights Commission shall be laid before Parliament and be printed.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): It may be for the convenience of the Committee that that new Clause be discussed with this Amendment and
    1326
    also with the second new Clause standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on page 1695 of the Order Paper, which proposes that there shall be no incapacity to hold office on grounds of colour, creed or race.
    Mr. Brockway: Thank you, Mr Hopkin Morris.
    Sir F. Soskice: On a point of order. Does that mean to say that if we desire to vote on the third new Clause on that page, dealing with laws concerning religion and so on, it will not be called separately and we must vote on the second one?
    The Deputy-Chairman: We will vote on this, and the third new Clause will be called.
    Sir F. Soskice: Thank you.
    Mr. Brockway: All of us who have sat through the debates on this Bill, which have lasted two days on the Committee stage, must have been impressed by the fact that the real issue all the time is not this or that constitutional matter. The real issue the whole time is one of racial relationships and of human values, and the real ground of opposition of the African populations in Central Africa to this Bill, as well as of those of us who are opposing it, is that under this scheme there would be absolute political domination by one minority race.
    That opposition to such domination by the European race is intensified by the fact that in the Territories where their influence is strongest, the two Rhodesias, they have an attitude on human values which makes the African of a lower standard than the European in human relationships. I submit that those are the fundamental issues, and that these Amendments are the method by which we shall be able to give some reassurance to the African populations in Central Africa upon that issue.
    I should like first to draw a distinction between the African Affairs Board as it already exists in the proposals and this new proposal for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission. The particular function of the African Affairs Board is a negative function. It is to

    1327
    draw attention to any Bill and any instrument which has force of law which is, in their opinion, a differentiating measure; that is to say, a measure disadvantageous to the Africans. The African Affairs Board operates when a Bill has been introduced and when it takes objection to that Bill.
    The proposed Human Rights Commission would have a positive place. Its duty, in the terms of the proposed new Clause, would be to report to the Federal Government on the measures necessary for the reduction and ultimate elimination of all practices of racial discrimination. That is to say, this Human Rights Commission, composed of five Africans and five Europeans, would have the continuous duty of watching the developing situation and of making continuous proposals to the Federal Parliament for the reduction of racial discrimination. Under the terms of this new Clause, its reports would not only go to the Federal Parliament; they would also come to this Parliament, and would be open for our discussion. In that way both the Federal Parliament in Africa and this Parliament here would have the opportunity to make continuous contributions towards the progressive elimination of the colour bar in Central Africa.
    Now I suggest that it is a national obligation upon the House of Commons to include within the Constitution of the new Federal Parliament some proposal of this kind. This Parliament has subscribed to the Declaration of Human Rights of United Nations, and the first Article of that Declaration lays it down that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. If we honestly believe in that, we have no right to enforce the new Constitution applying to 6¼ million people—6 million of whom have virtually no representation in this Parliament now being set up—without making sure that our pledged word to recognise the freedom and equality of human beings is fulfilled within the terms of that Declaration.
    If Article 1 of the Declaration is not sufficient, Article 2 lays it down specifically that the Declaration of Human Rights shall apply to exactly the kind of constitution we are now considering. Article 2 of the Declaration reads:
    1328
    "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional, or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self governing, or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
    These terms cover exactly the proposal for the federation of Central Africa now before the Committee, and we shall betray our international obligations if we do not incorporate that principle in the Constitution for Central African Federation; and not only incorporate this principle, but provide the instrument for its application.
    Nearly all the Articles of the Declaration of Human Rights are relevant to the Constitution in Central Africa. Article 21 states that everyone has the right to take part in the government of the country, directly, or through freely chosen representatives, but I do not think that any hon. Member on the other side of the Committee will suggest that a Federal Parliament of 35 representatives with only six Africans and three Europeans to reflect their interests, will express the aims of Article 21 of the Declaration. The Amendment now before us would at least ensure this; that as the African population advanced in educational and social standards, this would be reflected in the electoral system. We could approach the full application of Article 21. the substance of which I have given.
    10.45 p.m.
    "Everyone has the right to education," lays down Article 26. I shall refrain from developing that theme because my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has a particular knowledge of it and interest in it. But again I say that if we apply that Article of the Declaration of Human Rights, it means that we must so extend African education to all the communities in Central Africa that within a com-partively limited period it will be possible to apply political democracy there.
    Other rights laid down in the Declaration are equality before the law, no arbitrary arrest, detention or exile, freedom of movement, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly and of association, equal access to the public service, the

    1329
    right to work, the free choice of employment, just conditions of work, protection against unemployment and the right to join trade unions. In nearly every instance there is a challenge in the present administration of Central African Territories to those Articles in the Declaration of Human Rights, which we have endorsed. The Commission which we are proposing should be appointed would have the progressive duty of applying within Central Africa the promises and the pledges which we have given to the world.
    Let me take just one illustration. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. In other words, when this Parliament accepted Articles 1 and 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights, we said that Britain would do everything in its power to end the colour bar and racial discrimination in any territories for which we were responsible.
    When we had taken that pledge, we had no right to introduce a Constitution which makes no reference to it. Let me quote these instances. In Northern Rhodesia, the serving of African customers to the shops through hatches in the wall. Northern and Southern Rhodesia: the barring of Africans from European cinemas, hotels and restaurants. Northern and Southern Rhodesia: separate accommodation for Africans on the railways and the buses. Northern Rhodesia: post offices with separate entrances and counters for Africans. Southern Rhodesia: no registration of trade unions of African employees. Southern Rhodesia, again: work certificates and passes to be carried by Africans only.
    All those things are an absolute denial of the pledge which we have taken in the Declaration of Human Rights. If we pass over these countries in Central Africa to the new Federal Parliament without inserting in the new Constitution the endorsement of the principle and some method by which we are applying it, it is a moral betrayal in the face of the world and it is a betrayal of the African community, for whom we are particularly responsible.
    1330
    Perhaps I might draw the attention of the Minister to what is already happening in Northern Rhodesia; to the "Break the Colour Bar Movement"; to the crowds of Africans who are besieging the "Europeans only" doors at the post offices, the hotels, the cinemas; the movement which began at Broken Hill and is now passing on to Kitwe, Lusaka, and Ndoli; a movement which, in the very centre of the Territory which is to have this new Constitution, is beginning the type of resistance which is now being expressed to the colour bar in the South African Union. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, before this Constitution passes out of our hands, to see that it shall contain provisions to ensure that this disaster shall not be repeated.
    I apologise for delaying for a moment on an issue which has not been discussed yet, namely, the Asian community in the Central African Territories. There are 13,650 Asians in these three Territories. There is no reference to them in the White Paper. There is no suggestion that they should have any representation in the Federal Parliament or in any other authority. In Nyasaland the number of Asians is greater than the number of Europeans—6,000 compared with 5,000. Yet they are ignored. That is an injustice to the Asian community itself. I regret the affront which it is to the Asian countries which are in our Commonwealth of Nations when they are ignored in that way.
    What are to be their Human Rights within the Federation? At present they are treated in Southern Rhodesia as though they were third-rate citizens. Racial discrimination applies to them as well as to the Africans. I want to ask one question in particular. Are the Asians to have freedom of movement between the three Territories? The issue If freedom of movement is on the concurrent list. A decision can be made by a Federal Parliament in which there will be 26 European representatives, six African representatives, and not one Asian. We ought to have in this Bill an assurance that among the freedoms which we will embody and apply is freedom of movement between the Territories of the Federation, for which the Indian population is asking.
    I recognise that the proposal for a Human Rights Commission associated

    1331
    with a Federal Constitution is new. I acknowledge my indebtedness to the ingeniousness, the constructiveness, and the liberal attitude of mind of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who made this proposal. I want to emphasise that although this particular proposal may be novel in this form, the obligation of accepting the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations and finding some way of applying it has been frequently accepted by international bodies, in the constitutions of new States and in treaties of peace. What has been accepted in those ways can be accepted in one form or another in the Constitution we are now discussing.
    The Trusteeship Council accepts the Declaration of Human Rights as its guiding principles and has frequently appealed to them when applying human rights in the Trusteeship Territories. The Agreement between the Trusteeship Council and Italy regarding Somaliland in November, 1949, included a declaration of constitutional principles, reflecting the Declaration of Human Rights, and Article X states that
    "the Administering Authority accepts as a standard of achievement for the Territory the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December, 1948."
    The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia contains two Sections incorporating the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights. The Constitution of Costa Rica, the Syrian Constitution, the Constitution of El Salvador, the Constitution of Haiti all embody the Declaration of Human Rights which has been adopted by the United Nations. The peace treaties with Italy, with Hungary, with Roumania, with Bulgaria and with Finland all accept the Charter of the United Nations and the essential freedoms in this Declaration.
    I say that when this Parliament is passing in the Committee stage the Federal Constitution of Central Africa, with those precedents, we also ought to include in that Constitution the endorsement of the Declaration of Human Rights and the Instrument of Right. We are not wedded to the actual proposals in these Amendments. If the right hon. Gentleman can suggest to us some other method by which in this Constitution
    1332
    the Declaration of Human Rights is endorsed; if he can suggest to us some method by which there may be an instrument for its progressive application until the poisonous colour bar is entirely removed from Central Africa, until freedoms and liberties to which we are pledged are endorsed, then we are prepared to consider an alternative suggestion and to withdraw the actual suggestion in this Amendment. But, I say that this House will be doing less than its duty to the United Nations and to the peoples of Africa unless we do apply the principles of the Declaration of Human Rights and the Instrument by which the principle can be carried out.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mrs. Eirene White: The proposal which my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) has made should commend itself to the Committee, because in these debates we have been discussing constitutional provisions in a country in which it is quite clear that for some time to come governing power will be in the hands of the minority. We have not been able to secure any assurances from the Front Bench opposite that the various safeguards which we think are necessary for the majority population can, in fact, be embodied in the constitutional instrument.
    According to the Government, neither on the proportion of representatives in the Federal Legislature nor on the franchise can there be inserted, at this moment, safeguards which would fully ensure that the rights of the majority of the population would be fully regarded. In these countries where there is a multiracial community, with a minority having the balance of power, there is something to be said for what was suggested in a very interesting letter in "The Times" a few months ago by Professor Max Beloff, Lecturer in Comparative Institutions at Oxford University.
    Professor Beloff said that one of the ways of meeting this very difficult political situation would be to enshrine in the Constitution some fundamental safeguards of civic liberties and rights, and if one had that kind of legal guarantee, one could with greater equanimity face the period during which political rights may not be fully granted, and it is for that reason that I feel that a proposal along the lines

    1333
    suggested by my hon. Friend—who made it clear that, if there was a more direct way of putting it into effect, he would consider it—would be an extremely useful way of meeting that unsatisfactory political situation.
    I hope the Minister who will reply will not dismiss this idea out of hand, because it is an idea which is being discussed by people who take a very great interest in this matter and it deserves more serious consideration. In circumstances in which it is inevitable that we shall have difficulties in getting anything satisfactory in the way of political safeguards, legal safeguards could be one of the ways out.
    I should like to turn for a moment to the new Clause, which, I understand, we are discussing at the same time, on incapacity to hold office on grounds of race. This also should be considered, though not, admittedly, because we have any very great faith in general declarations of this kind. Past experience in Southern Rhodesia leads one to doubt the effect of declarations of this sort inserted into constitutional instruments, but, at least, we think that a declaration of this kind would be more reassuring, and may even have a greater effect than the paragraph on page 39 of the Draft Scheme relating to eligibility for employment in the service of the Federal Government, because the guarantee given in that paragraph—that no person will be ineligible for employment in the service of the Federal Government on grounds of race alone—is, of course, immediately undermined by the next sentence in that paragraph.
    It says:
    "In appointing or recommending persons for such employment regard will be had only to their competence, experience and suitability and in determining suitability regard may be had to the circumstances of the locality in which a person would be employed."
    That might very well mean that no African might be employed in a senior position which involved residence in Southern Rhodesia or something of that sort.
    We feel we should at least put it on record that no action of the Federal Legislature, or any of its servants, should be such as to debar any person from holding any place or employment of any kind on the grounds of colour, creed,
    1334
    or race. That means not only employment in the Federal service by the Federal Government, but employment in other spheres, with which Federal Legislation or administration might be concerned.
    I repeat that we do not attach undue practical significance to this because it is extraordinarily easy always, if one wishes, to evade such a provision. It is, nevertheless, desirable we should make this declaration, and, for that reason, we hope this new Clause will be accepted and enshrined in this Bill so that it shall be there for reference on any future occasion.
    Mr. James Johnson: I shall not detain the Committee many minutes, but I want to add some contribution to the impassioned, eloquent plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) on behalf of the silent, and I emphasise "silent," millions of Africans who will be soon under this new form of Government in Central Africa.
    I want to speak on the new Clause concerning the capacity and otherwise to hold office on grounds of colour, creed, or race. I feel that the only test of fitness for office or of capacity for office, whatever the colour—black, white, or yellow —is character, ability, and, above all, a sense of responsibility. This is to be a Council of partners, and the Colonial Secretary earlier spoke of senior and junior partners; not, of course, a partnership of master and servant. For a long time we shall have European domination. To call domination a partnership is like calling a lion a fish, and is not what we should like to see. Partnership can be good or bad, according to definition.
    There is Sir Godfrey Huggins' definition and there is Mr. Welensky's definition. Many of us have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting Mr. Welensky. He said this:
    "A partnership is vitally necessary if we are to establish a successful, happy and prosperous State in Central Africa. We Europeans have a very great burden on our shoulders. We have to produce a solution to this race problem. If we fail we shall condemn Central Africa to a racial struggle as big as that in another part of Africa."
    Sir Godfrey Huggins says much the same thing, but may I quote one sentence from one of his speeches? He said:

    1335
    "We do not pretend there is any equality or partnership at the present time, but the native has joined the firm and has his foot on the lower rungs of the ladder."
    We shall see how far he climbs that ladder in the next year or two; whether, if he climbs it to a certain height, he will find a rung missing, and whether he will have to climb by his hands or jump the intervening gap. We shall see.
    We have to change what I call the "cultural equilibrium"; we have to change the social conditions there. I sometimes think that the white society is not quite so culturally balanced as the black tribal society in its native habitat. We say that the native society is backward, but they believe in hard work and hard play, whereas among our white kinsmen there we sometimes find boredom and even snobbery, which I call "status maintenance."
    I come now to the question of education, in connection with which my hon. Friend made a kind reference to myself. Education will be the keystone to this matter of partnership in the coming years before this new Federation attains Dominion status, as we all think it ultimately will. I have said before, and I stick to it, that we must have inter-racial education, if not all the way, at least at this moment of time in higher secondary education and the teacher training level in our new University at Salisbury.
    The Carr-Saunders Commission said that there should be a multi-racial college or university at Salisbury. But, without looking a gift horse in the mouth, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we had better have a little cautious optimism about it, if not a little cautious pessimism. Let us look where the safeguards should lie in this new University. It is to be built in the residental quarter of Salisbury on a site, I gather, of some 250 acres.
    I wish to make two comments on that. First, if it is to be built in the residential quarter of Salisbury, we must make sure that there is no discrimination of any kind with regard to living quarters or study. But, more important still, is the fact that in my view the site will be too small, because, if we look at "The Times" Educational Supplement for this week, we see that they emphasise the importance
    1336
    of having a farm connected with the new University, because agriculture plays such a large part in the life of the African.
    The Chairman: I do not see how this is connected with the Amendment.
    Mr. Johnson: I am sorry, Sir Charles, but I was attempting to suggest that if we wish to have no discrimination and to allow the Africans to have access to all the good things in cultural life, we shall need to let them see that we mean to make a going concern of this Scheme.
    Mr. Hopkinson: The figure should be 1,250 acres, not 250, which will leave plenty of room for the farm.
    Mr. Johnson: Of course, 1,250 acres is something like the space required. I will get back into order, so let us forget the figure which I thought was 250.
    If this University works, as I hope it will, it will be the acid test of the sincerity of the white people in Central Africa. If we make a go of it, we shall convince the six million Africans, who are at present exceedingly doubtful about their future place in this new society, of what we now say we desire to do for them. If this goes through, as I hope it will, it can swing almost the whole tide of African opinion in favour of this new scheme of Federation.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Clement Davies: I desire to intervene for only a few moments in support of this Amendment, which has been so ably moved by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). If I may say so it was one of the most effective speeches that we have heard from him, and he did not lose, but rather gained, by its moderation.
    I regard this Amendment as probably the most important one that has yet been moved in this Committee, for it really gets down to what is the real purpose and meaning of the Federation, what is the aim that the Government have, what they hope to achieve, and what lies behind it. Now, according to the Government and to the originators of this, the idea now is that a new Constitution is to be given to Central Africa, the purpose of which is to create a working Constitution in which the Africans themselves shall take some part, and the idea that is emphasised in every one of the White Papers is that there

    1337
    should be created a partnership between the peoples of Central Africa—a partnership between the Europeans on the one side, and the Africans on the other.
    Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman for Eton and Slough has already mentioned, there has been no reference whatever to the fact that there were also Asians, but apparently if there had been a reference everyone would have said we also desire to see a working partnership being created between us, Asians, Africans and Europeans. If that is really the sincere desire, here is an opportunity of emphasising that, and making it perfectly plain.
    For what is the Declaration of Human Rights to which this Amendment refers? It was brought before the United Nations somewhere about 1946. For two years it was debated and discussed by the nations, and at last, after all kinds of amendments, I believe some hundreds had been debated and discussed, in December of 1948 it came before the United Nations for last consideration— and what happened? It was accepted without a contrary vote—not one. There were eight abstentions, to which I will refer in a moment.
    But all of them accepted it, and it was signed on behalf of this country by the representatives of this country, namely, those appointed by the Government to attend at the United Nations on behalf of this country. In fact, this country had been literally the prime mover in bringing about this Declaration of Rights.
    Perhaps I may deviate a moment, Sir Charles, to another matter. Time and time again in this House, and especially from the Government side, it has been said, "We are now taking the greatest care, and putting in the strongest safeguards for the protection of these Africans. We know what has happened in the Union of South Africa, and we are not going to have the Africans treated as they have been treated there. We are not the same as the people of the Union of South Africa. We are very different. We are very sorry for what has happened, and that is the very reason why we are setting up this Federation now and taking this great care that every precaution shall be inserted in the new Constitution for the protection of the Africans."
    1338
    The Minister has stated this very often when the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) has called attention to the infiltration from the Union of South Africa of a number of Afrikaaners and has said there was the possibility of a new political movement. The Minister has said that, at any rate, this new Constitution can deal with that and that we are so different from others that we can now probably introduce into the Federation legislation which will deal with immigration. All this has been said to emphasise how different we are from the Union of South Africa in our attitude towards Africans.
    That is brought to light in connection with what has happened in the case of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We were the prime movers with regard to that. We took the leading part and 48 countries agreed to it and signed it. We signed it. Every member of the Commonwealth signed it, with one exception—the Union of South Africa. They were the one and only member of the Commonwealth who abstained. They were joined in abstention by Russia and her satellites. Therefore, if anyone wants to see what is the attitude of this country to these matters, that attitude cannot be better brought to light and emphasised than by what took place in that case.
    We are now framing a new Constitution for these countries and we are actually saying now that we are anxious to assist and anxious to educate the Africans. In fact, the Secretary of State for the Colonies was cheered from every side of the House of Commons when he said that we were to establish a new university where there shall be no discrimination whatever between Africans and Europeans. They will be treated exactly the same. If that is so, then the purpose surely is to bring them to the same state of education so that Africans can take their part in the responsible government of their own country.
    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights deals with these very matters. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough referred to Article 2 of the Declaration, which states:
    "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,

