Sitting of 16 March 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Flag Officer, Germany
    Mr. Albuasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is now intended to retain Schloss Benkhausen, in Land Lower Saxony, as a naval residence after the coming into force of the Paris Agreement; and what rent will then be paid for it.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): The location of the Flag Officer, Germany, depends principally on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation tasks for which he is responsible. I am unable, at present, to say whether he will remain at Benkhausen after the Paris Treaties become effective.
    If he does, Schloss Benkhausen will continue to be his headquarters and residence. Payment of rent, which amounts to approximately £900 a year, will be governed by the Note on Financial Arrangements appended to the Paris Agreements.
    Mr. Albu: Is the Civil Lord aware that this charmingand luxurious residence is 70 miles from the sea, 120 miles from Bonn, and 400 miles from N.A.T.O. headquarters in Paris?
    Mr. Albuasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the duties of the Flag Officer, Germany; and whether this post will be maintained after the coming into force of the Paris Agreement.
    Mr. Digby:The Flag Officer, Germany, in his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation capacity as the Commander, Allied Naval Forces, Northern Area, Central Europe, is responsible to the Supreme Allied
    1268
    Commander, Europe, for naval planning matters in the British Zone and for the operational control of the Royal Naval forces in Germany. He is the naval member of the Commanders-in-Chief Committee (Germany) which is responsible to the Chiefs of Staff Committee in this country. The entry into force of the Paris Treaties will not affect the foregoing duties of the post until at least the future German navy is capable of performing the tasks required of naval forces in Germany.
    Mr. Albu: Can the Civil Lord say whether it is not a fact that, unless this gallant Admiral is to conduct his operations on canals and rivers, the majority of his duties are in connection with N.A.T.O.; and would it not be better if he were situated rather closer to N.A.T.O. headquarters?
    Mr. Digby:That point has been considered, and I doubt very much whether it would be worth while shifting his headquarters at the present time.

    Assistant Director (Management Training), Dockyard Department
    Mr. Albuasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the duties of the Assistant Director (Management Training) in the Dockyard Department; and when the appointment will be made.
    Mr. Digby: The duties of the Assistant Director (Management Training) in the Dockyard Department are: to study methods of industrial management in the dockyards and in industry generally; to propose types of training for dockyard officers in management technique; and to suggest improved methods of management in the Royal Dockyards themselves. A civilian officer was appointed to these duties on 1st June, 1954, for an initial period of two years.
    Mr. Albu:While congratulating the Admiralty on at last accepting, at least in spirit, one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates, which reported on the efficiency of the Royal Dockyards a few years ago, may I ask him why he has not provided this information before, and whether he can now make a fuller statement on the duties of this officer?
    Mr. Digby: I hope that it may be possible to make a fuller statement later.

    1269
    Training is already beginning, on the recommendations of this officer, and further training will probably be organised later. It is a little early to make a further statement.

    Oil Bunkering Facilities, Gibraltar
    Mr. Doddsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty in view of the importance for the economic life of Gibraltar that an allocation of oil bunkering tankerage should be made for commercial peacetime purposes, what consideration has been given to this matter by his Department; and when a decision can be expected.
    Mr. Digby:The Admiralty has been considering recently, in conjunction with the various interests concerned, whether and in what way it can help towards the provision of additional commercial bunkering facilities in Gibraltar. I hope that it will be possible to reach a decision in the near future.
    Mr. Dodds:I thank the Civil Lord for what he has just said, but can he assure the House that the Admiralty is seized of the need, in connection with this intensely loyal community, to do everything possible to mitigate any hardship caused by outside interests, and to show them and the rest of the world that it pays to be British?
    Mr. Digby: We are very anxious to do anything that we can to help the Colony, and that is why we have looked at this question sympathetically, but it is a highly technical question.

    Dockyard Workers, Malta (Establishment)
    Major Wallasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the percentage of established Maltese dockyard workers employed in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Malta.
    Mr. Digby: Approximately 5 per cent. of the posts for Maltese industrial employees in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Malta, are established.
    Major Wall: Does not my hon. Friend think that the figures he has given are lamentably low? Will he agree that, as the dockyard is Malta's main industry, an increase in the numbers on establishment would not only give a sense of
    1270
    security to the dockyard but to the people of the island as a whole?
    Mr. Digby: I realise that many would like to see the figures increased, but I must point out that the percentage of establishment is high in comparison with our other overseas bases.
    Mr. Callaghan: What is the comparison with that of dockyards at home?
    Mr. Digby:In comparison, in dockyards at home the degree of establishment is very much fuller, and there has been an increase in the last year or two.