    1339
    birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
    We have solemnly pledged ourselves that we in this country believe that.
    Our Government have signed that Declaration on our behalf and have said that that is what we desire. But now that we are setting up the new Constitution it is not suggested that these things should be brought into existence straight away. We are told that we shall set up a committee who will see how soon—not immediately—these very matters which are set out in such detail in this Declaration shall be brought into effect in this new federated Territory. Surely that is a matter which ought to be, and can so easily be, accepted. It is really the test of our sincerity when we are saying, as we have said time and again to the Africans, "We are anxious that you should take your part, not only in the Government of the country, but in working out your own destiny, not as anybody inferior but as actual working partners, having exactly the same rights as the Europeans have today." For those reasons, I should have thought this Amendment, moderate as it is, would be accepted by the Government.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    We are discussing a very important Amendment, and I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this debate were adjourned and we resumed on Wednesday.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Well, it rather surprises me that the right hon. Gentleman should move this at this stage without any further discussion with me. I should like to be quite clear about his intentions. I say that because there have been certain conversations, which, I thought, were to be resumed before it came out in front of the Committee. I do not know whether he would prefer to withdraw his Motion
    1340
    for the minute so that we could clear up exactly what the situation is.
    Mr. Griffiths: We understood that the Government think that this Bill must be completed on Wednesday, or that the further stages would be completed on Wednesday. This is a very important Amendment, and what I therefore suggest is that the Chairman do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and that between now and next Wednesday rearrange the time left to us. Between now and then the other stages could be considered through the usual channels.
    Mr. Crookshank: That is quite agreeable so long as the ultimate objective is reached—as I told the right hon. Gentleman privately, and as I announced earlier today on business—that we hope to conclude all stages of the Bill by Wednesday night. How it is rearranged between this Amendment, the next Amendment and the Third Reading is not a matter of which I have any particular knowledge. So long as I am assured by the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of his hon. Friends, that the object the Government have in mind, of concluding the Bill by Wednesday night—and not late Wednesday night either—is agreeable.
    Mr. Bing: Will there be no suspension?
    Mr. Crookshank: I will put all the cards on the table. The basis on which I was speaking to the right hon. Gentleman was that we should sit until about half-past ten. That was the arrangement which we reached privately, and I hereby confirm it; that we would move the suspension, if it is agreeable to the House, and conclude the debate at half-past ten. If the right hon. Gentleman prefers to report Progress now and so rearrange with his hon. Friends how he wishes to conclude the business, that is quite agreeable to the Government.
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, that is agreeable.
    Mr. Crookshank: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's intention, and it is done in good faith by both of us, I accept it from him and I shall be pleased to accept the Motion.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LONDON
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Conant.]
11.30 p.m.
Brigadier F. Medlicott: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising, at a somewhat earlier hour than I had anticipated, the question of traffic congestion, particularly in the streets of London; a matter which has been very present in our minds in recent weeks. But, I want to make it quite clear that I am not raising the subject because of the special congestion which has been noticeable during the period of the Coronation.
I am not of the opinion that the happy circumstances of the Coronation have brought about any new traffic problem; the fact is that for a very long time past, London traffic has been getting seriously out of hand. Many people are becoming gravely concerned about the problem as a whole. On any normal day the congestion in the streets is such that traffic is almost brought to a standstill for long periods, and when there is any special event, such as the Trooping the Colour, or the Lord Mayor's Show, or a great film or theatrical festival, or any other of the events which go to make London what it is, we have this acute traffic congestion; particularly in the inner belt.
I hope that it may be possible—and I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is here to hear what I am saying—in spite of the crowded Parliamentary time-table, for a whole day to be given to discuss this issue of traffic congestion. The matter has been raised several times in recent months, and the Minister of Transport, or his Parliamentary Secretary have patiently discussed it in the limited time available on Adjournment Motions; but I think that a full day should be allotted to consider what has become a very serious problem.
It was raised as recently as 20th May last, and I hope I can follow up what was then said by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and by the Parliamentary Secretary. One point which I ask straight away is whether we
1342
can be told something about where the responsibility lies for the control of London traffic and, indeed, of traffic in other parts of the country; because this problem is not now confined to London. The creeping paralysis is seen in many other places, and some hon. Members may recall how, during the holiday season last year in many towns of the West Country, there were traffic blocks comparable to those seen in London. I should like to ask how much responsibility lies with the Minister of Transport and how much with the Home Secretary. Of course, some of the executive power rests with the Commissioner of Police, but he is responsible to the Home Secretary and not to the Minister of Transport, and this seems to be a triangular division of responsibility. Is there quite the full coordination and clear central control which traffic questions require?
Quite recently, the House was told that the estimated cost of traffic delays in London amounted to £70 million a year and that on an average day, the London buses lost 800 scheduled miles. In other words, the buses as a whole are prevented each day from travelling as much as 800 miles of the journeys which they ought to do. But that is on an average day. It is much worse on a day when there is serious congestion. For example, on one day in November, 1950, the loss of mileage amounted to 8,000 miles by the London buses alone, without allowing for time and journeys lost by private cars and goods vehicles.
The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, in their 1951 Report, recommended what they described as a bold policy of providing car parks in Central London. They said that for £5 million there could be constructed a series of double-deck underground parks in London which would provide room for 5,000 cars and that this would go a long way to solving the parking question in London. We ought to look very carefully at a recommendation of that kind, because if for £5 million we could go even some way towards solving the parking problem in London, which may be costing us £70 million a year, surely that is something which is well worthy of attention.
More recently, an invaluable report was presented by the working party on parking in the inner area of London. As

1343
the Minister has already told the House, that working party put forward a parking plan, involving three headings: the construction of garages below the streets, as I have already mentioned; the introduction of parking meters, and a new and balanced system of waiting regulations. I believe that some of these proposals might require legislation, and it would be out of order for me to do more than mention them in this debate; but a good deal can be done without legislation.
We are losing anything up to £70 million a year, and yet for the expenditure of £5 million we could probably reduce the delays by a quarter and thus save many millions annually. I was especially interested in a statistic given by the Minister in his last speech on this subject, when he referred to a statement made to him by an official of London Transport, who said that if the average speed of the London buses could be increased by only one mile per hour, it would save London Transport £2 million —every year, I gather— in petrol. Since most of what we spent in that way has to be paid for in dollars, I wonder that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made some caustic comments to his colleagues. Possibly he has already done so.
We know that this problem is one which is increasing yearly. There are already 4,500,000 vehicles on the roads of this country, and the number is increasing by 250,000 every year. In spite of this enormous increase in the number of vehicles, however, there has been nothing like a comparable increase in the amount of parking space. We imagine that we progress automatically, but it is interesting, and a little depressing, to realise that it now takes us longer, in spite of all the aids of modern science, to get from Apsley House to the Mansion House than it took the Duke of Wellington 120 years ago at walking pace on horseback.
It is true that the working party said that their three proposals were interdependent and they were reluctant that any of them should be introduced without the other two. But we must face the fact that even if a scheme of underground parks were approved today, a matter of perhaps two or three years would elapse
1344
before they could be brought into use; and meanwhile, the congestion exists and increases.
The working party emphasised what we all know to be true when they said:
"We conclude our report by emphasising that one of the major causes of congestion in inner London is the large number of private cars parked on the streets."
That is the point to which I particularly draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary tonight. I ask him whether those who are in charge of traffic matters have really faced up to the fact that they must make up their minds whether our streets are to be used for free garaging, or whether they are to be used for what, under modern conditions, ought to be their primary purpose: that is, the movement of traffic. The movement and flow of traffic is essential.
In paragraph 98 of the report of the working party there was a definite suggestion that all forms of parking or waiting should be prohibited at certain times for a distance of at least 45 feet from the more important controlled intersections. I do not think that recommendation goes far enough. It is not only at the light-controlled or police-controlled intersections that the problem of parking is serious. It happens at almost every intersection. One sees cars parked 10 and 12 feet from a corner, and little is done to get that kind of thing stopped.
I know that the Minister is concerned especially about this parking near corners, and he has pointed out that corner parking reduces the flow of traffic by about 30 per cent. If we can be told tonight that something is to be done about that I shall fee] that we are making some progress. I suggest that the Minister ought to take more drastic steps to see that cars which are parked in wrong positions can be dealt with immediately. As a result of a Question which I put to him a little time ago, I believe that powers exist to deal with this, and I am surprised that they are not exercised more often, especially in view of the times one has heard of fire engines and ambulances finding it almost impossible to get through the streets to the scene of a particular fire or accident.
What happens when cars are parked in awkward positions? A policeman, perhaps, is called, and has to spend his time

1345
between trying to disentangle the traffic and trying to find the owner of the car. In due course the motorist appears. He is told that he will be summoned, and perhaps a month later in a petty sessional court—which he does not always trouble to attend—he is fined 40s., and thinks that he has got off cheaply.
The time will come when we will have to use more immediate powers, following the example of certain overseas countries. In those countries the authorities use conveyor, or breakdown, vehicles, and when a car is left in a position where it causes serious obstruction it is taken by the authorities to an official car park outside the city. The offending motorist then has to find it, and to pay the authorities for the cost of taking it there. That may seem drastic, and I am not making the suggestion in criticism of motorists as a whole. Motorists themselves suffer most from these obstructions, and I do not think a small minority ought to be allowed to cause such a disproportionate amount of trouble.
Pedestrians, too, can contribute to traffic delays. There is the pedestrian who will insist on crossing the road when the lights are clear for cars to proceed; there is the pedestrian who hovers and cannot make up his mind; there are those who dart and those who dawdle, and those who stand about two feet in advance of where they ought to be standing, and thus hold up a whole line of traffic. All these are an impediment to traffic, and a menace to their own safety.
I should like to say much more, but I hope I have given an indication of what I think are the more serious points and of the fact that they rest so much upon the question of parking in the inner area of London. I should, in particular, like to say something about the matter which I know is present in the minds of many people, the need for road widening and improvements generally. We know that we cannot afford very much money at present but I think that as soon as money becomes available it should be spent first on underground parks. Road improvements must come, but the problems of parking must be solved first. I would begrudge the spending of millions of pounds on making our roads wider if the chief result were that they were cluttered up with even more parked cars than at present.
1346
The real problem in London is getting the roads clear of vehicles which are preventing the free flow and movement of traffic. I suggest it is a matter in which we must have leadership from the Minister and his colleagues. It is not a matter which the police, or pedestrians, or motorists can do for themselves, because traffic, unless regulated, has many of the tendencies of a flock of sheep. I believe that the motorist will welcome clearer directions and more decisive action and I hope the Minister will give us some indication of the plans he has in mind and that he will show the courage we have come to expect of him in implementing them.
11.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): I must begin by apologising to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) for not being in my place when he opened his speech. It was due to the Adjournment coming on us like a thief in the night, although it was a particularly welcome thief.
As my hon. and gallant Friend has reminded us, the subject of this debate was considered only a short time ago, on the Adjournment on 20th May when the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) also raised this question and I endeavoured to deal with some of the separate problems involved. I shall not deal with those again now, but I shall endeavour to deal, as adequately as I can in the time available, with the points which my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward tonight.
If I may deal first with the question of where responsibility lies, the Minister of Transport is responsible for making regulations and the police are responsible for their enforcement. The Home Office are responsible for the Metropolitan Police—that is why my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State to the Home Department is on the bench tonight to take notes on this debate—whereas in the provinces they are under the police authority, whoever that may be, and the Home Secretary is responsible for the efficiency of the police force as a whole.
As regards underground parking in London, to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred in some detail, I did deal with that on the previous occasion when

1347
I told the House that the report of the working party was under active consideration by my right hon. Friend who, at the same time, was most anxious not to destroy the amenities of the London squares and the trees which are a source of pride to all who know them. That was a factor which had to be carefully considered before we took action.
On parking meters, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the remarks I offered on Friday last on the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, when the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut-Colonel Lipton) moved a new Clause which sought to give those powers to local authorities.
Many people, during the last three weeks, when traffic congestion in London has been so abnormal, have referred with approval to the action of the police during the period in moving cars which were causing obstruction and asked why they could not continue this admirable system in normal times. A word on this subject may not be out of place. It is not generally realised that the police were then acting under special powers conferred on them by an old Statute, the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839. That is only applicable to days of public processions or occasions of national rejoicing, and these powers do not extend to the situation we are tackling now. There are no general powers available for removing cars outside such special periods, on the grounds of obstruction. The present powers given under Section 59 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930, as extended by the Act of 1934, allow for the removal of vehicles left in dangerous positions and also broken down or abandoned vehicles.
I think it is relevant to recall that, during the discussion on the Clause in the 1934 Bill, the Minister of Transport of that day, Mr. Hore-Belisha who showed great activity in these matters, emphasised that it did not enable the police to remove a car because someone had rather exceeded the time limit during which it should have been left in the street, or was an obstruction. He also said that he wanted to be careful not to extend the powers to such an extent that they could be used in an oppressive way. That quotation makes it quite clear that, when these powers were approved by the House, it was not intended that the police
1348
should be able in normal circumstances, to act in such a way as they did during the Coronation period under the old Statute.
I think the House would also like to know that this matter was again considered by the Committee on Road Safety as recently as 1947, and I should like to quote paragraph 229 of their final Report, published in May of that year, which reads as follows:
"We have considered a suggestion that additional powers should be given to the police to enable them to remove stationary vehicles causing obstruction. While additional powers of this character would be welcomed by some chief constables, the police do not, in general, experience any serious difficulty in moving obstructing vehicles. In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that any new legislation would be of a controversial character, we are of opinion that the present position might remain as it is."
I should, of course, be out of order if I embarked now on a discussion of the question whether any further legislative action is necessary to widen the present somewhat restricted powers, but I should emphasise that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who is sitting beside me has taken note of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, and he assures me that the Home Secretary will shortly take the opportunity of consulting the police on this problem.
In my speech on 20th May, I said that parking too near intersections controlled by traffic lights was one of the most unhelpful things that anybody could do, and that we were coming to the conclusion that we should have to prohibit this practice. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to this question tonight, and perhaps I can amplify my previous statement by telling him that this question was considered by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee only a few days after that debate.
The Committee had referred to them the question of about half-a-dozen specific crossings where it was suggested that the prohibition of parking might be advantageous. They did not reach any definite decision at their first meeting, but are considering the matter further, and will soon, I hope, be reporting to my right hon. Friend. If such a prohibition were put into effect in a limited number of crossings, it would give us

1349
the opportunity to see how it worked in practice, and I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend would always be prepared to consider an extension of this type of prohibition to other crossings if it proved to be of value.
Another topic to which I referred on 20th May was the introduction of "No Waiting" in many inner London streets and the experiment in unilateral waiting which is still proceeding and under close observation. I can now inform the House that the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee have recommended the extension of "No Waiting" to certain additional streets. We hope to put this further measure into force very soon, and hope the result will prove as useful as under the initial regulations.
Finally, I should like to take this opportunity of saying another word, as I did during the previous debate, about the work of the Traffic Advisory Committee. I paid a well-deserved tribute then to what they are doing, and I should like this House to know how much we, in the Ministry, appreciate their often unrewarding labours. Although it has not yet been possible for the Government to approve the putting in hand of the more expensive measures recommended by the Committee, such as major street construction and improvement, the Committee's Report on London Traffic for 1951–52 indicates the wide range of minor regulatory
1350
measures which the Committee recommended, none of which is, perhaps, in itself very important on the surface, but which involve a great volume of close detailed work, and which, added together, represent a by no means negligible contribution to the easing of the traffic problems of London.
I am glad to tell my hon. and gallant Friend that on these many detailed matters differences of opinion between the Committee and my Department are virtually unknown. I think, however, that I ought to say frankly how well I am aware that the Committee are impatient of delay in giving effect to their major recommendations. I fully sympathise with them. I should be equally impatient were I one of their members. But, I am sure, both the Committee and this House will understand that these questions, involving a large capital expenditure, have to be weighed very carefully by the Government in these difficult times. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that this problem is ever in our minds. We are in no way idle in the matter. Careful thought is being given at this moment by my right hon. Friend to the most valuable report of that working party, and my hon. and gallant Friend has rendered a service in bringing this matter before the House tonight.
Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

  TEXTILE MACHINERY INDUSTRY
  TEXTILE MACHINERY INDUSTRY
  CORONATION MEDALS
  CORONATION MEDALS
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  B.C.G. Vaccine
  B.C.G. Vaccine
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  Tuberculosis Treatment, Yorkshire
  Tuberculosis Treatment, Yorkshire
  Births and Deaths Registration (Identity Cards)
  Births and Deaths Registration (Identity Cards)
EDUCATION
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Classes (Size)
  Classes (Size)
  New Schools
  New Schools
  Teachers (Special Allowances)
  Teachers (Special Allowances)
MINISTRY OF MATERIALS
  Soviet Pit Props
  Soviet Pit Props
  Strategic Raw Materials
  Strategic Raw Materials
  Timber Imports
  Timber Imports
  GRANITE MASONS (SILICOSIS)
  GRANITE MASONS (SILICOSIS)
  MALTA (FINANCIAL AID)
  MALTA (FINANCIAL AID)
  KENYA (CALL-UP REGULATIONS)
  KENYA (CALL-UP REGULATIONS)
  CHINA (BRITISH TRADE)
  CHINA (BRITISH TRADE)
  O.E.E.C. PRODUCTIVE AGENCY (H.M. GOVERNMENT'S PARTICIPATION)
  O.E.E.C. PRODUCTIVE AGENCY (H.M. GOVERNMENT'S PARTICIPATION)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Tinned Crab
  Tinned Crab
  Sweets Supplies, Leek
  Sweets Supplies, Leek
AGRICULTURE
  Luddington Horticultural Station (Cost)
  Luddington Horticultural Station (Cost)
  Wood Pigeons
  Wood Pigeons
  BROADCASTING STATIONS, NORTH WALES
  BROADCASTING STATIONS, NORTH WALES
EMPLOYMENT
  Chester-Ie-Street
  Chester-Ie-Street
  Lanark
  Lanark
SCOTLAND
  Housing, Orkney and Shetland
  Housing, Orkney and Shetland
  New Schools
  New Schools

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

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed.
OXFORD CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

ENEMY PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL Of DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Circumstances in which sections 2 and 3 are to apply
1. The two next following sections shall have effect as respects the making or withholding of payments as therein mentioned, and as respects other dealings with property as therein mentioned, at a time within the period beginning with the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine and ending with the passing of this Act, where the payment was so made or withheld, or the property was so dealt with, either—

(a) by a competent authority purporting to act under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1939") or orders made thereunder, or by such an authority acting with intent to give effect, so far as practicable, to the purposes of section seven of that Act (which relates to the collection of enemy debts and custody of enemy property) or to prevent that Act from being contravened, or

1064

(b) by any person in purported compliance with a restriction or obligation imposed by or under the Act of 1939, or by any person in pursuance of a direction or request of a competent authority given or made by that authority purporting to act, or acting, as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph (a), after "competent authority" to insert, "acting in good faith and." The noble Lord said: Doubtless when your Lordships saw what seems to he a formidable array of Amendments to this Bill, some of them perhaps appearing to some noble Lords as wrecking Amendments, you were rather aghast. I think I should give briefly the reasons for these Amendments. Although the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, on Second Reading did his best to explain this Bill to us, he said at least one thing with which we agreed 100 per cent.: that it was about the most intricate Bill that had ever been produced for your Lordships' consideration. Frankly, not only myself but also those who have been kind enough to advise me have failed absolutely to understand some of the clauses. Therefore we have put down a number of Amendments, which I think I may call probing Amendments, to obtain explanations from Her Majesty's Government.
As your Lordships will appreciate, this Bill is not a Party issue: there is no Party flavour at all about it. Let me say quite frankly that if my Party had been in power, we should have had to bring in a Bill of like description; but we feel that some of these matters should be ventilated and some of the powers which the Government seek to assume should be explained, not only to your Lordships' House but also to those people of this country who are interested enough to follow these proceedings. I expect there are many people concerned with this Bill who would like to see it go through, to use a colloquialism, "on the nod," but we on this side of the House believe that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Opposition to probe a Bill of this description and at least make the Government state their case for the powers they wish to assume. I do not think anybody sitting upon the Front Bench opposite will have the slightest disagreement with such a course.
As I said on Second Reading, I think we have the right to assume that action taken under Part I of this Bill, which is action taken or purporting to have been taken under the Trading with the Enemy Act, is taken at least in good faith. That is the substance of the first Amendment that stands in my name upon the Order Paper. What I seek to do is, in paragraph (a) of Clause 1, following the words "by a competent authority," to insert the words "acting in good faith and." It is a small point, and it gets smaller and of less significance as we proceed through this Bill—a subject to which I shall return later. But let us start with the assumption that a competent authority purporting to do anything within the law, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, with great frankness admitted in a speech which I commended then and commend now, said, "and outside the law," acted in good faith. This Bill provides an umbrella to validate any action by a competent authority or a person purporting to act in accordance with the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, or outside that Act, if the action was considered to be in the public interest and to further this country's war effort. I think we should start off by assuming that such a person or authority acted in good faith, and that is the reason for my first Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, after ("authority") insert ("acting in good faith and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: We on this side of the House readily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that this is an appallingly complicated Bill. We also think that it would be quite wrong to allow a measure of this complexity and importance to go through "on the nod." In consequence, we bear no ill-feeling whatever to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for having put down an extensive list of Amendments; nor, indeed, do we regard thorn in any light as wrecking Amendments. We appreciate fully that the best Parliamentary way of obtaining an explanation, or art attempted explanation, as I am afraid it will be in my case, of an extraordinarily complicated subsection is to put down an Amendment to delete the subsection which causes the diffi-
1066
culty. With that we have no quarrel whatever. Nor, I am happy to say, have we any quarrel upon this first Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He raised this point in his Second Reading speech, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, raised it as well. It seems to be a reasonable point, and we have much pleasure in accepting his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved in paragraph (a) to omit all words from and including the second "by" to the end of the paragraph. The noble Lord said: Once again, this Amendment is really a probing Amendment. It seeks to leave out half of paragraph (a). This is my difficulty. Paragraph (a), with the Amendment which the Committee have just agreed to, reads as follows:
"by a competent authority acting in good faith and purporting to act under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1939') or orders made thereunder. …"
Then follow these words, which by this Amendment I seek to omit:
"by such an authority acting with intent to give effect, so far as practicable, to the purposes of section seven of that Act (which relates to the collection of enemy debts and custody of enemy property) or to prevent that Act from being contravened. …"
On the simple principle that the greater includes the less, I should have thought that anybody who was "purporting to act under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, or orders made thereunder," would also be purporting to act under anything that is in the second part of paragraph (a). Why is the second part of paragraph (a) necessary? Frankly, I cannot see a reason, but I feel certain that the Parliamentary draftsman would not have put it in for fun, to waste space or use paper; so what I do by this Amendment is to invite the noble Lord's comments. The words appear to be quite redundant, but perhaps he has a very good answer which I will await.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("or") to end of line 11.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: I think I can persuade the noble Lord that these words are not redundant and ought to be retained in the clause. Without the words proposed to he left out, many actions which were taken in 1940, when the need for action had become urgent, with the beginning of air raids on a heavy scale in London and also because the quantity of property that became enemy property at that time was enormously increased by the occupation of many countries by the German Forces, would not be covered by the clause. In consequence of the haste with which action about the year 1940had to be taken, the Board of Trade may not always have expressly purported to act at that time under the Trading with the Enemy legislation. In fact, there were many cases when the Board of Trade acted in the spirit of the law but, quite clearly, not within the letter. I think I remember mentioning one case to the noble Lord in my Second Reading remarks—namely, the Diamantis case, the sponges case. He will probably remember it as being one of the best examples of this series of cases. It is therefore important to cover actions taken to implement the underlying purposes of the Act of 1939, and of Section 7 in particular which were not technically taken within the letter of the law. That is the reason for the inclusion of these words. I think the noble Lord will realise, in view of what I have said, that they are not surplus but are definitely required within the clause. I hope that is a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord.
LORD SILKIN: I have listened sympathetically to what the noble Lord has said, but I remain unconvinced that these words are necessary. The first part gives an indemnity to the competent authority purporting to act under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939. The second part, the part we want to leave out, does the same thing for anybody who purports to act under Section 7 of the Act. Whilst I realise that a great many things were done in the urgency of the time which might not have been strictly within the compass of the 1939 Act, I thought that the first part—and the whole purpose of this Bill is to cover those people—in fact gave them the cover. The words are "any competent authority purporting to act under the Trading with the Enemy Act." I should be grateful if the noble Lord could
1068
explain what the second part adds to that. What further cover do they get?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): Surely it depends upon what meaning is to be attributed to the word "purport." I think that is what this comes to, and I think the noble Lord will agree that the words which are challenged as redundant at least cannot do any harm. They make it quite clear that cases are covered where the Board of Trade have acted in the spirit of the Act, but have not purported to act under it—that is to say, have not expressed such an intention. So many of the directions and orders made by the Board of Trade under the Trading with the Enemy Act expressed that the Board of Trade were so acting. In the hurry of 1940, much action had to be taken within the spirit of the Act which did not purport in that sense to be taken under it. It is for that reason, and after careful consideration and consultation with the Parliamentary draftsman, that we thought it desirable, in order to make the matter clear, that those words should be included.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I quite understand it now. In other words what this does is to extend the coverage for a competent authority who may go outside—if I may use that expression—the letter of the law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will forgive me: I would not say going outside the letter of the law, but rather without expressly purporting to act within it. May I remind the noble Lord that his further Amendment which is to insert the words "acting in good faith and" will be accepted in this connection also. That brings the matter rather nearer.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving me that information. It does soften me a little, and in view of the noble and learned Lord's explanation, if your Lordships are agreeable, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment again is in the same connection. It will make the relevant passage read:
"or by such authority acting in good faith and with intent"—

1069
and so forth. I seek to put in the words "in good faith and," and in view of what the Lord Chancellor has said, there is no need for me to waste your Lordships' time by saying any more. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("acting") insert ("in good faith and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This again is really consequential. In paragraph (a) we were dealing with a competent authority. In paragraph (b) we are dealing with "any person." I will not waste your Lordships' time. This Amendment is based on the same principle which has now been accepted by the Government. The Amendment is really consequential, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, after ("person") insert ("acting in good faith and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not think I should be stretching it at all if I said that this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out from the first ("or") to end of line 17 and insert—
"(c) by any person acting in good faith and in pursuance of a direction or request given or made by a competent authority purporting to act under the Act of 1939 or orders made thereunder or given or made by a competent authority acting with such an intent as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section."—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause as a new subsection:
"(2) For the purposes of those sections anything done by a competent authority, or by any person in purported compliance with a restriction or obligation imposed by or under the Act of 1939 or in pursuance of a direction or request of a competent authority, shall be deemed to have been done in good faith unless the contrary is proved."
The noble Lord said: I suppose I could say that this Amendment also is consequential. In this connection I quite agree with what, at least according to my interpretation, is the spirit of this Bill. I put forward this Amendment because I think it is right and proper for the purposes of this clause. I agree that you have to put
1070
the onus of proving that the person did not act in good faith upon those who bring proceedings. But as I shall hope to convince the Committee, all my good endeavours in regard to this Amendment up to date are to be swept away later on. But "sufficient for the moment is the evil thereof." I agree that this is the proper way that this should be achieved. My legal advisers tell me that this Amendment is a proper one, and without more ado I beg to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chllworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Provisions as to making of certain payments and withholding of payments
(2) Where, in the case of a payment made as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c) of the last foregoing subsection, the payment (apart front that subsection was not authorised by or under the Act of 1939,—

(a) if the payment was a payment to a competent authority as mentioned in the said paragraph (a), nothing in that subsection shall be construed as preventing that authority from paying the amount thereof, or any part of that amount, to or for the benefit of any person to or for whose benefit the amount or part could lawfully have been paid apart from this section;

(b) if the payment was a payment by a. competent authority is mentioned in the said paragraph (c), nothing in that subsection shall prevent that authority from exercising any right of recovery in respect of the payment, being a right exercisable apart from this section.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("or (b)") and insert ("(b) or (c)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
2.55 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This is the first of what I have called the probing Amendments. I had better put before your Lordships my usual alibi—which I should think is getting a bit thin now—that I am not a lawyer. But I have two eminent lawyers sitting near me. That the noble and learned

1071
Lord, the Lord Chancellor, should come and sit on the Front Bench opposite on this Committee I take as a very great compliment. I am now arguing, perhaps with some ignorance—if so I hope your Lordships will forgive me. As I take it, Clause 2 covers the action of a person who pays creditors' money to the Custodian under the Trading with the Enemy Act thinking that the creditor was an enemy, when in fact he was not. It also covers the action of a person who withholds a payment properly incurred in a commercial transaction contracted with a debtor who he thought was an enemy but who in fact was not. I suggest to the noble and learned Lords that the umbrella covers a very wide area. Payment of a debt could be withheld in a great many circumstances. It could be withheld by a dishonest person to bring forward the defence that the reason he did not pay the debt was because he thought the man was an enemy, which in fact he was not.
I think the fog in this—if I may be allowed to use the term "fog"—is in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this clause. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1), which refers to "a payment…made by or on behalf of any person to a competent authority," and paragraph (c), which deals with "a payment made by a competent authority to or for…a person" are clear. But paragraph (b) uses these words:
"a payment was withheld whether by way of refusal or omission to make the payment by or on behalf of any person."
Is not that very wide? Does it not leave out a competent authority? When you come to subsection (2) it omits any suggestion of that. What is the purpose of that? May I ask the noble Lord this question—I think this is perhaps the best way of putting it to him. Is the intent of subsection (2) to give the opportunity of redress for an obvious wrong, because we are now dealing with payments, with money. The next clause, in subsection (4), deals with property, and there is there an avenue of redress. But in this clause, which deals with money and not with property, there does not appear to me to be any redress for the man who acts, can I say, wilfully wrongfully. Will the noble Lord tell us how it works? It will help us, in our ignorance, if he will be kind enough to give us some illustrations of how it works. We have not the same
1072
difficulty with the next clause, when it comes to property, but here we are dealing with money paid wrongfully and withheld wrongfully, because it was purported that the individual was an enemy, and it was ultimately proved that he was not. I hope that I have made my point clear to the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: There is no need for the noble Lord to apologise for not being able to understand these two subsections; they are extremely difficult. About two o'clock this morning I thought I understood them, but whether I know them sufficiently to help the noble Lord in any way remains to be seen. Nor is there any need for him to apologise for not being a lawyer, though I wish he would refer to that as an excuse and not as an alibi—the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, sitting next to him will explain that if he asks. I shall try to explain what we are seeking to do in these two subsections. To do so I must go back to subsection (1), because the subsections do not make sense unless taken together. Subsection (1) sets out three classes of payments: paragraph (a) refers to a payment made to a custodian; (b) to a refusal to pay—for example, a refusal on the part of a company registrar to pay a shareholder whom he thought to be an enemy; and (c) to a payment by a custodian to a person thought to be the original creditor of a debt collected by the custodian. In the first case, the subsection gives the payer authority for the payment and discharges him pro tanto from his liability to the original creditor or beneficiary. In the second case, it absolves the debtor from any liability he would otherwise have for his refusal to pay. In the third case, it absolves the custodian from any liability he would otherwise have to make good the amount of a payment, on the ground that it had been made out of public funds in a way not authorised by law. It also absolves him from any liability he might conceivably have to make a payment over again to the real creditor.
Subsection (2) contains two qualifications which perhaps I can explain as follows—and I think this will answer the question the noble Lord put to me. If a debt due to a person who is an enemy has been paid to the Custodian, the

1073
Custodian has power, if so directed by the Board of Trade, to release the money to the enemy creditor under Article 3 (ii) of the Custodian Order of 1939. If, however, it turns out that the creditor was not an enemy at any material time, although subsection (1) validates the payment and discharges the payer, the power under Article 3 (ii) is not available because technically the debt has not been paid under the Custodian Order. That is the difficulty there. Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) enables the Custodian to reimburse the creditor in such a case, and paragraph (b) preserves the right of the Custodian to recover payments where, for example, he has been prevailed upon to release money by fraud or misrepresentation.
Let me try to help the noble Lord still further by giving him examples, which I think might assist him. Take a case under paragraph (a) of subsection (2). This would be where money was paid to the Custodian as being due to someone who was thought to be resident in Germany but who in fact had escaped from Germany before the outbreak of war. The paragraph gives power to repay the money to a non-enemy creditor. The money not having been paid over to the Custodian in the first place under the Custodian Order, the existing power to release contained in Article 3 (ii) does not apply. The second type of case, of fraud or misrepresentation, has cropped up sometimes. Somebody has approached the Custodian and said, "Look, I am the next-of-kin of Herr Schmidt and I am the right man to have this money paid over to me"; and the Custodian, after having made the best inquiries he could, has paid over the money. Later the man receiving the money has been proved not to be the next-of-kin of Herr Schmidt, to whom the money should have been paid over. That has sometimes happened in the past and may possibly crop up again.
LORD SILKIN: What happens in such a case under (b)?
LORD MANCROFT:The Custodian row has a power to repay the money which he would not have had if it had not been included in the Bill. This is a very complicated matter, which I have explained as best I can. I sincerely hope that I have cleared away a little of the
1074
fog round this clause which the noble Lord, justifiably, said existed in his mind.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I should like to raise one question. Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) enables the Board of Trade or a competent authority to repay to the lawful owner money which was wrongfully paid to a competent authority. However, it does not appear that a person whose money has been wrongfully paid to a competent authority has any right whatever to demand repayment of it, either from a person who wrongfully made payment on his behalf to the competent authority or from the competent authority itself. Subsection (1) says that the payment, whether it was legally made or not, shall operate as a discharge of the person—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. This matter is sufficiently complicated. I do not think the noble Lord is speaking to the Amendment, which is to leave out subsection (2).
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was entirely dealing with that either. He was endeavouring to elucidate this clause, and I want to elucidate it also, because it might then be more clear whether the Amendment which my noble friend has proposed is the right Amendment or not. However, I will raise my point on the Motion that the clause stand part.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that would be better.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made a convincing statement: whether he believed it himself or not I do not know; it half convinced me. I could have put this Amendment down in the form of deleting the whole clause, but I put it down in this way because all I want is an explanation. It will be very tedious on every clause I argued the whole clause on the question of whether the clause stand part of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not mean to say anything discourteous to the noble Lord or to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, but it would be convenient if the course which he himself suggested were adopted—that is, to deal with this Amendment now, and then

1075
any part of the clause which is not the subject of the Amendment can be discussed on the Motion that the clause stand part. I hope that will meet with the noble Lord's approval.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will confine myself to the Amendment. When payment is made or withheld by the Custodian, is a person other than the Custodian, purporting to act under the Enemy Property Act, allowed to do the wrongful act of withholding payment for an ordinary commercial debt to a person who he says is an enemy but who is proved not to be? Is he given coverage under this umbrella, if he is a person other than the Custodian, but is purporting to act under the Enemy Porperty Act?
LORD MANCROFT: I should like to look at that point a little more carefully, but my first impression is that the question of ex gratia payment would come in there. However, I will look into it and make certain that I fully understand the point the noble Lord is making.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of the noble Lord's explanation, and if we can have a discussion on this point—and may I interpolate that perhaps the noble Lord will on many of these things undertake, with the assistance of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to discuss these points with us between now and the Report stage, because the replies we get will dictate our action on the Report stage—with your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Subsection (1) of this clause gives a release to a person who has made a payment on behalf of some other person to the competent authority, although that payment, in fact, should not have beer made. It therefore operates to discharge the person, who has made that payment wrongfully, of his obligation to the person on whose behalf it was purported to be made. Subsection (2) gives to the Board of Trade, or to the competent authority, a power of reimbursement, as I understand it, but does not impose upon the competent authority any obligation
1076
to make a reimbursement in those circumstances. Therefore, it appears that the resultant effect of those two subsections is to deprive entirely of any remedy whatever the person whose money was wrongfully paid away, and it leaves it merely to the competent authority to make a payment if it is so disposed to do. I should be glad if the noble Lord will explain whether that is the intention, and whether he thinks that is right.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps the noble Lord could answer my point at the same time. I think my noble friend has made a valid point. I am clear when it comes to the next clause, dealing with property. I think I see that, while there is the power in this clause for the Custodian to claim money back from a person to whom he has paid wrongfully, there does not seem to be any right of the person from whom he took the money, who was thought to be an enemy, but who now is not, to be paid back the money. I should be content—I do not know whether my noble friend would be—if the noble Lord would look into this matter at the same time in connection with the argument that I shall raise on the next clause.
LORD MANCROFT: Of course, I will look into this. But I think the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, is the same answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I stand to be corrected if I have it wrong, but I think it is not a matter of right, but a matter of an ex gratia payment. However, I will certainly look into it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But there is nothing in the Bill.
LORD MANCROFT: I fully appreciate that.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question arising out of what he has just said. I think I agree with him, so far as I understand this clause, that any payment made would be an ex gratia payment. The next step, paragraph (b), seems to indicate the possibility that it will be only in cases where the Board of Trade are able to get the money back from some person who may have made some fraudulent statement that they will make such ex gratia payment; otherwise the money is not available.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not so. It is not the proper meaning of the subsection, nor is it the fact as a matter of administration.
LORD CHORLEY: Could the noble and learned Lord give us an assurance on behalf of the Government that these payments back will be made in proper cases, quite apart from the question of whether the Custodian can recover be money from the fraudulent person who may have induced him to pay it away? If we could have a fairly firm assurance, I think that would set at rest the minds of some of us who are worried that injustice may be done as a result of this provision.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think this is a matter for assurance. The matter stands in this way. The administration of enemy property has proceeded now for many years upon the footing that if a wrong payment has been made, redress will be given. I do not think I need give any further assurance in the matter. I can, however, say this: that there is no connection between the repayment by the Custodian to a person whose money has been wrongly paid to him, and the collection by the Custodian of that money from some third party; the two things do not hang together at all.
LORD CHORLEY: I appreciate that. But surely the noble and learned Lord was inadvertent when he said that it was in cases when payment had been wrongly made under the Act itself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
LORD CHORLEY: Surely, the Lord Chancellor was inadvertently making a mistake when he said these payments had been made under the principal Act in cases where they had been wrongly made. Surely, they were cases where the payments were, technically, rightly made, but there is a strong case in mercy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord is dealing with a different category of cases altogether. If he will read Clause 2 he will see the section to which it refers. It says:
"… notwithstanding that apart from this section it was not so authorised. …"
We come to a different category of cases altogether, which I believe the noble Lord
1078
has in mind, and is probably the subject of the Amendment he is moving later. I do not think we need keep up this discussion any longer. My noble friend and I will look into this.
LORD CHORLEY: I appreciate that this is a complicated point, and I should like to look at what the Lord Chancellor has said. Therefore, I will not pursue it any further at this stage.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provisions as to other dealings with property
(2) If the dealing in question purported to be a transfer of the property on a sale thereof, the property shall be deemed to have vested in the transferee for such estate or interest, and subject to the like incumbrances (if any), as it would have done if it had then been transferred to him on a sale by the owner thereof.
(3) If the dealing purported to be a transfer of the property on release from control, subsection (1) of this section shall have effect subject to the provisions of subsection (5) thereof; but subject to the said subsection (5) the property shall be deemed to have vested in the transferee as mentioned in the last foregoing subsection.
(4) If at the time of the dealing the property was not enemy property,—

(a) nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section or in subsection (3) of section seven of the Act of 1939 (which subsection validated certain dealings with property erroneously treated as enemy property) shall operate in relation to that dealing so as to prevent a person from recovering the property or any proceeds thereof from a custodian who for the time being has the property or proceeds in his possession or under his control, and