    Dockyard Workers (Wages)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what representation has been made to him regarding the low rate of wages enjoyed by the unskilled workers in Her Majesty's Dockyards.
    Mr. Digby:No special representations have been received on behalf of unskilled workers, but the trade union side of the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council has recently tabled a general claim for wage increases covering all grades within the Council's terms of reference.
    Brigadier Clarke:Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that these unskilled workers receive less than agricultural workers? Will he do what he can to help them in their wage claims?
    Mr. Digby: I do not think I can very well comment whilst negotiations are going on, but of course we shall look at the claim in the usual way.
    Mr. Bottomley:Bearing in mind the special responsibility of the Civil Lord in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman agree that the National Joint Industrial Council machinery would work better if the First Lord were able to get, in the Estimates, enough money to meet the requirements of those employed in the dockyards?
    Mr. Digby:I cannot agree with that. We do pay rates comparable with those in outside industry. If in some cases earnings are lower, one of the main reasons is that there is far less overtime worked in these dockyards.
    Mr. Remnant:Is my hon. Friend aware that the comparison with the agricultural worker is not a fair one, because he is a highly skilled person?
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the Civil Lord agree that the personnel mentioned in this Question will be among the hardest hit if the Admiralty insists on postponement of the assisted travel scheme, particularly as it affects Rosyth Dockyard in Fife?
    Mr. Digby: I do not think the hon. Member should assume that the assisted travel scheme is to be ended, although we look at these travel schemes from time to time.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how the wages of skilled and semi-skilled workers in Her Majesty's Dockyards compare with wages paid for similar skilled and semi-skilled trades in industry.
    Mr. Digby: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Brigadier Clarke: Will the Civil Lord bear in mind that there is very little

    —

    Dockyards†

    Engineering*

    Shipbuilding

    Ship repairing

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Unskilled

    …

    …

    …

    127

    10

    124

    10

    125

    0

    128

    0

    Skilled

    …

    …

    …

    147

    10

    144

    10

    147

    0

    150

    0

    Notes:

    * Rates in the engineering industry are agreed on a district basis and the rates quoted above apply to the majority of districts. The highest district rates (excluding South Wales where special considerations apply) are at Coventry where they were: unskilled, 128s. 1½d.; skilled, 146s. 2¾d.

    †Workpeople employed in Her Majesty's Dockyards and engaged directly on ship repair work (constructive, engineering, electrical and Captains' Departments) receive additionally a ship repair allowance of 1s. 6d. a week.

    Helicopters (Royal Marine Commando Training)
    Major Wallasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of helicopters available at home and in the Mediterranean, respectively, for training Royal Marine Commandos.
    Mr. Digby: It is not practicable to allocate any of the limited number of helicopters available for the specific purpose of training Royal Marine Commandos either at home or in the Mediterranean. We are well aware, however, of the potential value of helicopters in amphibious warfare, and Royal Marine officers and noncommissioned officers are given opportunities to familiarise themselves with their characteristics, limitations and military
    1272
    opportunity for overtime in these dockyards? Will he take that into consideration when considering the wages of the dockyard worker and also remember that the unskilled dockyard worker—however paid—is as skilled as the agricultural worker?
    Mr. Digby: Certainly I will take that into account, but we have to bear in mindalso that establishment benefits are quite valuable, and there are other differences between dockyard workers and those outside.
    Following is the reply:
    Admiralty wages are based on the fair wages principle, and rates in the dockyards conform with this principle. Negotiations for revised rates are now in progress with the trade unions. The following table shows a comparison between the basic minimum rates in force in the dockyards before 12th March, 1955, and basic rates in comparable industries at that date:
    potentialities. We shall continue and develop this process as more of these aircraft are delivered.
    Major Wall:Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he will undertake to give grave consideration to acquiring at least one or two troop-carrying helicopters? Will he agree that it is essential to train modern raiding forces with modern technique and modern equipment?
    Mr. Digby: I will look into that matter, but I cannot hold out very high hopes at the moment.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Civil Lord aware that those who are concerned about the use of helicopters are grateful to the Admiralty for its very progressive outlook

    1273
    on this matter? May I ask him to try to get the same sort of spirit into the Army and the Air Force?
    Mr. Digby: I thank the hon. Member.

    Discharge by Purchase
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent applicants for discharge by purchase have to provide evidence that they have the offer of employment on release; and whether any specific wage is demanded.
    Mr. Digby:There is no general rule that a specific offer of employment is required. In cases where a man applies for discharge on the ground that he can obtain more highly-paid employment, he is naturally required to produce evidence of the employment available and the wage offered.
    Mr. Chetwynd:Would it be wrong if an officer told a constituent of mine that before he could apply for discharge he must have a job in civilian life at £8 10s. to £10 a week?
    Mr. Digby: I should like details of that, but no fewer than 87 per cent.of those who applied for discharge from March to December last were granted discharge, and hon. Members will see that it is a very high percentage.

    Dilutees
    Mr. R. Bellasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a further statement about the status of dilutees in Admiralty employment.
    Mr. Digby: I cannot yet add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend on 30th June last, although the status of dilutees in Admiralty establishments is at present under examination. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as this examination is complete.
    Mr. Bell:Is it not 15 years since these relaxation agreements were entered into? Is not that a very long time for people who are in a deferred industrial category? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Admiralty dilutees are now in a much worse position than those in comparable Air Ministry employment?
    Mr. Digby: We will examine this question, but, as my hon. Friend knows, it is a very complex one. More than one trade union is involved, and there are differing viewpoints about it.

    Royal Corps of Naval Constructors (Recruitment)
    Captain Ryderasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is satisfied with the present rate of recruitment into the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors; and what steps he is taking to improve this.
    Mr. Digby: The rate of recruitment has not been satisfactory but there was a welcome improvement last year, when we recruited eight probationers, four from universities and four from the Royal Dockyards. We have recently informed the universities of increases in the salaries of probationers and assistant constructors which are specifically designed to help recruitment. I hope that these will result in a further improvement this year.
    Captain Ryder: Is it not a fact that the strength of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors is 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. below establishment, and that the recruiting position is not sufficient to make good the losses of the Corps? In view of the recent statement on officer structure in the Royal Navy, will my hon. Friend consider whether the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors should be brought into the new scheme?
    Mr. Digby: Consideration could be given to that point. We are certainly most anxious to attract more men to this Corps, and we are doing everything we can with that end in view.
    Mr. Callaghan: Although we are quite sure that consideration could be given, may we ask whether consideration will be given to that suggestion? Is it not the case that a third of the recruits to this Corps have resigned over a number of years because of dissatisfaction? Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries and have an investigation to see what is necessary to restore the morale of the Corps?
    Mr. Digby: I will certainly make further inquiries if the hon. Member wishes, but only one officer has resigned since 1951, and that was to do the same duties in Canada.

    Foreign Yachts, Mediterranean (British Ensigns)
    Captain Ryderasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that yachts in the Mediterranean which are owned and manned by foreigners are flying the British flag; and what action the Government are taking to stop this abuse.
    Mr. Digby: I have grounds for believing that some yachts in the Mediterranean do fly British ensigns to which they are not entitled. The ships of the Mediterranean Fleet are always on the alert to prevent these abuses but, as my hon. and gallant Friend will realise, it is not easy to catch the offenders.
    Captain Ryder:In addition to those which might be detained for illegal activities, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are others which by the simple legal process of forming a small company in this country, with a very small nominal capital and an even smaller paid-up capital, can legally fly the British flag? May I call attention to the following vessels in this connection— "Fair Lady," "Halcyon," "Raiatea," "Sinloo," "Sylvia" and "Blue Trout"—and ask whether my hon. Friend will look into the status of these vessels, because reports reaching me suggest that some of them do no credit to our flag?
    Mr. Digby: I will certainly look into the cases that my hon. and gallant Friend has raised.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Research (Admiralty Co-operation)
    Mr. Willeyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what action he has taken to ensure the closest possible co-operation between the Admiralty Research Department and the British Shipbuilding Research Association.
    Mr. Digby: The Director of Naval Construction, the Engineer-in-Chief of the Fleet and the Chief of the Royal Naval Scientific Service are members of the Association's Research Board, and Admiralty representatives also serve on many of its technical committees.
    Mr. Willey: Whilst appreciating what the Civil Lord has said, may I ask, in view of the intense competitive conditions which the shipbuilding industry now
    1276
    faces, if he will accept it as being his duty to promote the closest co-operation between the Admiralty and the industry in order to see that the Admiralty shall afford every possible facility towards bringing about the greatest efficiency?
    Mr. Digby: I can assure the hon. Member that the closest possible liaison between our own technical people and the shipbuilding industry exists, and information is exchanged mutually.

    U.S.S.R. and East European Orders
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress is being made with regard to the placing of orders in British shipyards by the Soviet Union and other East European countries.
    Mr. Digby:British shipbuilders are free to accept from the Soviet Union and eastern European countries orders for ships, save for a few types of strategic importance, and the shipbuilding industry has assured my right hon. Friend of its willingness to build for these countries, provided that satisfactory contract conditions can be agreed.
    Mr. Thomson: Could the Minister give some details about the actual restrictions which still exist in this field?
    Mr. Digby: No, I am afraid I could not give the details. They are rather complicated, but they are well known to the industry.
    Mr. Hoy:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been some considerable doubt existing between the different European countries as to what orders might be accepted from Russia, and, as he will remember, there was a dispute regarding orders in Holland? Could he publish a list showing the type of ship orders for which could not be accepted?
    Mr. Digby: I doubt whether that would be very wise at the moment. The whole matter is under discussion at present with the other countries affected.
    Mr. Willey:The Civil Lord says that the whole matter is under discussion. Is it not time that we had something definite about it? Who are dragging their feet? Ought not this matter to be settled by now?
    Mr. Digby: I hope that it will be possible before very long to reach some form of agreement, but there are many countries concerned.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Molesey Exchange (Automatic Working)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Assistant Postmaster-General on what date he expects Molesey Telephone Exchange will be converted from manual to automatic operation.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Sir Edward Boyle): I have been asked to reply for my hon. Friend, who is indisposed.
    No date has been fixed for converting the Molesey exchange to automatic working, but part of the area at present served by this exchange will be connected to the new Teddington Lock automatic exchange which it is planned to open in 1960.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there is a certain amount of delay between London and the Molesey Exchange? Will he ask his hon. Friend to bring forward the date of conversion as soon as possible?
    Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. I will bring that to my hon. Friend's attention.

    Twickenham
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the number of applicants on the waiting list for telephones in the Borough of Twickenham; at what rate this waiting list is being cleared; and when he expects that the total number of persons on the waiting list will be supplied with telephones.
    Sir E. Boyle:One thousand nine hundred and fifty-four applications are outstanding. This year it is hoped to connect about 1,700 telephones, but it is not possible to say when the order list will be cleared, as this depends upon the level of new demand.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke:Is my hon. Friend aware that there is dissatisfaction in Twickenham over the telephone position—[HON. MEMBERS: "And elsewhere."]—particularly over the sharing
    1278
    of party lines? Will he ask his hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General to expedite the provision of new lines in the area?
    Sir E. Boyle: My hon. Friend is well aware of the state of affairs to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Minister say how much longer one has to wait for a new telephone than for a new car?
    Sir E. Boyle: Not without notice.