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendments that have been accepted by the Government on the previous clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("or (b)") and insert ("b) or (c)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "transferee" and to insert:
"in accordance with the terms of the purported transfer, subject however to any incumbrances to which it would have been subject in his hands if it had then been lawfully transferred to him in those terms on a sale by the person entitled to the property."
The noble Lord said: Amendments numbers 10 and 11, together with the three later Amendments to Clause 5, which are consequential thereupon, are really no more than drafting Amendments. Their object is to get rid of the two technical expressions "owner" and "transfer of property on release from control," which are used only once in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3 and for that purpose have to be defined at length in Clause 5. The Amendments seek to achieve this object by rewriting subsection (2), so that it no longer uses the expression "owner" and subsection (3) no longer uses the expression "transfer of property on release from control." These are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, leave out from ("transferee") to end of line 27 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("on release from control") and insert ("by a custodian to or for the benefit of a person as being the person who, but for the Act of 1939 or any order made thereunder, would have been entitled thereto").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps the noble Lord can help me in my understanding of this clause. I think I am right, but I say so with some trepidation. As I understand it, this clause operates in respect of property whereas Clause 2, which we have just been discussing, deals with money received or paid. As I understand it, this clause makes an honest man of the person who has transferred property wrongly and gives a good title to the man who has received it wrongly. Then, when we come to subsection (4), there is provision for redress. Perhaps I may be allowed to read what paragraph (4) (a) says:
"(a) nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section or in subsection (3) of section seven of the Act of 1939 … shall operate in relation to that dealing so as to prevent a person from recovering the property or any proceeds thereof from the custodian. …"
1080
This illustrates the point raised by Lord Douglas of Barloch. The person who has been wrongfully dispossessed of property cannot get it back because the person who wrongfully possessed it has been given a good title. He can get the proceeds back. Why, therefore, is not the same provision made with regard to money? If the noble Lord will read on in this paragraph he will find that it says that he can recover the property or any proceeds thereof from a custodian—and these are the operative words:
"who for the time being has the property or proceeds in his possession or under his control. …"
The question I want to ask is this. Suppose he has not the property or the proceeds under his control? What happens? Exactly the same point was raised by my noble friend. The property is wrongfully vested in the custodian because it was thought to be the property of an enemy. The custodian sells the property. Under this clause he is covered, and the man who possesses it is given a good title. He has purchased it—spent good money on it—and the custodian has got the money. Now, if that money is in the custodian's possession at the time the claim is made, he has got to pay it over to the believed enemy who is now a friend. But suppose he has not got the money?
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his Second Reading speech, said that a good deal of this money had been dispersed. There has been a Distribution of Enemy Property Act, whereby the proceeds of a good deal of enemy property has been dispersed. Do I give the literal interpretation to these words when I say that they mean that the man who has suffered wrong can get the money back from the custodian only if he
"for the time being has the property or proceeds in his possession or under his control"?
The noble Lord, judging by his nods, has agreed with me up to this point. I do not know whether the custodian now has all these hundreds of thousands of pounds. Suppose there is a claim by a man who has been proved to be a friend and not an enemy. Every wrongdoer has been covered by this umbrella, but the individual who has lost his property cannot get the money from the custodian unless the custodian actually has the money in his possession. Will the noble Lord please clear up this point for me?
LORD MANCROFT: I must confess I had not looked at this matter quite in the way in which the noble Lord has put it. It seems to me that if he is right an injustice will be done somewhere. That is the intention neither of this legislation nor of the previous action taken. The matter is wrapped up with what has happened previously and with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch. I will certainly look at the matter again because the noble Lord's reading of this clause is not quite the same as mine. But I must say he has put a little doubt in my mind now. I should like to look at it again and make sure that an injustice is not being done.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that undertaking.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Income from moneys invested by custodian
4.—(1) Any income received by a custodian from moneys invested by him in pursuance of the Trading with the Enemy Investment Order, 1940, shall belong to the Crown and be paid into the Exchequer.
(2) The last foregoing subsection shall be deemed to have had effect as from the coming into operation of the said Order of 1940, so however that it shall not he construed as authorising or requiring the repayment of any sums paid by a custodian before the passing of this Act otherwise than into the Exchequer.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "moneys invested by him in pursuance of the Trading with the Enemy Investment Order, 1940" and insert:
"the investment of moneys coining into his hands (whether in pursuance of the Act of 1939 or otherwise) in his capacity as custodian, being income received by way of discount on the purchase by him of Treasury Bills or by way of interest on other loans made by him to the Treasury or on moneys placed by him in his name on deposit or current account at a bank".
The noble Lord said: There are three Amendments down to Clause 4—two in my name, and one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to leave out Clause 4. I suspect that that again is not a wrecking Amendment but an inquiring one. If I am right in thinking that, perhaps I may be able to assist the noble Lord by explaining a little more generally what the clause and my Amendments mean. The object of
1082
Clause 4 is to ensure that moneys derived by the Custodian of Enemy Property from the investment of funds in his hands are paid only to the Exchequer, and to legalise payments that have already been so made. I understand that the money involved amounts to something like £1,500,000. Your Lordships may remember that I attempted to give some explanation for the necessity for this clause in my remarks on Second Reading. Perhaps I may summarise the main points as follows.
The Custodian's general funds were invested in Treasury bills, Ways and Means advances and placed on deposit or current account at a bank; and the proceeds were reinvested. The great majority of persons to whom moneys have been released by the custodian are allied nationals or their Governments on their behalf. By a concession, the Custodian will not have charged them the fee statutorily permitted for looking after their money in this country. If these moneys are not to go into the Exchequer their apportionment will entail a major job of work which will take years to finalise and require literally hundreds of trained accounting staff to deal with. That is obviously out of the question. It is necessary, therefore, to confirm the position set by the 1914–18 precedent.
Now, going back to my own two Amendments, Nos. 12 and 13, the object of No. 12 is twofold. On the one hand we want to make it clear that income received by the Custodian otherwise than under the Act of 1939 is within the scope of the clause, and, on the other hand, to limit it to income from certain specified kinds of investments only. While moneys which came to a Custodian in the circumstances mentioned in Clause 1 of the Bill—that is to say, in the spirit, though not in the letter, of the Trading with the Enemy Act—and other moneys which came to him in circumstances not related to that Act (the noble Lord probably remembers the royalties paid to the Custodian by licensees under the Patents, Designs, Copyrights and Trademarks (Emergency) Act, 1939) were invested by the Custodian, they were not actually invested by him" in pursuance of the Trading with the Enemy Investment Order, 1940" because that Order applied only to moneys received by or arising to a Custodian under, or by virtue of, an Order made under Section 7 of the,

1083
Act of 1939. Hence the clause as drafted at the moment does not achieve the object we desire so long as it is confined to moneys invested by a Custodian "in pursuance of the Trading with the Enemy Investment Order, 1940,"and the wider wording of the first two lines of my Amendment is really what we require.
When the clause is no longer confined to investments in pursuance of the 1940 Order, we think it is necessary not to go too far. The first of my Amendments is expressly confined to income received by way of discount on the purchase by the Custodian of Treasury Bills, interest on other loans made to the Treasury and interest on moneys placed by him in his name on deposit or current account at a bank. These were the only three ways in which the Custodians invested the general moneys in their hands and on their official accounts. The second of the two Amendments standing in my name is really consequential on the first. If your Lordships agree to the first Amendment, subsection (1) will no longer contain any reference to the Trading with the Enemy Investment Order, 1940. Apart from this formal point, however, it is clear that, if there is to be consistent treatment of all the income the Custodian has ever received from the three sources I have just mentioned, the clause must be retrospective to the date when the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order, 1939, came into force—and that date was September 18, 1939. The reason for that, of course, is that the Custodians commenced their operations, including the investment of the surplus of their general accounts, from that date.
I apologise humbly for the extreme technicality of these two points, which are really accounting points, Treasury and financial points, quite beyond the comprehension of the man in the street; but I can assure your Lordships that they are technically necessary to perfect this clause. I hope that that slightly simpler explanation of the clause may have removed some of the fog which I am certain the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, justifiably thinks surrounds this clause as well. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out from ("from") to ("shall") in line 28 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.33 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There is no fog in my mind about this Amendment. This is where I come out of the realms of law into hard commercial common sense, because nothing that the noble Lord has said really invalidates the argument that I was going to address to your Lordships on the details of this clause. I do not wish to get out of order, and I do not know whether I can now adduce on these two Amendments the argument that I was going to address to your Lordships on the deletion of the whole clause—I gather that I have the permission of the Lord Chairman to proceed. The arguments which the noble Lord has put forward I quite recognise are valid if his basic argument is valid. But my contention is that his basic argument is not valid.
On the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, with reference to Clause 4, in justification of the Custodian who had wrongfully—mark the word "wrongfully"—had money from someone who was alleged to be a German enemy but who eventually turned out to be a friend, that, while the Custodian had paid back the principal, he was under no obligation whatsoever to pay back any interest that had accrued while it was invested by a Custodian. This is what the noble Lord said in justification of this argument—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 182, Col. 402:
"The number of individual owners to whom money has already been returned by the Custodian may be well over 100,000. The accounting operation involved, if this argument proved right,"—
the argument in question, I would interpolate here, was a comment in the courts—if I am not wrong, it was in a judgment—that the Custodian should pay interest—
"would be formidable and protracted, and scores of trained accounting staff would be required to deal with it. Quite apart from that, I am not certain that it is really in the interests of the country or of the taxpayer, because interest on investments comes out of the funds provided by the taxpayer, and I see no reason why that benefit should accrue to anybody else."
With great respect, may I say that to convince me the noble Lord will have to think of a better argument than that, because the money does not come out of the funds provided by the taxpayer. The

1085
money comes out of the funds which the Custodian, quite wrongly, appropriated and that is not the taxpayers' money.
The Custodian has, quite properly, admitted his error and has paid back the principal. Why should the owner of the capital, who has recovered his capital, he denied the income from that capital all the time that capital has been in the custody of the Custodian? In common justice, surely that is wrong. May I make it clear that I am not asking that interest should be paid on money that was appropriated, quite properly, from people who were proved to be enemies, but these were people who had their property and assets appropriated by the Custodian, quite properly, and who subsequently proved to the satisfaction of the Custodian that they were friends and not enemies. The Custodian pays it back—the noble Lord says to about 100,000. He says, "I am not going to give you any interest. I am going to pay to the Treasury the interest that I have wrongfully obtained, by investing your money, wrongfully obtained." The noble Lord will have to put up a better argument than that to convince me that it is right.
It would be an easy thing, to do, because I do not suggest that every meticulous calculation of the interest should be worked out precisely. The average can be struck, and a simple ex gratia payment made. Sonic would gain, some would lose; but the noble Lord, in the course of his argument, used a very significant phrase, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government want in cases such as this to be scrupulously fair. When we consider some of the people—I have not complained about it—who were thought to be enemies but who eventually turned out to be friends, surely we in this country to-day are not going to argue over a few footling pounds, and say that we propose to appropriate the interest earned by the Custodian in the investment of that money. I am not going to press this, but I would ask the noble Lord if he will be good enough to look into it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure the noble Lord will allow me to say this. He has proposed to delete this clause. I wonder what he would put in its place. To give effect to the proposals which he is now making, is not his proper remedy to move a new clause? I am not for a moment saying that Her
1086
Majesty's Government would accept it, but what he should do is to move a new clause to provide that, where there has been an ex gratia payment, there shall be not only an ex gratia payment of principal but an ex gratia payment of interest. I am not for a moment saying that what he suggests would be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, but perhaps he would think of it in that way. I say that it is quite impossible, as an administrative matter, to delete Clause 4 of this Bill, because the task of apportioning tins appropriate part of the income due to the monies paid—if you like, wrongly paid—in respect of any particular person would be a quite hopeless task. I would suggest that his true remedy is something different from that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I can only say that my excuse or my alibi is that I could not think of an answer, and I have been waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, or the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to reply to my argument I have said that I do not intend to press this Amendment, which was put down only to enable me to state the case I have stated, and for Her Majesty's Government to answer me. My noble friends and myself would then consider the appropriate Amendment to put down upon the Report stage, if we were not satisfied with the explanation given by Her Majesty's Government. I know that it is impossible to delete this clause, but I could not think of any other way to raise this argument, which I think is absolutely conclusive. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is impressed in any degree with my argument, I am quite willing to enter into consultations with him for an appropriate Amendment to be moved on the Report stage. I am sure we shall receive every help from the Government.
LORD SILKIN: I think: it has been clear—at any rate it has not been answered—that here is an injustice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Do not for a moment take it like that. I do not think it is anything of the kind. I think we have followed the precedent of the legislation before the last war, and I was most careful to say that I can give no assurance of any kind t hat Her Majesty's

1087
Government would accept an Amendment in the form which I thought was the only possible form to meet what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested. If I have said anything which could be construed as the admission of an injustice, I wish to make it quite clear that I make no such admission.
LORD SILKIN: At any rate, the case has been made by my noble friend that there is an injustice here, and so far we have had no answer. There has been no suggestion that my noble friend was wrong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I say there has.
LORD SILKIN: That is an assertion, but there has been no argument to establish that what my noble friend has said is wrong. As I understand the argument so far, it is that administratively it would be exceedingly difficult—I could put it higher than that and say, as difficult as you like to make it—to do justice. If we are right in our contention, that administrative difficulty cannot really be a conclusive answer. We on this side are in a dilemma, for we have not the resources to prepare a technical Amendment of the kind that would be appropriate to a Bill of this character. Surely it is for Her Majesty's Government, if, on consideration they come to the conclusion that there is an injustice here, to find a way out of it. I fully agree with my noble friend, who has suggested that it might be impossible to do meticulous justice to every single individual by calculating exactly how much interest he would be entitled to, if he is entitled to any, and that it might involve a labour far beyond what is practicable. But if we are right in our contention, something ought to be done, if only as a gesture; and I would respectfully suggest that in this case the onus should not be on this side of the House to prepare an Amendment which will do justice. That is a matter for Her Majesty's Government, if they come to the conclusion that something ought to be done. I hope that in the discussions which may take place between now and the Report stage Her Majesty's Government will look at it in this way, and not put on us an onus which it would be quite impossible for us to discharge.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We will look into it again, upon the hypothesis which the noble Lord puts forward, that something ought to be done. But I cannot promise that we shall do anything.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and to urge upon Her Majesty's Government that they should look at this matter again—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have said that we would.
LORD CHORLEY: —because I feel rather upset that the head of the Judiciary and a very distinguished Member of an Inn which has been established in equity for hundreds of years should say that at any rate a prima facie injustice has not been done in cases where money has been taken from people from whom there was no right, either in law or in equity, to take it—money which has then been invested in Government stock, and where the proposal is that the interest on that money shall be taken back in the interests of the taxpayer. If it had been invested in commercial securities, presumably there would be no question at all that the interest or the dividend belonged to these unfortunate people, some of whom are very small people indeed, and to whom the loss of this money has been a real hardship—people who got away from Germany with very little means indeed. Surely it is rather mean.
I realise that as a matter of accountancy there may be such practical difficulties that to confer rights of litigation upon these people is perhaps to invite a good deal of expensive and rather unfortunate litigation. But for the Government to take power in proper cases to make ex gratia payments to these people was, I should have thought, more than a gesture; it was something which the Government themselves should have been only too anxious to do. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in replying to the Second Reading debate, said that he could assure me that there was nothing whatever in this Bill of which we need be ashamed. I suggest that so long as this mean, niggling little provision remains in this Bill there is something of which everybody ought to be ashamed, and I hope the Government will look at this point between now and the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have said that we will look at it, and I do not think the noble Lord has helped his case by the observations he has made.
LORD HAWKE: I freely confess that some of us on these Benches do not understand this Bill, which is incredibly difficult: but if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has expounded the position correctly we do feel that there would be a case for paying interest to these people. I should have thought that it would be perfectly possible to pay them a rate of interest without the difficulties which the noble and learned Lord's advisers have suggested, because presumably the rightful owners of the money have been on of their money for a specified time arid it must be known more or less what rate of interest the total balances of the Custodian of Enemy Property have earned overall. Therefore it should be perfectly possible to pay an overall rate of interest, of 2½ or 3 per cent. or something of that sort, to meet whatever suggestion of equity there should be. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will manage to draft something and offer it to us at the Report stage.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said, I shall withdraw my Amendment. But may I make one observation? I do so in good faith. When we come to consider this point, please do not go on precedent. In this context there is no comparison between the state of affairs during and after the 1914–18 War and the state of affairs during and after the Second World War, which is still going on technically but which we all say is over. I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for what has been said. Perhaps we can have consultations on this subject and see whether we can work out some appropriate wording which will suit both sides. I should now like to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT:Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment which he has not yet moved, perhaps he will allow me to deal with mine. It is really my fault. I allowed the noble Lord to speak on his all-embracing Amendment, No. 14, leaving over my two which come just before it. I may say that I will do everything which the noble Lord asks.
1090
We will look again most carefully at this matter, and we shall be happy to consult with him if we think that by such consultation we shall be able to assist him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg formally to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("said Order of 1940") and insert ("Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order, 1939").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Interpretation of Part 1 and provisions as to evidence
(2) References in this Part of this Act to the payment of money or transfer of property by an authority to or for the benefit of a person include references to the payment or transfer thereof by that authority to a person appearing to that authority to be authorised by the said person to receive it.
(3) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a certificate issued by or on behalf of the Board of Trade or the Treasury, stating—

(a) that, in the case of a specified payment or dealing with property by a specified authority, that authority was acting with such intent as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section one of this Act, or

(b) that a specified payment or dealing with property by a specified person was a payment or dealing in pursuance of a direction or request of a specified authority and that the direction or request was given or made as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that section, or

(c) that a specified payment or transfer of property by a specified authority was made to or for the benefit of a specified person as being the person who would have been entitled to the property but for the Act of 1939 or any order made thereunder,

shall in any proceedings be sufficient evidence of the facts so stated except to any extent to which the certificate is shown to be incorrect.
3.53 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment and the next two, which all stand in my name, are consequential on the early Amendments to Clause 3 which your Lordships have approved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 12 to 17.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, at end insert (" 'transferee' shall be construed accordingly").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 25 to 29.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is such a simple and self-explanatory Amendment that I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept the Amendment. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, after ("appearing") insert ("on reasonable grounds").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: This is not quite so simple as all that, I am afraid. The effect of subsection (2), to which the noble Lord has referred in this Amendment, is that where references are made to the payment of money or the transfer of property by a Custodian to or for the benefit of, say, Smith, they are to be deemed—I apologise for using that dreadful word—to include references to its payment or transfer to someone appearing to the Custodian to be authorised by Smith to receive it. Under existing law as contained in Article 3 (ii) of the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order, 1939, to which I have already made reference, the release of money or property (that is to say the removal from the money or property concerned of the effects of Trading with the Enemy legislation) is normally effected by the Board of Trade giving a direction to the Custodian to transfer the money or the property
"to or for the benefit of the person who would have been entitled thereto but for the operation of the Trading with the Enemy Act or any Order made thereunder or to any person appearing to the Custodian to be authorised by such person"—
that is, by Smith—
"to receive the same."
This subsection is therefore necessary because of the words used in the existing law.
1092
The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would insert after "appearing" the expression "on reasonable grounds" but, as there is nothing in the existing law about the grounds on which the Custodian is to regard someone as being authorised by a person to receive the money or property, the subsection would, if the Amendment were made, fail in its purpose, which is to make the present Bill reflect the existing legal position. That is the legal position. The other position is this. The Custodian does not make any of these payments—indeed, he takes no action—except in the spirit which the noble Lord suggests; that is to say when it appears that there are reasonable grounds. I can see what the noble Lord is getting at. There is nothing to disapprove of in the sentiments which he did not express in moving his Amendment and which I thought that he would express. I ask him not to press the Amendment, first because it would lead to great legal complications, in that the Bill would not then reflect the existing law, which is what we want it to do, and, secondly, because I think the words are implicit in the conduct of the Custodian, and are therefore not necessary.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Surely the noble Lord has made my case. This subsection states:
"References in this Part of this Act to the payment of money or transfer of property by an authority to or for the benefit of a person include references to the payment or transfer thereof by that authority to a person appearing to that authority to be authorised by the said person to receive it."
This covers the whole subject of payment of money or handing over of property. Where do ex gratia payments come in here? Surely the Custodian has a judgment in quite a lot of these matters. I am not saying that this would make any difference to the existing law where that existing law is precise. But the existing law is not precise. The Custodian has authority to make ex gratia payments—to whom? To the person he is satisfied is entitled to them, or on behalf of someone who he is satisfied should have the money. What about all these payments that have been made quite outside, where there is no question of the letter of the law? The purpose of putting in these words was so that the Custodian could I have the defence that the case made to