    Bexleyheath (Automatic Exchange)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what progress has been made in plans to convert the Bexleyheath Telphone Exchange from manual to automatic operation.
    Sir E. Boyle: A new automatic exchange to be known as Crayford which will serve part of the Bexleyheath area is at present being designed. This exchange is expected to be opened in 1958. It is proposed to replace the Bexleyheath manual telephone exchange by an automatic exchange in 1960.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that his appearance at the Box this afternoon has been a great success?

    Rugby
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the frustration caused to those who are on the waiting list for telephones in Rugby, by the delays in providing service; and what steps he is taking to speed up the installation of the new telephone cable for Rugby.
    Sir E. Boyle:The plans for a comprehensive scheme have been approved: new cables will begin to be installed later this year and my hon. Friend is confident that before long a steady and progressive reduction in the waiting list will take place.
    Mr. Johnson:While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask on what basis a telephone is given to a new applicant? Is it a fact that only Members of Parliament, judges and bishops have immediate priority? If the hon. Gentleman does not know the answer, will he ask the Postmaster-General, who

    1279
    is in another place, because, unfortunately, we cannot get at him?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member had better put that Question down.

  POST OFFICE

    Staff (Entry to U.S.A.F. Stations)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what stage he has reached in his negotiations with the United States Air Force concerning the restrictions, on security grounds, of the entry of Post Office staff to United States Air Force stations in Britain for the maintenance of Post Office equipment.
    Sir E. Boyle:Negotiations have now reached an advanced stage, and my hon. Friend is hopeful of achieving a solution satisfactory to all parties.
    Mrs. Castle: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the demand of the American Air Force that British Post Office workers should not be allowed to maintain Post Office equipment at United States air bases in this country is an insult to patriotic workers, who have full access to all British military establishments? Will he give an assurance that no extra-territorial rights will be allowed to the U.S. Air Force in this country, and that no decision will be reached on this matter without full agreement with the Staff Side of the Whitley Council?
    Sir E. Boyle: I do not propose to add anything to what I have already said. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would be glad that my hon. Friend was hopeful of achieving a solution satisfactory to all parties.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Am I to understand from what the Minister has said that British Post Office workers cannot go on to United States premises?
    Mrs. Castle: That is quite right.
    Sir E. Boyle: I do not propose to add anything further.

    Express Letters (Charge)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when last the charge for an express letter was fixed; and the annual income for the service.
    Sir E. Boyle: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the "Special Delivery" form of express service which is the one most commonly used. The charge of 6d. was fixed in 1936, and the annual income is about £100,000.
    Mr. Crouch:Is my hon. Friend aware that his hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has raised the price of every other Post Office service since 1936, and why has this one been left unchanged? I understand that the Postmaster-General has had difficulty in balancing his budget. He might be able to get additional revenue from this source.
    Sir E. Boyle: I must say that that was not the supplementary question which I was expecting.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION LICENCES (BLIND PERSONS)
  Sir I. Fraserasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if, in view of the fact that a combined licence is issued for television and radio at an inclusive fee of £3, he will allow a family in which there is a blind person an abatement of £1 under the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons Facilities) Act, 1926.
  Sir E. Boyle:My noble Friend will give this suggestion sympathetic consideration, but it would require fresh legislation.
  Sir I. Fraser:While thanking my hon. Friend for that sympathetic reply, may I ask him this? To avoid these blind persons, to whom he wishes to make a concession, waiting for it, would the Government give facilities if I were to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, bearing in mind that the original concession was obtained by that means about 30 years ago, with the assent of Members in all parts of the House?
  Sir E. Boyle:It is open to my hon. Friend to ask leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule whenever he pleases.
  Mr. Edward Evans:Will the Minister give consideration, similar to that which is given to blind persons, to the remission of the licence fee in respect of television for deaf people?
  Sir E. Boyle: That is another question, but I will see that the Assistant Postmaster-General is made aware of it.
  Mr. H. Hynd: Why should all the members of a family get a reduction because there is one person in the house who cannot see a television set?
  Sir E. Boyle: That is also another question.
  Sir I. Fraser:Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is no question of giving a concession to the rest of the family? It is a question of not depriving the blind man of the £1 which Parliament meant him to have.

  METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION)
  Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the unanimous recommendation of a meeting of the North Sea Meteorologist Service, attended by representatives of Britain, Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway, Holland, Sweden, and West Germany, that measures should be taken to improve meteorological information and weather forecasting; and what action he proposes to take.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Yes, Sir. The Meteorological Office is co-operating with the meteorological authorities in the other countries concerned to see what more can be done.
  Major Anstruther-Gray: May we take it from that reply that fresh efforts will be made in this direction, in view of the fact that the lives of men are at stake?
  Mr. Ward:Yes, Sir, certainly. As I say, we are co-operating with the other countries concerned in a thorough examination of the whole problem.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: What steps are being taken to make this meteorological information available to trawlers in the North Sea and in the seas further north?
  Mr. Ward: That is one of the subjects which will be considered by the committee.
  Mr. Hughes: What steps are being taken?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Personal Case
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why a corporal clerk, whose case has been referred to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle, East, and who has completed six years of his 12 years' service, two of them in Egypt, should neither be allowed to purchase his discharge nor be retained in England, in view of his father's recent sudden death and his mother's ill health.
    Mr. Ward: I am sorry that, for reasons which I have explained to the hon. Member in correspondence, I should not feel justified in changing my decision in this case. However, the airman's tour of duty in Egypt ends in August, and he would be brought home on leave before then if his mother's health made it necessary to do so.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the Under-Secretary of State not consider that distressing cases of this kind suggest that there should be some review of the conditions governing the purchase of discharge, and would he be prepared to look at the position again?
    Mr. Ward: The conditions governing the purchase of discharge are, I think, quite clear. They are governed, first, by the manning position in a man's particular trade in the Air Force, and, second, by whether there are overriding compassionate grounds. In this case, I am afraid, corporal clerks' rank and trade are 15 per cent. undermanned, and I cannot feel that the compassionate grounds are overriding.
    Mr. Blenkinsop:Will the hon. Gentleman at least consider whether some of the posts for clerical duties of this kind could not be filled by civilian employees?
    Mr. Ward:We try to substitute civilians as much as possible, but we are talking now of overseas and it is not so easy there.

    Pioneer Aircraft
    Mr. Rankinasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what further orders for Pioneer aircraft have been placed in view of their proven usefulness in Malaya.
    Mr. Ward: An order has recently been approved for a further four Pioneer aircraft. This will bring the number of these aircraft ordered for Malaya to 18.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this civilian aircraft, which is doing a civilian job in a very good way indeed, deserves all the tributes he has paid to it, and will he do his best to further still more orders?
    Mr. Ward: I think that on operational grounds 18 is about enough for that theatre, but I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the value of this very good aircraft.

  SHIPPING

    Lost Trawlers (Inquiry)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the total loss recently of two British trawlers off the north coast of Iceland and of the circumstances in which this occurred; and if he will make a statement on the subject to this House.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Yes, Sir. I have decided to order a formal investigation into this loss under the Merchant Shipping Acts. In these circumstances hon. Members will not expect me to comment further on this tragic occurrence.
    Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask him whether he is in a position to say yet whether anything could have been done to obviate this tragedy which was not done, and whether provision is being made for the dependants?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would rather await the result of the inquiry before committing myself to comments on that subject.
    Mr. Edward Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the damaging misrepresentations that have been made public in various quarters as to the cause of the loss of the Lorella and Rodrigo? Is he aware of the rebuttal of those misrepresentations by the British Trawler Officers Guild, which has said that no blame attaches either to the Icelandic Government or to the conditions under which they sailed? Will the right hon.
    1284
    Gentleman give full publicity to this rebuttal?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:The formal investigation which I have ordered will take place in public, and will, I have no shadow of doubt, bring out the true facts.

    Welded and Riveted Vessels
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what inquiry has been made into the comparative strength of ships that are welded as against those that are riveted; to what extent the comparatively new method has proved satisfactory; and, in view of maintaining complete confidence in our shipping and the need for the utmost safety at sea, the question will be examined.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:As the answer is very long I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Mr. Awbery:Is the Minister aware that, owing to the number of incidents involving ships at sea following the introduction of this system, modifications are being considered? Will he see that in whatever changes take place no unnecessary risks are taken by our seamen?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the hon. Member will be reassured when he sees the written answer in Hansard. It discloses that a great deal of research and investigation has taken place and is taking place on this important and difficult subject.
    Mr. Hobson: Can the Minister say whether any reference is made in his reply to X-ray below the waterline?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I ask the hon. Member to read the reply. There is no specific reference to that point, because the form of the reply deals with investigations that have been and are being made as matters of organisation and not as matters of detail.
    Following is the answer:
    The application of welding as a substitute for riveting in ship construction has been carefully watched over the last 40 years. The method of almost complete welding which began during the last war has developed rapidly since then in association with methods of prefabrication.
    As the result of structural failures in a proportion of merchant ships built in America during the war, the Admiralty Ship Welding Committee, on which my Department and Lloyd's Register of Shipping were represented,