1093
him was made to him "on reasonable grounds." Time goes on with these things, and in the cases of some of the claimants, some of the people of whom we have been speaking, people who have had their property appropriated—if "appropriated is not an incorrect word—wrongfully appropriated, the error has been rectified. What process did the Custodian adopt in those cases, in the hundreds of thousands of cases where money wrongfully taken from supposed enemies has been paid back by the Custodian? The Custodian was satisfied on reasonable grounds, I take it. Earlier on, when I argued my second Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that this was only an embellishment. In my submission this Amendment does not invalidate any existing law. It makes certain that the Custodian will give this payment "on reasonable grounds" if the case is not covered by law, as he has had to do in the past and will have to do again many times in the future. I do not expect the noble Lord to make a snap judgment here, but I should like him to look at it again. If he convinces me that I am wrong, I will not press the Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: I am sorry, but we cannot accept this Amendment. It is clear from Section 7 (3) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, that it was the intention of Parliament to rely on the Custodian's discretion and judgment in satisfying himself in regard to this. But I will look at this again to see whether I have been misinformed; but if I am right, I am afraid my argument must stand.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have so much confidence in the fairness of the noble Lord that I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: In this Amendment we come to the first of the really important Amendments which are concerned with the system of producing certificates which the Government have put in this Bill. This Amendment deals with the first of four cases in the Bill. Subsection (3) reads:
"For the purposes of this Part of this Act a certificate issued by or on behalf of the Board of Trade or the Treasury stating—

(a) that, in the case of a specified payment or dealing with property by a specified authority, that authority was acting
1094
with such intent as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section one of this Act, or

(b)"—

I shall not worry your Lordships about that—
"shall in any proceedings be sufficient evidence of the facts so stated except to any extent to which the certificate is shown to be incorrect."
This is a matter which Parliament has contested, sometimes with success and sometimes without success, and which every Government has tried to "get away with." As I read it, if the Board of Trade or the Treasury issue a certificate to say that Mr. A or Department B took this action in good faith, purporting to act as Section 1 of this Act lays down, it is incontestable in law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wish to interrupt, but I do not think the noble Lord should proceed on a false basis. He used the word "incontestable." In one of these clauses the word "conclusive" is used and I think that is what the noble Lord meant.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like the noble and learned Lord to explain to me the words "except to any extent to which the certificate is shown to be incorrect." I do not know what they mean. Already we have provided in the Bill that anybody acting on behalf of a competent authority, acting in good faith, is not liable, and we have agreed to a further Amendment providing that the burden of proof of whether the competent authority acted in good faith is upon the appellant. This subsection provides that, if the Board of Trade issue a certificate that it acted in good faith, that
"shall in any proceedings be sufficient evidence of the facts so stated…"
When we debated the Distribution of German Enemy Property Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who was leading for the Government said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 165, Col. 1212):
"This clause surely puts in the hands of the Executive or of the administrator final and absolute supreme power to decide highly important questions—and, indeed, questions upon which different views might well be taken."
Then he went on to say:
"But is that any reason why His Majesty's Government should take upon themselves the sole right to decide the very difficult questions which must inevitably arise in the distribution of this German enemy property?"

1095
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said in the same debate:
"… I should like strongly to reinforce the plea the noble Earl has just made for some form of appeal tribunal to which disputed cases could be referred. This is not a new point of principle so far as we are concerned, because there have been a number of Bills within the recent memory of all of us in which we have endeavoured, not always successfully, to insist that the last word should not be an administrative one."
My mind goes back to the time when I had the responsibility of piloting through your Lordships' House the Patents and Designs Bill, 1949 and I remember the famous, or infamous, Clause 21 of that Bill, which was somewhat along the same lines and which provided that if any report from the Monopolies Commission said that anything had been done in contravention of one or two of the sections of the Act, that was conclusive evidence before the Court of Patents and therefore before the Patent Judge upon appeal. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who was then leading for the Opposition, took me severely to task. This is what he said: (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 161, Col. 775):
"If I am right in my reading, I cannot believe that your Lordships' House would not think that rather an extreme example of legislation: to permit a Government Department to do away with an individual's property and rights without the protection of the courts, without the protection of Parliament and, indeed, it may be, without hearing what he has to say."—
and he went on to say that that was a very wrong thing. The noble and learned Viscount so succeeded in his argument, which he pursued with great vigour right through the Second Reading, the Committee stage and the Report stage, that the offending clause was radically amended by an Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount himself moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Can the noble Lord remind us of the Amendment?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am afraid I cannot think of it now, but it did away with the provision that a report from the Monopolies Commission was conclusive evidence. I am trying to argue the case, but I do not want to repeat my arguments on every one of these five cases. They do vary. The noble and
1096
learned Lord quite rightly says that in one instance the provision is that a certificate shall be conclusive. The next one makes these Departments arbiters of what is in the public interest. The fact I am trying to establish is that, under this clause, if a certificate issued by the Board of Trade or the Treasury, says that an authority acted or purported to act in good faith in a certain case, then that must be accepted to be sufficient evidence of the facts so stated. I do not know what the subsection means by the words:
"except to any extent to which the certificate is shown to be incorrect."
If the appellant can contest the correctness, why put it in? I do not see any purpose, unless it is to say—and perhaps this is the answer—that the appellant cannot challenge the statement; he cannot even see a certificate before it is produced, and he has no right of answer. I fall back on my alibi or excuse: I give not a lawyer's interpretation, but a common-sense interpretation.
LORD MANCROFT: It is the same thing.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Not always. If these words do not mean what I say they mean, why are they here? If we have an answer to this question, it may be that it will answer all the other four or five times that such a provision appears in this Bill. There is one occasion when it appears in Clause 12 (3) where it is perfectly right: a certificate issued by the competent authority saying that a certain territory was occupied by the enemy. That does not infringe on anybody's rights; it is a question of fact. But if noble Lords will read this subsection carefully, they will see that it means that anything the Board of Trade or the Treasury state, or put into writing,
"shall in any proceedings be sufficient evidence of the facts so stated."
I shall listen to what the Government have to say with great interest. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.14 p.m
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is quite right in saying that this is one of several clauses which deal with the question of evidence. Perhaps what I have to say upon this clause will

1097
go a long way towards dealing with the other similar proposed Amendments. Let me make one thing quite clear—and I venture to think that the noble Lord was under some misconception. He used the word "incontestable"; I think he meant by that, "conclusive". There is all the difference in the world between making something prima facie evidence until it is displaced and making it conclusive evidence which is unchallengeable. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition is here. With great deference, I would ask him whether he has had an opportunity of considering this, whether he thinks it appropriate in this sphere and in this subject matter to do without this evidentiary provision which we find in several places in this Bill. I think that if the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has had time to consider this, he cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in saying that this is not a case in which this now familiar provision should be inserted in the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not say anything of the kind. I put up the case, and I said that I should listen with great interest to what the Government had to say. If the Government can convince us that they are correct, then I shall certainly withdraw the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is fully within his right in moving what he calls a probing Amendment, but I think I am entitled to ask the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, whether he supports the suggestion—which was surely implicit in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—that this was not a case where such a provision should be inserted.
EARL JOWITT: I am sure that If should support anything the noble Lord, Lord Lucas said, but I do not know what Amendment we have reached.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are on Amendment No. 19, which proposes to delete subsection (3) of Clause 5 of the Bill. That is a clause which provides:
"For the purposes of this Part of this Act a certificate issued by or on behalf of the Board of Trade or the Treasury, stating—

(a) that, in the case of a specified payment or dealing with property by a specified
1098
authority, that authority was acting with such intent as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section one of this Act, or

(b) that a specified payment or dealing with property by a specified person was a payment or dealing in pursuance of a direction or request of a specified authority.…"

given or made in the purported exercise of powers under the Act of 1939, or with intent to give effect to the purposes of Section 7, or to prevent the Act from being contravened,
"shall in any proceedings be sufficient evidence of the facts so stated except to any extent to which it is shown to be incorrect."
That is a purely evidentiary production. It does not make a certificate conclusive, but provides merely that the certificate shall be prima facie evidence, which can be challenged and can be displaced. It is not "incontestable," to use the word which Lord Lucas used. It is a sphere in which, above all others, I should have thought that that now familiar provision should be included, because it depends upon matters which appear in the confidential files of the Department. Her Majesty's Opposition, surely, must rely upon the integrity of the Department to give a certificate only in the proper cases, and to do it upon the sufficient evidence which it has, but which it ought not to be called upon to produce in court—namely, the files—and often files which have been made by people who can no longer be easily found. Your Lordships will appreciate that we are referring now to matters that happened thirteen and fourteen years ago. If the certificate is in any respect wrong, it can be challenged.
This is a case in which I venture to think we ought to rely, to some extent, upon precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, adjured us not to observe precedent. I cannot help reminding your Lordships, however, that precisely the same position arose after the 1914–18 war, but in circumstances, in a sense, of lesser difficulty. There was not the same dispersion of records, and so on, because there was not the same bombing of London. Section 1 (3) of the Indemnity Act, 1920, is in terms of which I may remind your Lordships, because in substance, and allowing for the difference of subject matter, it is very much the same as the provisions which we have inserted in this Bill. It says:
"For the purposes of this section, a certificate by a Government department that any act, matter, or thing was done under the authority of a person so holding office or so employed

1099
as aforesaid, or was done in the execution of a duty, shall be sufficient evidence of such authority or duty and of such act, matter, or thing having been done thereunder or in execution thereof and any such act, matter, or thing done by or under the authority of a person so holding office or so employed as aforesaid shall be deemed to have been done in good faith unless the contrary is proved."
That was in relation to a somewhat similar subject matter.
I would now refer the Committee to recent cases of Statutes in which the same sort of provision has been inserted—for instance, in the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will remember well and which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, will also remember. That was in 1947, and the conduct of that Bill lay on the noble and learned Earl who was then Lord Chancellor. Section 10, subsection (3) of that Act provides this:
"The Admiralty or a Secretary of State, if satisfied that it is the fact:—

(a) that a person was or was not on any particular occasion on duty as a member of the armed forces of the Crown; or

(b) that at any particular time any land, premises, ship, aircraft, vehicle, equipment or supplies was or was not, or were or were not, used for the purposes of the said forces;

may issue a certificate certifying that to be the fact; and any such certificate shall, for the purposes of this section, be conclusive as to the fact which it certifies."
We do not go so far as that; we wish that the certificates shall be prima facie evidence which may be displaced, except in one instance to which I shall refer presently. But we went further in the Visiting Forces Act of last year. That Act goes a long way further, because we not only rely on the integrity of one of our own Departments of State for the validity of a certificate, but give the same force to what is done by an ally or a friend. Section 11 of that Act says:
"(1) for the purposes of this Part of this Act a certificate issued by or on behalf of the appropriate authority of a country, stating that at a time specified in the certificate a person so specified either was or was not a member of a visiting force of that country, shall in any proceedings in any United Kingdom court be sufficient evidence of the fact so stated unless the contrary is proved."
I am not defending bureaucracy in any way, but it is quite obvious that an Act of this kind is quite unworkable unless you give to the certificate of the executive authority the validity of prima facie
1100
evidence. We do not say that it cannot be displaced, but we do say that it is necessary, and I am advised that this Act might be unworkable and create injustice if it contained no provision of this kind. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this is in fact a necessary provision.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to ask one thing of the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Lord for my promotion—but I am afraid it is not yet.
LORD CHORLEY: I should have said "the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack." I quite appreciate that the object of this provision is to shift the burden of proof, and that it does not in any way make the certificate conclusive evidence. But I suggest that in this case it is a little unfair to the person whose property is, in effect, to be taken away by the provisions of this Bill that he should be put into the very difficult position of having to prove his case against a certificate, so to speak. Obviously, when you are dealing with matters which took place a considerable time ago there must be a good deal of difficulty in discharging the burden of proof, from whichever point of view you look at it. In these circumstances, I should have thought it was fairer to the man whose property has been taken away that he should be given the advantage.
EARL JOWITT: I think I shall advise my noble friend not to press his Amendment. Some clause of this kind is necessary. It is just as important that care should be taken now as it has been in the past in giving the certificates.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Earl well knows from his long experience how fully that would be in the tradition of the Civil Service.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I should like to say a word about paragraph (a). I appreciate the arguments in favour of proving such matters as are mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) by means of a certificate, because this relates to official actions for which the Department takes responsibility. But paragraph (c) refers to
"… a specified payment or transfer of property…for the benefit of a specified person as being the person who would have been entitled to the property…"

1101
Is the effect of the certificate merely that the Department believed that that person was entitled to the property, or is the effect of it evidence that he was in fact entitled to the property? These are two very different things, and we ought to be quite clear about it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I read paragraph (c) again? It says:
"… that a specified payment or transfer of property by a specified authority was made to or for the benefit of a specified person as being the person who would have been entitled to the property but for the Act of 1939…"
I do not quite follow the difficulty in the noble Lord's mind. The words
"payment or transfer of property … for the benefit of a specified person as being the person who would have been entitled"
seem clear enough, and I am afraid that I do not quite see the dilemma.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Perhaps I may make my question a little clearer. The point I want answered is whether this certificate will be the proof of the title of the recipient to payment for the property, or whether it is merely proof that the competent authority believed that he was transferring the property to someone who had a title.
EARL JOWITT: In other words, if I may put it in this way, the payment was made to John Jones. Does it go on to say, "John Jones, whom we believed to be the person entitled to the property"? Or that the payment was made to John Jones who was in fact the person entitled to the property? Perhaps the noble Lord will look into that matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I will certainly do that, and if there is any ambiguity I will take it out.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am very grateful to the Lard Chancellor. He has, if I may say so with great respect, given the very reason for which I put this Amendment down. He has now given the Government's view with, if I may say so, again with respect, conciseness and force. This, of course, is an everyday occurrence with lawyers: to shift the burden of proof on to the claimant. It also, if I understand the noble and learned Lord aright, prevents the Government representative from being cross-examined as to the facts. I am not going to say that the claimant cannot
1102
bring rebutting evidence; therefore, in so far as that is what the Bill says, the claimant is at a disadvantage in this matter. However, especially in view of what my noble and learned friend says, and as we have had this dictum now expounded by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment—with this observation. As we come to the other four Amendments of a like nature would the noble Lord be able to tell us—I do not want to weary the House with a repetition of argument—whether his argument holds good in these cases. With these words I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
4.30 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not put down an Amendment here, but I want to raise what I consider to be a very important matter, something which I hope, when have been able to argue this to the best of my ability, the Government will seriously consider. In this clause we have on page 5, line 9, the definition of enemy and enemy subject; they have the same meanings as for the purposes of the Act of 1939. Now if we turn to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, we see in Section 2 the definition of enemy:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the expression 'enemy' for the purposes of this Act, means—

(a) any State, or Sovereign of a State, at war with His Majesty,

(b) any individual resident in enemy territory.…"

One of the reasons why I did not put put down an Amendment was because I could not think of one. I tell the noble Lord, quite frankly, that it is a desperately hard matter. But this definition in the Trading with the Enemy Act, was made before any of us had the slightest idea what conditions would be in enemy territory during the course of this war. The definition covers people who live in Germany, who are resident in Germany, who are resident in any territory ever occupied by Germany, whether enemies or friends; and it also includes—I want to impress this upon noble Lords—perhaps millions of people whose only crime—if I may borrow an expression used by the noble Marquess, Lord

1103
Reading, when we were discussing the Distribution of Enemy Property Act—was that they were born a Jew.
I know very well the difficulty of framing a definition of enemy which will take into consideration Nazis of the worst order and anti-Nazis of, if I may use the expression, the best order. This part of the 1939 Act deals with money, assets and property, and the definition of enemy is "any individual resident in enemy territory" at the appropriate times—for instance France. If a refugee had escaped from Germany to France, and was in France at the time France was occupied by the Germans, he was "in enemy territory." I know the noble Lord will be sympathetic to my case, and I sympathise with him in having to try not to cause hardship in this matter but the difficulty is no excuse for a country like ours, which has offered asylum to so many refugees over the ages—and it was argued with great strength by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jessel.
When we come to Clause 12, there is another definition of enemy which is different from this one. I can, to some extent, understand it, but this is one which I do beg the noble Lord to agree, without a great deal of argument across the Table this afternoon, to re-examine, to see whether it is possible to "soften up," if I may use that expression, a cast iron definition. I need not labour this point. I have made the point, and I hope the noble Lord will try to meet it. Whether he succeeds or not, let us have the satisfaction that, when we come to another stage of the Bill, we shall know that every effort has been made to ameliorate the hardship that it contains.
LORD MANCROFT: I readily agree, and I will examine the matter most carefully to see if we can do anything to meet the point made. I will read the noble Lord's words again carefully concerning the hardship he mentions. I can perfectly well sec the hardship from many aspects of treating, for instance, the Jew in Nuremberg, who was in prison and disappropriated a long time before the war; I can see the hardship of treating him from certain points of view like Himmler and the rest. One can see the insult to a Frenchman, in particular, in being regarded as on a par
1104
with a German. I can see the hardship of regarding Frenchmen in occupied territory as in the category of Himmler, because that is what would happen if this definition were taken out. But it applies only to this particular Bill. I am wondering, whether much injustice has come about in the twelve or thirteen years in which this state of affairs has existed—that is, much practical injustice. But I will certainly look at the point. If it had been physically possible to do what the noble Lord has in mind, I think, quite frankly, that the draftsman would have done it, because this point must have occurred to the draftsman, as it must to anybody who thinks for a moment about the matter. Without being in any way conclusive, I will look at the point the noble Lord has made. I realise his worry; I am sympathetic to it, and I will see if anything can be done to assist him.
LORD CHORLEY: The case I referred to on Second Reading concerned a Danish company which had a quantity of insulin in London and became a technical enemy by the overrunning of Denmark by the Nazi forces in 1940. The result was that their stock of insulin in London became enemy property. That is the sort of case to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is referring. It might have happened to a Dane who had succeeded in getting away from Copenhagen or some other part of Denmark, and then disappeared in the Danish forces or fighting on the sea. If such a man had property in London it would have been taken over by the Custodian of Enemy Property, on the basis that this man was still living in Denmark. It would then come within the terms of this Bill and would furnish a powerful example of the sort of case which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has in mind. If the noble Lord can devise, between now and the next stage, some method of protecting that sort of situation, we shall be most grateful to him.
LORD SILKIN: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has undertaken to do, perhaps nothing further need be said. I would, however, say this: that, as I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, we should like to cover certain types of cases. We should like to cover the kind of case that

1105
the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has mentioned but, as I understand him, he is asking something which it may be difficult to do.
LORD MANCROFT: Very difficult indeed.
LORD SILKIN: If we are going to cover the case of all those countries which were occupied by the Germans, and take them out of the Bill it is going to be very difficult. I take it that the undertaking applies even to that. That may be difficult, but what I hope the noble Lord will look into is the case that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, stressed—that is, the case of a person in Germany or in France who was hostile to the German Government, who was oppressed—
LORD MANCROFT: How are you going to prove that?
LORD SILKIN: In some cases, it is proved by the fact that he was put in a concentration camp. That would be prima facie evidence, unless the contrary were proved. I assume that a person who was in a concentration camp for the greater part of the war was not there because he was a friend of the German regime, but otherwise, because he was a Jew or a Socialist. That is the kind of case that we should like looked at, although the other does fall into a separate category. The noble Lord may find he can do something about the one case, if he cannot about the other. I should not like it to be thought that the whole thing stands or falls together. That is really the purpose of my intervention.
LORD REA: Would the noble Lord forgive me for suggesting that he should not overlook a rather unusual and not altogether small category—that is, the men and women who actually went into enemy-occupied territory during the war for the specific purpose of serving the Allied cause?
LORD MANCROFT: The very point that the noble Lord has made accentuates my difficulty. If we were to stop for ten minutes and all think of a hard case, I suppose we could all produce an almost unanswerably hard case. How are we to separate the hundreds of different examples there will be of various stages of virtue? I will not take up more time on
1106
the point now. I see the noble Lord's difficulty; I hope he sees mine, too.
LORD SILKIN: I said so.
LORD MANCROFT: I will do my best to see that somebody will produce a better answer than I have thought out. I see very great difficulty in meeting the noble Lord on his particular definition.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps we can get together. If we fail, then we fail, but do not let us fail through lack of trying.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Infringements of copyright
6.—(1) The following provisions shall have effect where at any time within the war period—

(a) a person acting on behalf of the Crown, or a person authorised by a person so acting, did anything the doing of which was an infringement of the copyright in a work, or

(b) a person acting on behalf of the Crown or on behalf of a Power allied with His late Majesty, or a person authorised by a person so acting, brought into any part of His Majesty's dominions, without infringing copyright, or brought into the territory of any Power allied as aforesaid, a work in which copyright then subsisted or a copy of such a work,

and at the time of the taking of the action described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection, as the case may be (in this section referred to as "the relevant action"), there subsisted in the copyright an interest which either was then a German enemy interest or was properly treated as a German enemy interest by the person by whom or under whose authority the relevant action was taken:
Provided that the said provisions shall not have effect if the copyright in question came into existence on or after the twenty-ninth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.
(4) For the purposes of this section an interest in the copyright in a work shall be deemed to have been properly treated by a person as a German enemy interest if, at the time when the relevant action was taken, the work or a copy thereof was in that person's possession or under his control in consequence of the removal of the work or a copy thereof from Germany:
Provided that an interest shall not be deemed to have been so treated if the relevant action was taken in circumstances affording reasonable grounds for believing that the interest was not a German enemy interest.
(5) For the purposes of this section a certificate issued by or on behalf of the Minister or Board in charge of any Government department stating, as respects the doing of anything

1107
specified in the certificate in relation to a work so specified,—

(a) that it was done by or under the authority of a person acting on behalf of the Crown or of a Power so specified, or

(b) that it was done as aforesaid and that at the time when it was done the work or a copy thereof was in the said person's possession or under his control in consequence of the removal of the work or a copy thereof from Germany

shall in any proceedings be sufficient evidence of the facts so stated except to any extent to which the certificate is shown to be incorrect.
(6) In this section the expression "copy," in relation to a work, means any document or thing recording or reproducing, in any material form whatsoever, the whole or a substantial part of that work.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment is similar to an Amendment of mine that I moved earlier. I do not want to weary your Lordships unnecessarily. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, after ("acting") insert ("in good faith").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "Crown" to insert "and authorised so to act." The noble Lord said: This, again, I hope, will appeal to the noble Lord as being a very simple Amendment. I think it makes better drafting, although I always hesitate to set myself up as a Parliamentary draftsman. The Amendment is self-explanatory. I do not think I need say any more, but I hope the noble Lord will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, after ("Crown") insert ("and authorised so to act").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: It is very regrettable to me that the more naively and innocently confident the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is in the validity of his arguments, the more distressing I find them. I think he must have his tongue in his cheek in seriously suggesting that this Amendment should be acceptable. Would he just consider for a moment what would be its results? Under the clause as drafted, the relevant action must have been taken by a person acting on behalf of the Crown or on behalf of an Allied Power or by some other person authorised by him. For a person to be said to be
1108
acting on behalf of the Crown, he must have some authority for so acting, and such authority would either be expressed or implied. The Amendment that the noble Lord has put down might very well be construed as meaning that evidence would have to be given of the possession at the time of some formal authority, particularly as no corresponding Amendment has been proposed to subsection (5). But the point is that in most cases that would not have been possible, so far as I can see. The noble Lord, possibly, can think of one or two cases, but in the vast majority it would not be possible and it is even less possible to-day. I really think that if the noble Lord will "work that one out," he will see that his drafting not only is unnecessary but might lead to embarrassing consequences if carried out.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord. I am sorry I am getting naive. I have been accused before of many things, but never of that. This is a Bill dealing with a very difficult set of circumstances. May I just go back to Clause 1 (a), where we find the expression that anybody "purporting to act" in a certain way is covered by this Bill. It does not say that he must have any authority—he purports to act. In Clause 6 we are dealing with copyright, and anybody can say, "I was acting on behalf of the Crown." The clause does not say that he must have some authorization; he need not even be a competent authority.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is not this bound up with subsection (5)?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know. I will listen to the noble and learned Lord. I do not want to stress this point, but I am coming to an Amendment later on which I think will illustrate my difficulty here. There may be many people who were acting in Germany and who innocent people thought were authorised to do things. In fact, they may not have been authorised and they are not covered under this Bill. I am going to cite a case later on. I want to make certain that no innocent person is caught by—can I say—an impersonator, and therefore I submit these words should read:
"a person acting in good faith on behalf of the Crown and authorised so to act."

1109
I do not think that is going to complicate matters. I believe that in the last analysis, these words are going to help. I know that the noble Lord's advisers always have a vested interest in the wording of these things and do not like people to come along and suggest something that may be better drafting, but I sincerely hope that the noble Lord himself will not take that view. I think this is better drafting and will safeguard many people who may be subject to action but are not covered by this Bill. The umbrella that you have erected is very wide, and I do not think this widens it much more. Before the noble Lord turns the Amendment down completely, I would ask whether it can be the subject of discussion, because perhaps the further arguments that will be raised on some of the other clauses may throw a different light on the question. I will withdraw the Amendment for the time being, if the noble Lord will give me his undertaking that it can form the subject of discussion; and if the noble Lord convinces me that it is no good, I shall not press the matter further.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I convince the noble Lord? It is a question of fact—namely, was the man acting on behalf of the Crown or was he not? This is linked up with subsection (5). It is a matter of evidence whether or not he was so acting. Under the subsection we make a certificate that he was so acting. It is not conclusive but is prima facie evidence that he was so acting. You do not need anything more than that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has convinced me, and I shall withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, after ("acting") insert ("in good faith").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: We accept that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.51 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Lord said: This is a simple point. I want to ask the noble Lord how the date March 29, 1949, was arrived at. In my view, March 29, is one of the red letter days of the calendar—it happens to be my birthday; but that is no good reason for putting it in this Bill. I expect there is a simple explanation. I have tried to find out what is the significance of that day. I expect the noble Lord has a good answer. Would he please tell me? I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 31, leave out lines 31, 32 and 33.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: I have, and I will. It was, alas! not the noble Lord's birthday that I had in mind, but had I known that, of course, I should have had extra weight to this argument. The significance of the date March 29, 1949, as referred to in lines 32 and 33, is that copyrights in new works of German authors created after that date have net been subjected to control under the Trading with the Enemy (Authorisation) (Germany) Order, 1949. In line with this, the proviso which the Amendment would leave out preserves from the operation of Clause 6 a claimant's rights in respect of such works. It merely makes things easier for the Germans. I am quite certain that that is an explanation which meets with the noble Lord's approval.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The coverage ceased on March 29, 1949?
LORD MANCROFT: On this particular point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Again, perhaps the noble Lord has an answer to this question. Should not the words in subsection (4), "For the purposes of this section" read "for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section"? What effect has this subsection on subsections (2) and (3)? The noble Lord may have an answer to that, but it appears

1111
that subsection (4) is intended to apply only to subsection (1) of this clause. I cannot see that it relates to subsections (2) and (3). It is a small point, but perhaps the noble Lord has some reason for relating it also to subsections (2) and (3). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, after ("of") insert ("subsection (1) of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is quite right. We accept his Amendment willingly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This is another of what I might term the certificate Amendments. If the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will tell me that the argument that he adduced on a previous Amendment is applicable to this I will not repeat my argument. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. Although this is a different subject matter, the argument is precisely the same. Here, too, the Committee will see that the certificate is not made conclusive but prima facie evidence of the facts so stated.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (5) to insert:
"(6) For the purposes of this section any person who, in doing or authorising the doing of anything, was acting on behalf of the Crown or of a Power allied with His late Majesty shall be deemed so to have acted in good faith unless the contrary is proved."
The noble Lord said: Exactly the same considerations apply to this Amendment as applied to the Amendment in relation to the other Part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Infringements of patents and registered designs
(2) The last foregoing subsection shall not apply to an infringement of a patent sealed, or of the copyright in a design registered, in pursuance of an application made on or after the eighth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-eight.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This again is simply a probing Amendment. Would the noble Lord tell me why the date April 8, 1948, was selected? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 41, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: The significance of this date, April 8, 1948, is that it was the date on which German enemies were enabled once again to take out patents for inventions, and to register designs in the United Kingdom Patent Office under an Order of that date.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I withdraw that Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Crown use of patented inventions and registered designs
(3) The last foregoing subsection shall not affect any claim in respect of the use of a patented invention or of a registered design, if the relevant patent was sealed, or the design registered, in pursuance of an application made on or after the eighth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-eight.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I assume that the explanation which the noble Lord gave as regards the date also holds good here. I just want to know why the date April 8, 1948, was chosen. Perhaps the noble Lord will give me that assurance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line, 35, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: I can and will give the noble Lord that assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Disclosure of information about inventions, etc., in breach of contract]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: We now come to another of the certificate Amendments, but this is slightly different. This is the one which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said brings in the words "shall be conclusive evidence of the facts so stated." This is the clause dealing with disclosure of information about inventions, and this is what subsection (2) says about the certificate:
"For the purposes of this section a certificate issued by or on behalf of the Minister or Board in charge of a Government department stating that, in disclosing or supplying to any person any information, model or document specified in the certificate, a person so specified was acting at the request of that department, and for a purpose which appeared to that department to be in the interests of the defence of the realm or otherwise in the public interest, shall in any proceedings be conclusive evidence of the facts so stated."
If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will again tell me that it is absolutely necessary to safeguard all the interests, and that he is perfectly satisfied that it does not go too far, I do not think I shall argue the case any more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. The distinguishing feature here is this. The clause deals with a case where a person disclosed or supplied any information, model and so on, relating to an invention, design or process and did so
"at the request of a Government department, and for a purpose, which appeared to that department to be in the interests of the defence of the realm or otherwise in the public interest.…"
It must be conclusive. The view which the Department takes upon those facts must be conclusive and not open to challenge. There cannot be any evidence to displace it. It is for the Department to say whether it appeared to the Department to be:
"in the interests of the defence of the realm or otherwise in the public interest."
1114
Therefore, we thought—and I venture to put it to the Committee—that this is a case where you can have a stronger form of clause making a certificate conclusive. That is very much on the lines of the procedure which I read out from the Crown Procedure Act, 1947, where a similar provision was accepted. I think this is a case where the stronger form of provision is justifiable and, indeed, necessary. The noble Lord asked me if I think it necessary, and I answer that I do.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not going to argue with the noble and, learned Lord on the question of necessity. I agree with him. But there is one thing I do not like about this—I hope I am not saying anything remiss, but I do not like the words:
"on behalf of the Minster or Board in charge of a Government department."
I think the burden of issuing a certificate like this should be on a responsible Minister of the Crown, perhaps a Secretary of State. What is a Government Department? This is a very serious matter. I am convinced by the noble and learned Lord's argument about the question of evidence of the facts so stated, but I do not think the authority can be too high. Would he consider putting down an Amendment to the words to which I have just referred?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take it that the noble Lord refers to the words:
"a certificate issued by or on behalf of the Minister or Board in charge of a Government department."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will gladly consider that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of that undertaking I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wish to ask the noble Lord again whether he will be so kind as to tell me whether I am right in my belief as to the meaning

1115
of the expression "German enemy covenantee" in Clause 9 (4). I take it that a German enemy covenantee must be—f I may use the expression a legitimate German enemy. He cannot even be someone purporting to be a German enemy If that is so, and if someone, perhaps a Dutchman, an American or another Englishman in Germany, had obtained the sort of information with which the clause deals and had passed that information on to an English manufacturer, and the English manufacturer disclosed it and started manufacturing or producing under it, the real, original holder, the German covenantee, I assume, could obtain redress, because the intermediary had put himself out as something which he was not—a German enemy. In other words, the Bill does not give that coverage. I feel certain that the noble and learned Lord will agree that this is something which he should look into. I hope I have made my point clear. It may be that someone in this country whom the Bill seeks to cover can be liable to action because he has taken a non-German enemy to be a German enemy and, under this clause, a German enemy covenantee. Would the noble Lord look into that point between now and the next stage of the Bill?
LORD MANCROFT: I must confess that I lost track of the noble Lord's argument half way through. No doubt that was my fault and not his. I will look at the noble Lord's point and if there is anything in it it shall be met, if possible, or at least an adequate answer shall be given to him. I am afraid that at the moment an answer cannot come from me.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Property allocated by way of reparation from Germany
For the purposes of this section a certificate issued by or on behalf of the Minister or Board in charge of a Government department (in this subsection referred to as "the certifying department") with respect to any property specified in the certificate, being property which at the date of issue of the certificate is in the possession of the certifying department or has before that date been disposed of by that department, stating that the property was allocated to His late Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on a date so specified, with or without the further statement either that the property was at the
1116
date of allocation thereof in the possession of the certifying department or that the property came into the possession of that department on a date so specified in consequence of its having been so allocated, shall in any proceedings be sufficient evidence of the facts so stated except to any extent to which the certificate is shown to be incorrect.
(6) This section applies to the following descriptions of property, that is to say,—

(a) plant, equipment, ships, aircraft and other chattels; and

(b) currency (in the form of notes or coins) of any of the following countries, namely, Sweden, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey and Spain.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This is just another of the "certificate" Amendments. If the noble and learned Lord will again give me the assurance that he is satisfied with this subsection, on the same grounds as before, I will not press the Amendment. In the meantime, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 31, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a very strong case for a provision of this kind. The clause, as a whole, deals with property which has been allocated from Germany by the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency. It is therefore necessary, before any property can be brought within the scope of the clause, to prove that it was allocated by I.A.R.A. on a particular date and to a particular Government. Without a provision of this kind there would be considerable difficulty. This is not a case where a certificate is made conclusive. I can certainly give the noble Lord the assurance for which he has asked.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of the noble and learned Lord's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given Notice of an Amendment, in subsection (6), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: Since I put this Amendment down I think I have stumbled upon the answer. Am I right in saying that the currencies of Sweden, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey and Spain

1117
are mentioned in this subsection only because they were neutral countries? I do not propose to move the Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is correct in his assumption—with the exception, of course, of Turkey, which did come into the war at the end. I will not weary noble Lords by explaining the point further.
LORD HAWKE: Can the noble Lord tell us why other currencies, such as American currencies, are not specified? There is a lot of American currency on the Continent. I wonder why that has not been specified.
LORD MANCROFT: These are currencies which have been treated by the Allied High Commission as German external assets, and have been made available as reparation in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Clause 10 applies to property allocated by the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency to any Allied Government. May I ask the noble Lord whether there is corresponding legislation in other countries to cover this point? Does this apply to property allocated to this country only? What happens to property allocated to an Allied Government which sold that property so that it has now found its way to this country? Is that point covered?
LORD MANCROFT: So far as this Bill goes, it applies only to property allocated to His late Majesty's Government. The case which the noble Lord has mentioned raises quite a different point, and one which is certainly not covered by this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I want to be clear on this matter. German property can find its way into this country via an Allied country. That is not provided for in this Bill. Has the noble Lord considered whether any hardship would be caused in this way?
LORD MANCROFT: I have not considered that case at all. It has not arisen so far, but I certainly will consider it. It is not covered by the Bill.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Other property seized from Germany
(2) For the purposes of this section a certificate issued by or on behalf of the Minister or Board in charge of a Government department with respect to any property specified in the certificate, being property which at the date of issue of the certificate is in the possession of that department or has before that date been disposed of by that department, stating that the property was on a date so specified imported into the United Kingdom by or under the authority of that department as property seized from Germany, shall in any proceedings be sufficient evidence of the facts so stated except to any extent to which the certificate is shown to he incorrect.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (1), after "property" (where that word first occurs), to insert:
"of any description to which the last foregoing section does not apply, and as regards property of any description to which that section does apply but."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next go together. They are designed to remove a doubt which has arisen since Second Reading. The expression "property" is defined in Clause 15 (1) as haying a very wide meaning except where the context otherwise requires. In Clause 10, however, the word "property" has a restricted meaning, and as Clause 11 is in a sense tied up with Clause 10, a doubt has been expressed whether it has a similar restricted meaning in this case. The Amendment makes clear that it has not, and that the clause covers all property as widely defined, provided, of course, that it has not been allocated by I.A.R.A. I think that point is clear, but it is as well to put it in the Bill to make it absolutely clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 29, after ("property") insert the said words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 30, leave out ("the last fore going section but") and insert ("that section, being in either case property which").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is the

1119
last of these certificate Amendments. If the noble Lord again will give me an assurance upon this, I will withdraw the Amendment, but in the meantime I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can give the noble Lord the same assurance. This is precisely the same point, and here also the evidence is not made conclusive but only prima facia.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is required because, with the lapse of time and the destruction of records, it is not always possible for Government Departments to be certain now of the exact dates on which particular property was imported into the United Kingdom by or under their authority as property seized from Germany. Sometimes only the approximate date is known while in other cases not even this is recorded and all that can be said is that the property was imported before a terminal date. The effect of the Amendment is that where the exact date of importation cannot be stated it will suffice to state two dates between which importation is known to have taken place. These dates, of course, will have to be after September 3, 1939, and before the date of the passing of this Bill, if the benefit of this clause is to be obtained. I think this Amendment is uncontroversial, and I hope your Lordships will agree to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7, after ("specified") insert ("or at a time between dates so specified").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The object of this Amendment is to provide a ready means of proving a negative. Where a particular item of property—a machine tool, for example—of a description to which the former Clause 10 applies, was taken out of Germany without being allocated by I.A.R.A., it will be necessary to establish the fact of non-allocation if the benefit of Clause 11 is to be obtained. The easiest way of doing this is by providing that the certificate to be given by
1120
the Department may state that the property has not been allocated. Such a statement would he made on the basis of the I.A.R.A. allocations, which will be in the possession of Departments. I think that is a reasonable administrative procedure. I do not think it involves any point of controversy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 9, after ("Germany") insert ("with or without the further statement that the property has not been allocated as mentioned in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Again I am a seeker after information. This clause deals with other property seized from Germany. The property can be seized from Germany under the authority of a Government Department even after the war, and even though it was done wrongfully. Surely the umbrella is very wide here. I should like to ask why the coverage terminates "at any time after the third of September, 1939, and before the passing of this Act." Surely, as this clause is drafted, the property seized from Germany does not even have to be German property—it could be American or any other property, because the clause says: "property seized from Germany." If my interpretation is right, surely the Government do not want to cover that kind of thing. Perhaps it is a slip. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that, as the Bill is drafted, the property need not be German enemy property it has only to be "seized in Germany." Will the noble Lord look into that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord has put his finger upon a point. This refers to property which has been seized. I do not know whether the noble Lord has in mind any case or example of any property which was not German property that was seized "by or under the authority of a Government Department." We have not heard of any such case, and I do not know whether the noble Lord has; but we will look into this and, if necessary, in order to make the matter quite clear, we will take the necessary steps. I think the noble Lord, with his eagle eye, has spotted what may be a flaw, though I do not think it is a practical one.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not had the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and myself. Some weird and wonderful things have found their way out of Germany. I should not like to say, in the strict letter of the law as the noble Lord would regard it, that this was done in any instance with the connivance, consent or under the authority of a Government Department, but it is a loose term and that sort of thing has been going on since the war ended. I think this clause is loosely worded, and that the noble and learned Lord will feel that, as we are dealing with enemy property, we had better make sure it is enemy property. I thank the noble and learned Lord for the assurance he has given to look into the point.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Meaning of "German enemy" and "German enemy interest"]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg to move this Amendment. Again I think the scope of the Bill is a little wide here, and far wider than the Government intend. The words used in subsection (1) are:
"… and the expression 'German enemy interest,' in relation to any time within the war period, means an interest then belonging to, or held on behalf of, a German enemy"—
then come the words which I seek to strike out—
"or belonging to, or held on behalf of, two or more persons of whom any one was then a German enemy."
If a Britisher, or two Britishers, or three Britishers, or twenty Britishers were in partnership with one German enemy, they lose their property. Surely, the Government do not mean that, but that is how I read this. If I am wrong, what is the reason for including the words which I seek to omit? Surely, that would cause considerable hardship to a legitimate British interest. Perhaps I am wrong in my reading of and if so, no doubt I shall be told. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 34, leave out from ("enemy") to end of line 36.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
5.22 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I can quite see the noble Lord's difficulty—this is not an easy matter—but I think I can satisfy him. It is directed largely to the patents
1122
and copyrights we have just been discussing. I will put it this way. Supposing that one of two or more co-owners of an interest was at any time within the war period a German enemy, as defined, the effect of the definition in the Bill is that all the co-owners are disqualified from claiming in respect of that interest. If a United Kingdom patent were owned jointly by two companies, one incorporated in Germany and the other in South America, a British manufacturer who had infringed the patent during the war period would therefore be protected against an action, whether the German brought it directly or indirectly through the South American company.
This line has been taken advisedly, arid the point of view which the noble Lord has put forward has been considered. British manufacturers may well have infringed patents which were owned jointly by German enemies and others during the war period in the bona fide belief that no licence was required. Indeed, the difficulty of deciding, without litigation, whether a patent has been infringed is one of the main reasons for Clause 7 of the Bill. If it has been, they should not be exposed to the risk of a claim being made simply because a particular patent was jointly owned by a German and a non-German. The Amendment the noble Lord has down would expose them to this risk, if the Amendment were carried, although I appreciate that it is largely a probing Amendment. The practical effect of accepting it would be that in cases of interest owned jointly the Bill would apply only where all the owners were German.
There is another point to be borne in mind. A claim made by a German partnership, of which only one of the partners is a German enemy, as defined, could, as the Bill stands, be resisted on two grounds. First, it could be said to be a claim made in right of an interest belonging to a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, being a body incorporated or constituted in or under the laws of Germany. If this could not be maintained because a partnership was held not to be a body of persons, it could, secondly, be held to be a claim made in respect of an interest belonging to two ormore persons of whom any one was a German enemy. If, however, the Amendment were accepted, this second line of defence would no longer exist. Let