    1285
    was set up in 1943. This Committee occupied several years in compiling and analysing a mass of data obtained from elaborate experiments on two ocean-going dry cargo merchant ships at sea, one mainly riveted and the other mainly welded, which followed on comparative experiments in still water on two tankers, one welded and one riveted. The Committee published six Reports through H.M. Stationery Office in addition to other material. The final Report, published last month, summarises its findings and conclusions.
    During these years, the authorities and interests responsible for research into shipbuilding construction have conducted searching investigations into the many problems which the new techniques have posed. The surveyors of my Department, and those of the classification societies, have investigated, and will continue to investigate, casualties and damage in welded merchant ships in order to promote additional safety measures which any structural failure may indicate to be desirable. As a result of increased understanding of the problems changes have been made on several occasions since 1947 in the requirements for structural strength in ships, both for statutory and for classification purposes.
    In general, it can be said that, although there are still some problems to be solved in the construction of large welded ships, welding is proving a satisfactory method of ship construction.
    The work of research continues actively in close association with research in the United States. Theposition is kept under close and continuous review by my Department and the Admiralty, as well as, among other interests, the shipbuilding industry and the classification societies.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Feeder Services, Prestwick
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made in the matter of establishing a system of suitable feeder services for Prestwick Airport.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the recommendations of the Air Transport Advisory Council I have approved an application by Dragon Airways, Ltd., to operate a service between Liverpool, Prestwick—on demand—and Renfrew.
    Applications to operate other feeder services for Prestwick will be similarly considered, but it is, of course, for operators to decide, in the exercise of their own commercial judgment, whether to apply.
    Sir T. Moore:While thanking my right hon. Friend for that first helpful reply, may I ask if he will recall that time after time Prestwick has been designated
    1286
    an international airport, and will he not agree that without a full range of feeder services it is really impossible for it to be truly international?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Prestwick's standing as an international airport is not in question. The operation of additional feeder services, of course, depends on applications by operators who wish to operate such services.
    Mr. Manuel:Could the Minister inform the House of the number of feeder services that have been offered to Prestwick in, say, the last four years, and the number that have been refused?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that question down.

    B.E.A. Internal Services (Fares)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to make a statement on the decision of British European Airways Corporation to increase fares on their internal routes as from 1st April.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:With my approval, British European Airways is increasing the fares on certain services within the United Kingdom as from 1st April. The increases, which vary in amount but are mostly between five and 15 per cent., are intended to reduce the substantial losses incurred by B.E.A. on internal services. The fares on these services remain, on average, some 30 per cent. below the level of those on the Corporation's international services.
    Mr. Rankin:Is the Minister aware that this decision will press very hardly indeed on the island communities around Scotland, especially where there are families, and will tend to drive them back to the long surface routes? Is he not aware that this is a step towards the isolation out of which the air services were seeking to take these people?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the hon. Member is concerned about the Islands and Highlands service. The basic single and 12-month return fares are not being increased. The increases on this traffic are confined to the cheaper monthly returns.

    Air Accidents (Compensation)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make representations to the International Air Transport Association, or other appropriate body, in favour of increasing the present figure of maximum compensation payable to the dependants of passengers killed in civil aviation disasters.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A conference, called by theInternational Civil Aviation Organisation for September next to revise the provisions of the relevant international Convention, will have before it proposals that the limits of compensation should be raised. The United Kingdom delegation to the conference will be instructed to press for an increase.
    Sir L. Plummer: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask if he will see that the delegates are seized with the responsibility of seeing to it that, through no fault of fare-paying passengers on civil airlines, the families, widows and children of those passengers are not left beggared and ruined by events which are not their responsibility?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is because of that consideration that our delegates will be instructed to press for an increase, but we shall have to carry other nations with us.

    Engineering Base, Renfrew
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now prepared to make a statement on the future of the engineering base at Renfrew.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin:Is it not the case that the Minister proposes to establish at Renfrew Airport a firm called Airwork General Trading Company, which will employ only two-thirds of the men at present employed there? If that is the case, is the Minister aware that the substitution of private industry for a nationalised industry in that part of Scotland will be highly resented?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No decision has yet been made on the British European Airways application to move. Consequently, the other points which the hon. Member has in mind do not at the moment arise.
    Major Anstruther-Gray:Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no hasty decision will be reached on this question, which is being watched so closely throughout Scotland?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I admit that I have taken a certain amount of time and a good deal of trouble to consider this matter, and I can certainly give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance for which he asks.
    Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Scottish public are watching this matter very carefully, and are very much under the impression that on transport matters, particularly in the case of Renfrew, a very decided anti-Scottish bias is being shown?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This matter arises from the decision of British European Airways that economies in its organisation could be achieved by such a move. Neither British European Airways nor anybody else has the bias which the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that economies of a small kind like this might be far outweighed by the defence liabilities of a concentration of civil aviation in the centre of London? Would he not agree that the dispersal of the industry is a factor that should be taken into account?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:While, on the B.E.A.C. figures, I would not agree that the economies are small, the sort of considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are just the considerations at which we are looking.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us—
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is an abuse of the practice of the House.

  ROADS

    Railway Bridges (Maintenance)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made in the discussions he has conducted with the highway authorities and the British Transport Commission with the aim of securing a general agreement on the maintenance of roads over railway bridges and approaches.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not in a position to make a statement on this subject.
    Mr. Warbey:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that discussions on this problem have now been going on for several years? Is it really beyond the ingenuity of his Department to work out a simple and sensible scheme which would be acceptable to both main parties concerned? How much longer have roads over railway bridges got to remain in their present deplorable condition?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not a matter of the ingenuity of my Department but of an agreement of some financial importance between the British Transport Commission on the one hand and the local authorities on the other. I hope that they will soon be able to come to an agreement.