1123
me give an example, which I think will show what I am trying to get at: a patent owned jointly by, say, the German who invented it and the Englishman who exploited—it I think that is a good example of an interest belonging to, or held on behalf of, two or more persons, of whom one was a German enemy. What we do not want to do is to allow a German to use a neutral or a non-German partner, or fellow business associate, as a catspaw to get for him rights or privileges which he could not himself get purely in his capacity as a German. I appreciate the difficulty the noble Lord has in mind, but I think it is more apparent than real, and that no great hardship, as he envisages, could or would arise out of the Bill as it now stands. I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD SILKIN: The answer of the noble Lord is, of course, a partial answer, and, in so far as we are dealing with patents, I think it is a good answer. But this part of the Bill goes much wider than patents—it deals with many more subjects. While it may be perfectly valid when we deal with patents, it seems to me that it can operate harshly where the interest concerned is largely British, or largely neutral, and only to a small extent German. Therefore, I would respectfully suggest that this is a case where this definition might be looked at again. I personally should be perfectly prepared to give the noble Lord his case on patents, because I can see the difficulty; but as regards the other property, I think it is well worthy of consideration to see whether we cannot deal with it on the basis of "a substantial interest," or some thing of that sort.
LORD MANCROFT: Of course, I will look at it if the noble Lord still feels worried. I must confess that I was directing my argument largely towards patents, because that is what we were discussing previously. I can see the point that any matter other than patents requires a little more careful investigation, and I will certainly look into it to see if we can meet the noble Lord in some way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: While I appreciate that the noble Lord's argument was conclusive for 50 per cent.,
1124
it was not for the other 50 per cent. Perhaps we can discuss this. On that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question: Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is where we come to the other definition of "German enemy." When it comes to patents and copyright I do not think I have a great deal to quarrel about, although I do not really like it. The clause refers to a "German enemy" as:

"(a) the German State;

(b) an individual being a German national—

(i) resident in Germany or in enemy territory other than Germany …"

That, again, is all-embracing. I will content myself by asking the noble Lord to look at this, as he has promised to look into the other definition of "German enemy." I do not think we need have a long debate on this. I am conscious of the difficulties of the noble Lord—I think really I am being far too kind to him. If he will undertake to look into this point, subject to anything any of my noble friends may have to say I am prepared to leave it at that.
LORD MANCROFT: I will certainly look into it, without making any further promise.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Interpretation of Part II
13.
(2) In relation to an interest which at a time relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Part of this Act was a German enemy interest, references in that provision to a person claiming in right of that interest include references to a person claiming in right of any interest created immediately or derivatively out of that interest, whether before or after the passing of this Act, except any interest so created—

(a) before the beginning of the war period, or

(b) before the earliest time within that period at which that interest was a German enemy interest.

(3) Where any provision of this Part of this Act has effect in relation to an interest as being an interest properly treated as a German enemy interest as therein mentioned, the last

1125
foregoing subsection shall apply for the purposes of that provision in relation to that interest, but shall so apply as if paragraph (b) of that subsection had been omitted.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment, again, is only to ask the noble Lord: Did the war end on July 9, 1951? Subsection (1) says:
"'The war period' means the period beginning with the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine and ending with the ninth day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one."
My only reason for putting down this Amendment is to question the date. I expect the noble Lord has a good reason for it, but I should like to hear it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 6, leave out from ("the") to end of line 7.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: July 9, 1951, was the date on which the state of war with Germany was formally terminated, and therefore the period in question, September 3, 1939 to July 9, 1951 is the period that would normally be covered by a waiver of claims in a peace treaty.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. If I had consulted my noble friend Lord Henderson, no doubt he could have told me, but I omitted to do that. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment was put down in order to get some explanation of this subsection. I do not know what its effect is. Can the noble Lord tell me why it provides that paragraph (b) of subsection (2) shall be omitted? I cannot read it intelligently. I expect that is my fault and that there is a very simple explanation, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell me why paragraph (b) is omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 18, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: I will try to fulfil the noble Lord's request, but I will not guarantee any success, because this, again, is a particularly complicated clause. I think one of the best explanations I can give is by referring to the preceding subsection—subsection (2). The object of
1126
subsection (2) is to ensure that in seeking power to bar proceedings by a person claiming in right of a German enemy interest, proceedings by a person claiming in right of an interest derived out of the German enemy interest are also barred. The justification for so doing is that anyone who after the war acquired an interest which was created out of the interest of a German must be presumed to have known that he was engaging in a transaction in respect of which claims for loss or damage might be barred by Allied legislation if Germany lost the war. There could be no justification, however, for making this presumption about persons who acquired interests from Germans before the beginning of the war, or about persons who acquired interests after the beginning of the war at a lime when the superior interest was not German-owned, though it subsequently became so. Hence, the two exceptions to the subsection.
Subsection (3) then applies the principle of subsection (2) to persons claiming for infringement of copyright in right of an interest derived out of an interest which was properly treated for the purposes of Clause 6 of the Bill as a German enemy interest. It is impossible to apply the test of the earliest date on which an interest became a German enemy interest in a case when ex-hypothesi the interest never was a German enemy interest, and the subsection accordingly provides that paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection is not to apply in this case. Subsection (2) of Clause 13 refers to interests created immediately or derivatively out of a German enemy interest. An example of the former would be a charge—for example a mortgage or a lien created by way of security on a German-owned patent. An example of the latter would be a sub-licence granted by a licensee of a German-owned patent. Let me give a further example. Supposing a German, A, grants a mortgage in favour of B. Normally the effect is that such action—not only the claim of A but also the claim of B—is affected if the mortgage was created after the beginning of the war period or after the date upon which A became an enemy or derived his title from some non-enemy. This is complicated, I agree, but I have been through it very carefully and checked it in order to make certain that no injustice is being

1127
created. I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord, but even if he has not been able to follow this complicated explanation he will agree that this is a fair and just provision and one that should be allowed to stand.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for going to so much trouble. I am not saying that I see the point, but at least I think I have some slight glimmering. I will study what the noble Lord says in consultation with my advisers; and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 14 to insert the following new clause:
Cessation of enforcement of charges under the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919
". No charge imposed or purported or sought to he imposed by the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, or any order made thereunder upon any property rights or interests belonging to persons who were at the date of any such Act or order or had at any time previously since the 4th August, 1914, been German nationals shall after the commencement of this Act he enforced or have any effect."
The noble Lord said: I should like to deal now with Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 standing in my name on the Paper. The reason may appear to some of your Lordships somewhat unusual. It is this. When I had the honour of being a member of His late Majesty's Government and sat on the other side of the House I was responsible for piloting through this House a Distribution of German Enemy Property Bill—which, again, was a somewhat complicated Bill, though I do not think it was so complicated as this one. During the passage of that Bill through the House the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, moved an Amendment to it, to insert a new clause to the following effect:
"That the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, is hereby repealed and any Order-in-Council made under it is cancelled, and no charge imposed or purported or sought to be imposed by the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, or by any Order made thereunder upon any property rights or interests belonging to German nationals within the meaning of such an Act or Order and not already enforced shall, after the commencement of this Act, be enforced or have any effect."
My reply, on behalf of His late Majesty's Government—I need hardly say, on instructions—was to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his Amendment and to point out to him that I thought it went further than even he intended; but I undertook to have the matter re-examined by the Department concerned, and by the Law Officers of the Crown and other interested parties. We acknowledged that there was a grievance—or an injustice: perhaps that is the better term to use—which we sought to remove, and said that we would proceed with the consideration as soon as we possibly could. Lord Simon, on that assurance, withdrew his Amendment. Now, it was considered by the Law Officers of the Crown, who immediately got into some difficulties—I think I am right in saying this—that never, throughout the consideration of this matter, was it denied that under the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, hardship could be caused. But there was a substantial difference of opinion as to the way it should be overcome. In the middle of these consultations the Government changed. I believe that the existing Law Officers of the Crown have had this matter under active consideration and—again I can only speak from what I have been told—that they have come to the same conclusions as the previous Law Officers.
It was said that the matter might be dealt with when legislation dealing with Germany enemy property was before Parliament, but as no public pronouncement has been made about this matter and my undertaking still stands upon the records of your Lordships' House, I felt some responsibility. Therefore I thought it might be in the public interest, if this Bill was going to rectify and could rectify this unfortunate injustice, that I should obtain advice as to the right way to do it. I was advised that the Amendments that have been put on the Order Paper are the right Amendments to make. I am also advised that the long title to the Bill might have to receive some slight amendment.
I am not going to argue the merits of the Amendments because—I again fall back on my stock excuse—I am not a lawyer. However, I thought it proper, and in the public interest, to give Her Majesty's Government the opportunity of making an authoritative statement, so that the matter could be settled. I expect—indeed I hope

1129
—that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will think fit to express an opinion. He can state the law far better than I can. So, having explained to your Lordships the reason why these Amendments are on the Order Paper—perhaps it is to vindicate my personal honour, if that is not putting it too high—I will now move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has explained his concern with this matter, and it does no doubt arise because of a statement which he made when he represented the Board of Trade in the last Government and when I moved the Amendment to which he has referred. But I should explain that I moved that Amendment because my attention was called to what appeared to be an injustice, certainly a very unfortunate result arising from a will. The will in question was the will of Sir Ernest Schiff, who died in November, 1918, just when the first war was closing. He had the shrewd idea that there might be legislation in this country which would affect the rights of the beneficiaries under his will to enjoy his bequests. Therefore, in his will he made a curious provision which, as it turns out, does not confer the benefit upon a particular beneficiary which he no doubt intended, but would have that effect if the noble Lord's Amendment were adopted.
I will just read the clause in the will. It states:
"If, as a result of legislation in Great Britain owing to the present war"—
it was just before the end of the First World War—
"any of the beneficiaries under this my Will who are German subjects are precluded from taking such interests as I have by this my Will bequeathed to or for their benefit, then I direct that the interests which they would, but for such legislation, have been entitled to take shall be held by my Trustees upon trust to pay the income if such interests consist of income and the income of the capital of such interests if the same consists of capital to my said nephews and nieces who are not German subjects in equal shares until such time as the said beneficiaries who are German subjects are able by reason of any further legislation to take their interests under this my Will."
This was a very ingeniously drawn clause, and the effect of it was that other persons, not the beneficiaries whom he intended to
1130
benefit, got the advantage of the provisions of his will so long as there was legislation in Great Brtitain by which the beneficiaries who were German subjects were precluded from taking their interests.
I believe the gentleman who was concerned in this matter was Mr. Noehring, who was a German subject on January 10, 1920, when the Peace Treaty came into force. The contention was raised on his behalf in the Court of Chancery many years afterwards, in 1948, that really the condition in this clause was satisfied and that the time had arrived when
"the beneficiaries who are German subjects"—
which is what at the, time Mr. Noehring was—
"are able by reason of any further legislation to take their interests under this my Will"
What was relied upon to establish that was that there was entered into in the year 1929 what was called the London Agreement, and the London Agreement—I have a copy in my hand—was an Agreement made between His Majesty's Government and the German Government which brought an end to the charges which the Custodian had over German property so far as that property was not already liquidated and disposed of.
The interest which Mr. Noehring was given under this will was held under this charge by the Custodian, and the contention in the Chancery Court was, "That is now got rid of, because of this Agreement." The learned judge before whom the case came said, in his judgment:
"It would seem that the aim and object of Clause 23 in providing for the restoration of German subjects' rights has been substantially achieved as from that date. I have now, however, to consider whether it was achieved by reason of any further legislation."
That was the condition contained in the clause.
"To that question I feel myself compelled with some reluctance to give a negative answer."
Of course, the decision was quite right because the fact that we made an Agreement with Germany, ratified the Agreement and accepted it, is not the same thing as legislation. What was intended was legislation which put an end to the operation of the Treaty of Peace Order after the First World War, and not merely an Agreement of a diplomatic character with the German Government.

1131
That was why I put down my Amendment and why I have no doubt I got the highly favourable and encouraging answer from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, speaking for the then Government, who expressed the thanks of the Department for my having called attention to this matter. He described it as an injustice which ought to be remedied and, as I understood it, said that the Department would undertake to remedy it. It is no fault of his that that was not done, because the Government for which he spoke did not continue in power.
But here we have a new Trading with the Enemy Act. The clause which is now being moved would have the effect which Mr. Justice Vaisey regretted he could not say had been produced by entering into this diplomatic agreement with Germany. I therefore support what the noble Lord has said, because it seems to me that, it being admitted that it really is unjust that this property should still be under this ban, it is eminently fair and right that we should say, "It is true that this will be required as a condition that there should be further legislation which would remove the charge. There has not been further legislation; there has been only an international Agreement made and ratified. But here is the opportunity of carrying the thing through by means of further legislation." If this clause is included in the Bill, it will not operate to affect the previous situation, except in this sense: that it will produce the desired result by legislation and not merely by an international Agreement which has been ratified and which is accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
It seems to me very hard indeed that a man who is a beneficiary under a will, be he a German or be he not a German, should be told, no doubt quite rightly, by our courts that he is not entitled to claim this benefaction, the proceeds of this legacy, because there has been no further legislation to remove the charge which the Custodian had under the original Treaty of Peace. It seems very odd that in the year 1953 we should be discussing this, because we are here referring, not to the results of the last war but to the results of the war before. I quite understand a possible objection to this Amendment being "It is outside the scope of the Bill, because this Bill
1132
deals only with the charges that were created after the Second World War." But we cannot proceed in this purely technical atmosphere. The subject is difficult enough anyhow, but if it be the case that there is somebody living now who finds he cannot get the benefit which he was plainly entitled to get under this gentleman's will, because it can be truly said there has been no further legislation, then let us make the further legislation, and thereby give him his rights which he obviously was intended to have. Then everybody, I hope, will be satisfied.
There is an alternative relief which is suggested. It is said, "This is a subject for Private Bill legislation. You should promote a Private Bill and, if you do, it will not be opposed"—at least, so I understand. It is a perfectly idle offer. At this period of the Session, it is impossible to carry through both Houses a Private Bill of this sort. Here is an opportunity of doing what is the fair thing in an Act of Parliament dealing with this particular subject. It does not alarm me to be told that it would require alteration of the Long Title of the Bill. Well, alter it. It is quite simple, and if that is done, then it seems to me we shall be dealing fairly with this gentleman. I know nothing about him. I have no interest whatever in the matter, except that my attention was called to it, and I thought it right in the time of the last Government to put down my Amendment. I then received from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a very encouraging reply, in which he admitted that there was a case here to be met, and assured me that steps would be taken to meet it. I am not in the least reproaching the noble Lord that it was not done, but I do say that Parliament, having those assurances before them, ought to see to it that this is now done by the Amendment which the noble Lord very properly and honourably moved.
5.56 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is not an Amendment which Her Majesty's Government can accept. The noble and learned Viscount, in the manner of the great advocate that he was and is, has referred to the fact that it is entirely outside the scope of the present Bill. He said, in effect, that that does not matter:—"Alter the Title to meet it." But surely it is a relevant consideration that what is

1133
now proposed is something absolutely alien to the purpose of the present Bill. We are dealing with indemnity for acts done in the course of the war of 1939 to 1951, when it came to an end. What the noble Lord seeks to do by this Amendment is to introduce, in effect, a repeal of the legislation giving effect to the Treaty of Peace of Versailles. This is something so utterly alien to the purpose of this Bill that I am rather astonished that the noble Lord has the hardihood to seek to introduce it.
Nothing could exceed the candour of the way in which this Amendment has been introduced, but the Amendment itself is not really a very candid Amendment for under cover of a general release of property, the single aim of it is to remedy what is alleged—and I say "alleged"—to be an injustice to a particular individual. Have your Lordships looked, I wonder, at the terms of this Amendment which is proposed? I will read it:
"No charge imposed or purported or sought to he imposed by the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, or any order made thereunder upon any property rights or interests belonging to persons who were at the date of any such Act or order or had at any time previously since the 4th August, 1914, been German nationals shall after the commencement of this Act be enforced or have any effect."
Anybody reading that would suppose that there was a substantial class of persons in regard to whom public policy demanded that those charges imposed by the Treaty of Peace should be released. No case is made for that at all. All we are told is that there is a particular person who, by reason of the terms of a particular will, has suffered, it is said, some injustice. But, in fact, the charges imposed by the Treaty of Peace of 1919 have not been exhausted. Although the charge dates, I should say, now from 1920, all the known property which is still subject to it has not yet been collected and realised, and this process cannot be completed until certain reversionary interests fall in. The repeal of this charge under the old Peace Treaty which is still extant is to be effected, according to this Amendment, without any argument at all, except that a particular person has suffered an injustice.
Now I have been trained in the belief that one should not assert, still less decide, that a particular person has suffered an injustice until one hears the
1134
other side; and in this case this particular gentleman alleges that legislation should be passed in his favour, which will have the effect of depriving other beneficiaries under the will of Sir Ernest Schiff of income which they, under his will, are at present enjoying. There may be very good reasons which they can adduce why such legislation should not be passed, as a matter of general policy, to give particular relief to him. And who is there to speak for them? We hear of an injustice. Are they suffering from an injustice? Perhaps theyare—I do not know. But I venture to think that it would he entirely wrong for this House under the colour of a general provision in favour of which no argument has been adduced, to give relief to a particular person at the expense of other particular persons whose plea your Lordships have not heard. That would be the result of passing such legislation as this.
I fully sympathise with the position of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The words that he used on the earlier occasion—and I cannot but think that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon must hake been surprised and gratified at the sympathy which he gained—were that the Law Officers of the Crown and other interested parties would look into this matter, and that it would be thoroughly studied with a view to proceeding somewhat upon the lines which the noble and learned Viscount wished. Well, it was looked into, and I understand that as a result of its being examined, by both the Ministers and the Law Officers of the last Government, it was said that the Government would not introduce legislation but, subject to certain necessary safeguards, they would not themselves oppose the introduction of a Private Bill, and if there were such a Private Bill, the other private persons interested in the income of this property would have an opportunity of appearing and presenting their views to the Committee of the House. Nobody will suggest that the noble Lord has in any way failed in any undertaking that he gave. He suggested that some attack might be made upon his honour. I am sure nobody would dream of doing anything of that kind. He has done everything that he could, and my only criticism, if I ventured upon one, would be that he went rather further than he might in his answer to the noble Viscount.