    Expanded Programme
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how far his estimate of £120 million for the expanded road programme included interest charges; and how much he will now have to add to his previous calculations to meet the higher interest rates which have been introduced.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Not at all." The answer to the second part is, therefore, "Nothing."
    Mr. Hynd: Although the Minister may not have made any calculation of the interest charges in the first place, is it not fairly simple for him to have regard to the increase in interest charges and to say what difference will be made?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:No question of interest charges here arises. This expenditure, under present practice, falls directly on the Budget.
    Mr. I. O. Thomas:Would the Minister indicate what he means by his reply that although the Bank Rate has gone up the loan charges are not affected? If that is so and logically true, would it not be advisable to increase the Bank Rate to 10 per cent.?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not say that loan charges were not affected. There is
    1290
    in this case no question of loan charges at all. It is a straight Budgetary expense.

    Bridge, Barnstaple
    Brigadier Petoasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now state the degree of priority to be given either to the plan for widening Barnstaple Long Bridge, or to the alternative plan of making a new road and bridge; and whether he has yet decided which of these projects is to be proceeded with.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no statement to make at present. As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, I am awaiting such proposals with respect to the financial aspects of the widening scheme as the trustees may think fit to make.
    Brigadier Peto: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are one or two quite important projects awaiting the result of his decision on this matter, and that the borough council concerned is hoping very much to get an answer before very long?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can only say that I am awaiting an answer to a letter which my Department sent on 10th November to the clerk of the authority concerned and to which, so far as I know, no answer has been sent.
    Mr. Follick: Having listened to the Minister's reply to Question No. 40, may I ask him if he has made any other arrangements and what progress is being made with regard to Cavendish Bridge in my area?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That may be an interesting question, but I think that it is another one.

    Surfaces (Winter Damage)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if it has yet been possible for him to make an approximate assessment of the damage which has been caused to road surfaces during the current winter; and to what extent additional maintenance grants will be necessary to make good this exceptional damage.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister say when he is likely to be able to give a reply to a question of this nature? Will he go into the matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member will appreciate that damage to road surfaces from ice and snow sometimes does not show for months. It is far too soon to say anything now.

    Snow Clearance Cost (Government Contribution)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what assistance the Government intend to give local authorities towards the expenses of snow clearance; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The cost of clearing snow on classified roads is eligible for grant at the normal rates. The cost of clearing snow on trunk roads is of course the responsibility of my Department.
    Mr. Grimond:Can the Minister tell us more about the facts, particularly in relation to the effect on poor authorities which, so far as I can see, are going to be very much hampered in their maintenance and repair programmes by the extra cost, especially after a winter which has done great damage to the roads?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have said, the hon. Gentleman's Question refers to the clearance of snow, and that work ranks for grant at the normal rate on classified roads. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind a further question about maintenance work, perhaps he will put it on the Order Paper.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Is my right hon. Friend aware that having to get snow-clearing equipment from Glasgow to deal with the recent snowstorms in the North of Scotland has proved extremely expensive, and can he not devise some method of having that machinery stationed in the North?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will gladly look at any proposal about the stationing of the machinery which belongs to my Department, but the general policy is to station it at points from which it can be taken fairly quickly to where it is needed. If my hon. Friend feels that it is not so placed in Scotland, I shall be glad to look into the matter.
    Mr. Woodburn:Has the right hon. Gentleman done anything to retain the snow-clearing arrangements which were organised by British Road Services at various depots along the roads, or have they been sold, along with the transport vehicles?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Vane:Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the cost of clearing the snow from many roads is not much more costly and less efficient than he feels it ought to be by reason of the employment by local authorities of equipment which is quite out of date?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is a great deal of force in what my hon. Friend says, but my own Department's equipment, when available, is lent to local authorities for their work. Our equipment is, I think, pretty up to date.
    Sir D. Robertson:Is it not a fact that there is only a very small mileage of trunk roads in the Highland counties in comparison with the number of classified roads, and is it not also a fact that the communities of these remote regions are quite incapable of bearing the heavy cost brought about by the recent storms?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: General questions upon the finance of local authorities as a result of the very severe weather encountered are, I think, not matters for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    Traffic Congestion, Victoria Gate
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans he has for the speedy relief of traffic congestion at Victoria Gate, Hyde Park, W.2, in peak hours.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I have received no grant application for a scheme at this point, but the congestion here should be considerably reduced by the work which I hope to see carried out between Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch.
    Mr. Russell:How long is it going to take? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this junction is getting worse and worse every week, and before any large-

    1293
    scale improvement can be carried out there will be an almost complete standstill?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:It is a difficult point. My hon. Friend will gather from my answer that the promoting authority in this case is not my Department but the local authority, and I have, in fact, received no application in respect of it.
    Mr. H. Morrison:Is it not the case, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the real remedy is an improvement from Hyde Park Corner to Marble Arch—and I am inclined to agree—but is it correct that no decision has been reached about that? I have the impression that the London County Council was favourable to it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:The London County Council has been helpful about the proposal, which I am anxious to proceed with, but there are still one or two points to be cleared up.