1135
But I suggest that it would be utterly wrong to introduce an Amendment of this kind into this Bill in general terms affecting many people, for the only purpose of remedying a supposed injustice to a particular person and at the risk of doing substantial injustice to other persons who are at present enjoying the income which he seeks to enjoy. Accordingly, although having some sympathy with this gentleman, I cannot possibly advise that this Amendment should be accepted.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, for explaining the point of view which he has just expounded. I shall not seek to argue with him, but I would just invite the Committee to consider these two further facts. When I introduced my proposal I said that my attention had been called to a decision of the Chancery Judge, the effect of which was to deprive this gentleman of his property on the ground that there was, as yet, no legislation which satisfied the terms of the will—because it was not by reason of any further legislation that the charge disappeared, but because there had been an Agreement, which I have here. The London Agreement binding the Government, was made on December 28, 1929, and was ratified on May 8, 1930; and it contains the proviso that the Government of the United Kingdom will
"release and where necessary re-transfer to the original German owners, or to the persons deriving title through them, the property rights and interests originally belonging to them and now subject to the charge created in pursuance of the Treaty of Versailles in so far as such property rights and interests shall not be already liquid or liquidated or finally disposed of …"
That Agreement bound His Majesty's Government and their successors and was, in itself, a removal of the clog on this gentleman's claim. He therefore, very naturally, thought that he would now be entitled to enjoy this property. But the answer was: "No, you are not entitled to enjoy it, as the Chancery Court have decided" (I have no doubt rightly), "that the release of your property has not been secured by reason of any further legislation."
I will not comment on that distinction, which is a genuine one, and on which I
1136
think the Chancery Judge was quite right in insisting; but it is not surprising that the gentleman then looks to us in a legislative capacity to make good that which His Majesty's Government have already promised and, indeed, done in their diplomatic capacity. That was the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, used the language which he did. Having called attention to this particular case, I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 165, Col. 1490), that he assured me that his reply was going to be even more satisfactory than I could ever hope for. My noble friend went on to say:
"We are going to express to the noble and learned Viscount our grateful thanks for having drawn attention to something that does need rectifying."
That is the statement made by the Government of the day, and now I seek to support the proposal to rectify it. I admit the observation that it is seeking something for the sake of one individual, and that it would not therefore be appropriate to a Bill of this sort, which deals with the results of the Second World War. I should have thought, however, that it was possible to take the view that in this matter we really must make assurances good. We must really see to it that somebody who has asked for an assurance and has been given it, finds that assurance is satisfied.
It is quite true that you should not decide in favour of one man if other people with opposing interests would be injured but the London Treaty has removed anything of that sort. The rivals to this gentleman who are suggested to have a conflicting interest cannot have an interest because there is a Treaty which has put an end to the charges so far as not yet carried out under the Treaty of Peace. For those reasons, I should have thought that there was a great deal to be said, in common sense and in common justice, for including a clause such as Lord Lucas has proposed. I hope the Committee will excuse me for emphasising those two considerations, because I feel, as I am sure the Committee do, more concerned to see that Parliament does what is fair and right in things of this sort than that we should reject such proposals on what are perfectly good grounds in themselves, but are not necessarily the grounds which should move us in endeavouring to deal with a man who is suffering from a grievance.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am puzzled by this case. If I correctly understood the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, one of his arguments was that there would be a number of other cases which would be affected if this Amendment were carried. But if I understood the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, aright, in fact all the other cases have been dealt with by the Treaty between this country and Germany, and it would seem that there is only this one isolated case remaining. If it is true that there is only this one isolated case, and it exists by the chance that it was not necessary to have any legislation in order to implement the Agreement of 1928, surely there is a case for accepting either this or some other Amendment which will have legislative effect and will enable the bequest to be carried out.
THE LORDCHANCELLOR: I have made further inquiries, and I have explicit information that although the charge dates from 1920, all the property known to be still subject to it has not yet been collected and realised; that this process cannot be completed until certain reversionary interests fall in, and that the repeal of the charge before this stage has been reached would represent a loss to the Exchequer. It is clear that a number of persons will be affected, and that this provision will cover them, although no word of argument has been said in favour of it. If it is intended to deal with the case of this gentleman only, why not have it in the Bill? Why not put it in the Bill that Mr. Noehring—if that is his name—shall have his property released from the charge? I do not think anyone would venture to do it.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I venture to intervene for a moment? This is not, of course, a matter on which I am going to get heated. But surely the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, cannot have examined the London Agreement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have read the London Agreement over and over again.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I be permitted to read again just one sentence from Article I?
"The Government of the United Kingdom will … release and where necessary re-
1138
transfer to the original German owners, or to the persons deriving title through them, the property rights and interests originally belonging to them and now subject to the charge created in pursuance of the Treaty of Versailles in so far as such property rights and interests shall not be already liquid or liquidated or finally disposed of, on the date on which this Agreement comes into force."
There cannot be any question of applying the Order to release German property which was affected at the end of the First World War now, because if it is property in that position it is not property which is already liquidated. Therefore this is really, as my noble friend opposite said, a case which can be met by general legislation, though it will operate only in a particular case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If that were the case, it would be much better to put it in that form. I have made further inquiries, and I know that there has been a great deal of discussion between the two Governments as to the effect of the words "liquid" and "liquidated." It is the fact—I assure your Lordships of this, for I have made inquiries from the Department concerned—that there is a quantity of property still subject to the charge which has not been collected or realised. Whether it is "liquid" or "liquidated" is another matter. But that is the fact. And it is also the fact that this Amendment, if accepted, will affect a number of persons with regard to whose cases no argument has been heard. I can only tell your Lordships this upon information from the Department which is officially concerned—and indeed I know it to be so. The answer I think is that after the London Agreement of 1929, speaking from a rather dim memory (I had a good deal to do with this branch of the law at the time, as the noble Lord will remember), my recollection is that there was a good deal of discussion as to the meaning of the words "liquid" and "liquidated" after that Agreement had been signed. I feel your Lordships should hesitate extremely to come to any conclusion upon this matter upon any other assumption than that the authoritative information which I have is correct, and that this clause in its terms will cover—I will not say a great number for I do not want to use a big expression—a number of cases. Play I, with great respect, ask the noble Lord responsible

1139
for the Amendment, if he really aims only at doing justice to a particular gentleman, why not let the Amendment deal with that particular gentleman?
VISCOUNT SIMON: Would not that make this a somewhat hybrid Bill? I think if anyone put forward an Amendment which was manifestly designed to release one gentleman, the answer which the authorities who advise the Lord Chancellor would give would be, "This makes the Bill a hybrid Bill."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Viscount may be right about that, but it could not really make it a more curious Bill than this Amendment would, for it would then deal with two wholly different subjects. As I have said, whether or not the Attorney-General has given an undertaking, I am not sure, but as I understand it, his present idea is that if a Private Bill were put forward he would not oppose it on behalf of the Government. It might, of course, be opposed on behalf of the other beneficiaries, but that is another matter. In view of all these considerations I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What I was seeking to do was not for the particular benefit of any particular individual. I was seeking to obtain from Her Majesty's Government the statement which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, made at the end of his first speech. I wanted those matters made public. I wanted publicity given to the reasons why the Government of the country had not done anything. On the statement I made the Government undertook to do something. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will not mind my saying this. I think he was rather hard upon me in implying that this was hardly a straightforward Amendment. This Amendment was drawn up by one of the most eminent firms of solicitors in London, and it was designed only to serve that one particular purpose. I told Her Majesty's Government, I told the Lord Chancellor himself, and I told the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that I was going to move this Amendment. I explained the purpose I had in moving it. I explained all that
1140
I wanted to do. Whether the Amendment would confer benefits on a single person or on 60,000 people is no concern of mine.
There is another thing which I think I must correct. The noble Lord said that perhaps when I gave this undertaking I went too far. The noble Lord and all your Lordships know that, perhaps with the possible exception of the reigning Lord Chancellor, anyone has to take instructions from the Law Officers of the Crown upon these very highly technical legal points. I can assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I did not say anything except that which I was instructed to say, though I wrapped it up in a very nice way because I wanted to succeed in doing the one thing in which I was, in fact, successful in doing—that was to get the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, at that time to withdraw his Amendment. If that does not appeal to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, as a lawyer, it will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, as a politician. The matter has now been settled so far as I am concerned. I should never dream of expressing an opinion as between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I feel it is hard that the noble Lord should say that he is surprised I had the hardihood to put down this Amendment. I now have the hardihood to withdraw it. I hope that the flurry that has gone round my head will be beneficial to the general public. No doubt it will remain food for the legal profession for many years to come. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
6.21 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 15 to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) Nothing in this Act shall so operate as to defeat any claim by any person who during the period from the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine until the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-five was, on the ground of his or her race, religion, ideology or political conviction deprived of, or restricted in regard to, his or her liberty, or injured in respect of life and health.
(2) This Act shall not apply if the effect of its application would be that a person who did not at any time between the third day of

1141
September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine until the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-five possess the nationality of a state at war with His late Majesty's Government and who is at the time of the date of this Act a national of a foreign state which was not at any time during the aforesaid period at war with His late Majesty's Government would thereby be deprived of any property, asset, title, right or other interest without receiving full compensation in respect thereof.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall so operate as to defeat any claim against any person who or whose predecessor in title has supplied false information to art authority purporting to act under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, in connection with the payments withholding of payments or other dealings in respect of which the claim but for the operation of this Act would arise."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is an attempt to set right what appeared to me to be injustices which I pointed out when this Bill was being given its Second Reading. I think the points more or less explain themselves and I will not take up a great deal of time by going over them in detail, but there are a few remarks that I think I ought to make. This may appear to be rather a strange part of the Bill in which to insert this new clause. I had some difficulty in deciding where lo put it in, and if the Government feel that they can accept it, or any part of it, I hope they will feel themselves free to put it in a more appropriate part of the Bill if they, with the assistance of the learned draftsman, feel that this is not the right place. There are three different categories of cases dealt with in the proposed Amendment, and it might be thought more convenient if they were dealt with in three separate clauses. Here too, if the Government feel they can accept the Amendment, or one or other of the different parts of it, I shall be glad if they will deal with it in the way they think fit. I do not pretend to be a Parliamentary draftsman, and it may well be that there is something in this Amendment which the Government are prepared to accept but which they would prefer to redraft or put in some other part of the Bill. If so, I should be glad to withdraw it and put it down again in a way which they would indicate as being more appropriate.
The three different classes of case to which the Amendment refers overlap to some extent. The first is an attempt to safeguard the interests of those people who were refugees from Nazi oppression
1142
on grounds of race, religion ideology or political conviction. A great deal of sympathy was expressed during the Second Reading with people who are in this situation, but it was suggested that there had not been claims by such people. I cannot say of my own knowledge that there are people in this position, but I have had the advantage of discussing this matter with an eminent Jewish lawyer who has a considerable practice in international cases of this kind, and he assures me that he knows of a number of cases which fall clearly within this category. I am sure that at this time when the present German Government has been behaving with some degree of liberality towards these people in that country, we do not wish to shut them off here from their just rights. I think I need say no more in support of this part of the Amendment.
The second part should have support not only on the ground of justice but also on the ground of expediency. It refers to cases where the operation of the Bill would result in the -violation of the rule of international law according to which foreigners may not be expropriated without full and effective compensation. Even if the Government are not moved by feelings of justice, I should have thought they would have been moved by feelings of expediency, because at the present time this is a matter of great concern in view of the expropriation of British rights in Persia. This point has played a great part in legislation in connection with the claims of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. This part of the Amendment is designed to preclude the charge in proceedings of that kind that this country does not recognise the existence of that rule. I believe the effect of passing this. Bill in its present state, without some such provision as is suggested in this Amendment, would be disastrous. I hope Her Majesty's Government will be able to see their way, if not to accept the precise words of this subsection, to give an indication that they are prepared to put something down to safeguard this important matter.
Although I have no personal knowledge of any cases of neutrals or of people who have become neutrals during the war or just before the war by leaving Germany and becoming naturalised in other lands, and who are hit by this Bill, I believe

1143
there are quite a number of such cases. There are also, I understand, cases among people who became technically enemies as a result of German armies invading their countries—countries which subsequently became our Allies—which fall within the compass of this part of the Amendment. I believe, for example, that there are a number of Dutch nationals who are very much affected by this Bill. I am sure everybody would feel it wrong if people in that state should find themselves deprived of property rights as the result of this legislation at any rate without being given the right to recover compensation.
The third part of the Amendment is intended to prevent claims from being defeated by the Bill where transfers have resulted from the fact that people have given untrue information to the Custodian and have in that way been able to reap the benefits of the operation of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The cases I have in mind are those where the informants have induced the Custodian to believe a person who was not an enemy to be an enemy, and caused the Board of Trade to make a vesting order, afterwards succeeding in acquiring the property from the Custodian for themselves. I think cases of that kind should be excluded from the operation of this Bill. The Trading with the Enemy Act was not intended to operate to the advantage of persons who, with a view to furthering their own interests, or negligently, supplied false information to the authorities. We should put safeguards in the Bill which would prevent that sort of thing happening. It may well be that there are not a large number of cases of that kind. But there, again, the information which I have, which comes from the same source, is that there are undoubtedly a certain number of cases falling within that category. Therefore, I hope the Government will be able to see their way to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chorley.)
6.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure that everybody has sympathy with what the noble Lord feels and says in this matter, but this Amendment which
1144
he proposes cannot possibly be accepted. I wonder if he appreciates—for he has used a good deal of rather harsh language about the Bill being dishonourable, and so on—the extent of the generosity with which Her Majesty's Government and the late Government have acted in this matter. I should like him to remember, particularly in regard to the Jewish refugees from Nazi tyranny, and others in similar cases, what the Government have done. They have formally agreed to accept a reduction of their share of reparation for the benefit of victims of Nazi persecution and their immediate families and dependants. In the second place, since the cessation of hostilities—and this applied to the late Government even more than to the present Government, because the time was longer and the cases were more numerous—the Board of Trade have administered under discretionary powers a policy of ex gratia release of the money and property of victims of Nazi persecution which has been approved by Ministers of both the last and the present Government. That is something which can be done by way of ex gratia administration but it is perfectly impossible to administer in the courts the sort of provision which the noble Lord proposes.
Let us see what is the task which he would impose upon the courts, as a matter which would have to be subject to legal scrutiny and legal test. Who is it that he wishes to be excluded from the operation of the Bill, when it becomes an Act? It is those who, on account of "race, religion, ideology or political conviction, have been deprived of, or restricted in regard to, their liberty, or injured in respect of life and health." What a task that is to set the courts! And that is the task which the courts would have to perform to determine whether or not such a person was excluded from the operation of this Act. The one person who would clearly get the benefit of it, I suppose, would be the Communist, who, expelled from Nazi Germany, sought refuge from behind what we now call the Iron Curtain. He would be a person, maybe, who suffered as a result of his ideology. He would be a person who would now be entitled to come and say, "I am not touched by this Act. My property has been seized. I claim to have it returned to me." That is the sort of case which might have to be decided in the courts.

1145
This has been administered in a very generous way by Her Majesty's Government, and by His late Majesty's Government; and that is the way, and the only way, in which the matter can be dealt with. The test is so arbitrary that it can he exercised only by means of an executive act. So much for subsection (1) of the new clause proposed by the noble Lord.
Subsection (2) deals with persons
"who did not at any time between the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine until the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-five possess the nationality of a state at war with His late Majesty's Government. …"
I should have thought that a more accurate way of putting it was, "at war with His late Majesty." I do not quite know whom the noble Lord has in mind. There again, there has been a system of administration which has gone as far as possible to mitigate the rigour of the letter of the law in favour of such persons. I am authorised to say this, which may give some comfort to the noble Lord—and I choose my words carefully; they have, indeed, been chosen for me. Unlikely though the need may be, Her Majesty's Government do not wish to rule out the possibility of ex gratia payments of compensation being made exceptionally to British or Allied subjects where serious wrong has been done resulting in grave hardship. Should an exceptional case arise, therefore, in which the provisions of the Bill are found to work harshly and to do injustice, I am authorised to say that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider making an ex gratia payment of compensation, provided, of course, that Parliament agrees to the necessary funds being made available for the purpose. I cannot go further than that. As I say, the present Government and the last Government have exercised a merciful generosity in this matter, and I doubt whether, though the noble Lord purports to speak on behalf of a number of persons, there is, in fact, such a number of persons. If there are cases of hardship, they will be brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government.
The last part of this proposed new clause is one which it is quite impossible to accept. I do not think the noble Lord appreciated—indeed, he could not have done—that the earlier clauses of the Bill would be so amended as expressly to pro-
1146
vide that only the acts of persons acting in good faith would be franked by this Act. If, indeed, There is a person—and I have heard of no suchperson—who has deliberately given false information to the Custodian or to the Board of Trade in order that the property of some person might wrongly be vested in that Custodian or in the Board of Trade, then he will not be saved by the operation of this Act, because he will not have acted in good faith. If, on the other hand, acting in good faith, he has given inaccurate information, with the result that property has been vested in the Board of Trade or in the Custodian which ought not to have been vested, he ought not to suffer for that. It is only if he has acted in ill-faith that he ought to suffer.
We all know what was the position of confusion and doubt in the early days of the war, as to whether property belonged to an enemy or did not belong to an enemy; whether the particular place where the owner of property lived had been overrun by the enemy, and so on. There may well have been mistakes made and false information given to the Custodian or to the Board of Trade. But you must not penalise a man for that. In such cases the property has probably already 'been restored, or the proceeds paid to the proper owner. But no such omnibus clause as this could possibly be accepted; indeed, I do not know how it would work. Therefore, while I hope I have been able to give some comfort to the noble Lord, both in my statement of what has been done and in my undertaking of what we are prepared to do, I cannot go further than that, arid I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the quite sympathetic way in which he has dealt with my Amendment. I cannot agree with him that there is any special difficulty in deciding whether a person is a refugee from Nazi oppression. It was, in fact, done by the tribunals in thousands of cases, and many of those people still have the certificates which were granted to them and which I should have thought we could have used. However, I will not pursue that.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having given me an assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government

1147
that an ex gratia payment may be made in appropriate cases. I feel that that is quite an important concession—I will not say to have wrung from the Government, but for the Government to have made. But I felt that it was rather tied up in an unnecessarily strict way. I realise that in financial promises one has to be very careful, and I assure the noble Lord that I am grateful for what he has said. I shall look at his statement very carefully. It has struck me that it might have been a better way of dealing with this problem for me to have put down an Amendment providing that in cases where people were penalised as a result of this Bill some provision should be made for their compensation. It is one of our cardinal doctrines in this country that where people have their property taken from them they should receive compensation. Certainly, that is a policy which noble Lords on the opposite side of this House have advocated time after time. But it may well be that in cases of this kind it is more satisfactory, provided generosity can be shown, to deal with the matter by way of ex gratia payments than by giving an actual legal right.
As regards the third point, the noble and learned Lord is quite right. At the time that I put down this Amendment, I was not aware of the other Amendment. If he will look at my Second Reading speech he will see that I said that the noble and learned Lord continually used the expression "acquired in good faith." I went on to say that I could not find those words, and I asked whether the noble and learned Lord would tell me
1148
in his reply where they were. He did not do so at that time, no doubt because they were not in fact there. I am glad that he has to a certain extent met the point proposed in the third part of the Amendment. I should like to look at this again between now and the Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Operation of Act as respects pending proceedings, etc.]:
6.43 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Silkin, I beg to tender to the Committee his apologies for having had to leave the House, owing to a very pressing engagement. The debate has gone on rather longer than he expected, and he was very sorry that he could not remain. I wonder whether I dare ask the noble and learned Lord opposite to indicate by a nod or shake of the head whether the Government are prepared to accept the Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Silkin. I see that the answer is in the negative; and in view of that, I beg leave, not to withdraw the Amendments but to abstain from moving them to-day, and to say that they will be put on the Order Paper again on the Report stage, when Lord Silkin will be present.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before seven o'clock.