  RAILWAYS

    Trains (Winter Heating)
    Miss Pittasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will use his powers under Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1947, to refer to the Central Transport Consultative Committee the question of the adequate heating of trains during the winter months.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. It is open to users of the British Transport Commission's services to make representations to the Transport Users' Consultative Committees in regard to any matter affecting the services and facilities provided by the British Transport Commission. I suggest that any particular cases which have been brought to the notice of my hon. Friend should be referred to the consultative committees concerned.
    Mr. Follick: On a point of order. Is it usual, when an hon. Member who is a lady asks a Question, to answer "Sir"?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes. The Minister's answer, like all speeches in this House, is directed to me, and I belong to that sex.
    Miss Pitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while that course may be open to individual members of the public
    1294
    —and certainly I have followed it—it is not open to train crews, who are very concerned at the lack of comfort afforded to the public? It is at their request that I have, not without difficulty, placed this Question on the Paper.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, so far as working conditions affecting train crews are concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not the point."] The temperatures under which they work—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I should regard as some of their working conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not the question."] If my hon. Friend has passengers in mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—passengers who are affected can make representations to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. So far as the views of train crews are concerned, I think the unions are quite capable of looking after them.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is not the case that the hon. Lady is making that train crews are concerned about the comfort or the lack of comfort of passengers? Is it not possible for them—as, I am sure, they have done on previous occasions—to go to their local departmental councils and other bodies and raise the matter through that institutional machinery?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I should not have thought there was any difficulty in their so doing. They do, of course, raise many questions in that way most helpfully.
    Mr. Woodburn:On behalf of the passengers, may I ask whether some research could not be made into the possibilities of thermostatic control? Sleeper trains often start off cold and then become boiling hot; sometimes the passengers freeze at night in spite of the heating arrangements. I think it is time, in these scientific days, for research to be undertaken to find some method of controlling the heat, and a system which would allow for controlled fluctuations of the degree of heat.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:I understand that the British Transport Commission, under the modernisation scheme, is looking into the details of the design of rolling stock, which, of course, includes heating arrangements.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter again? Can he really imagine aged ladies

    1295
    who are obliged to travel in unheated trains undertaking all that correspondence through the usual channels, as they are called? Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter and get something done about it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am anxious that travelling conditions should be as comfortable as possible, but this is, in the first place, a matter for the ordinary management of the British Transport Commission, under which full arrangements are made for ventilating complaints.

    Modernisation and Re-equipment
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviationby how much the estimate of £1,200 million for modernisation and re-equipment of British Railways will have to be increased on account of the new higher rates of interest.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No such increase will be necessary.
    Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister saying that this money will not be borrowed? If the money is borrowed, will there not automatically be an increase in interest charges?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing the amount of capital to be borrowed, which is what his Question relates to, with the servicing of the loan over the years. In so far as this measure is anti-inflationary it will, of course, tend to keep down the cost of re-equipment, not put it up.
    Mr. Hynd: As the Minister has stated the cost on the basis of present prices, which we can only assume will continue, is it not automatic that, because of the increase in the Bank Rate and the consequent increase in interest charges, there will be further cost on that account?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has asked me the cost on capital account. In so far as the change in the Bank Rate has effect, it should tend to diminish rather than to increase that. The hon. Gentleman is, I think, confusing the capital cost with the servicing of the loan, to which his Question does not relate.

  TRANSPORT

    London Transport (Report of Committee)
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action the Government intend to take concerning London Transport following the Report of the Committee of Inquiry set up by his Department, and in particular with regard to legislation concerning the present statutory position of the London Transport Executive.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have nothing to add at present to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) on 2nd March.

    Driving Test Examiners
    Mr. R. Bellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many driving test examiners were employed by his Department a year ago and at the latest convenient date, respectively.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On 1st March, 1954, there were 456 examiners. There are now 549.
    Mr. Bell:Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the rate of recruiting? If not, what steps is he taking to increase it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I think my hon. Friend will be aware, I have obtained authority to recruit a slightly larger number, and I think that they will be coming along soon.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is it not clear that the time is approaching when we shall have to impose driving tests on thousands of people who have not taken the test before, and periodical tests on those who, by reason of illness or old age, very much need to be tested? Therefore, ought we not to have a reserve of examiners?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is what we are doing. It is because of these considerations that the numbers are being increased.

    Driving Test (Waiting Period)
    Mr. R. Bellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of persons waiting to take the driving test a year ago and at the latest convenient date, respectively; and what is

    1297
    now the average waiting period between application and testing.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:Ninety-two thousand seven hundred and forty at present as against 55,293 a year ago. There is a waiting period of about six weeks.
    Mr. Bell: Does my right hon. Friend not feel, in view of the very large increase in the numbers of people who are awaiting tests, that the whole arrangements for these driving tests need careful re-examination, or is he quite satisfied that the position has not broken down?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:This problem has arisen because of the very large numbers of applicants for driving tests. During last year substantially more people took tests than in the previous year, but out increases in staff have not yet kept pace with the big increase in the number of applicants for tests. That is why we are recruiting more staff.
    Mr. Vane:Are all the 549 examiners employed full-time, or are some employed part-time? If they are all employed full-time, has my right hon. Friend considered adding to the number by the appointment of part-time examiners?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:That question calls for a certain number of figures, and perhaps my hon. Friend will put a Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If the number of drivers is to be increasedby this formidable total, does the Minister not think it would be advisable to push ahead faster with his road programme?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:The road programme is a very great improvement on that produced by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

    Road Vehicles (Disposal)
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the total number of vehicles disposed of by sale, under the Transport Act, 1953, up to 28th February, 1955.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A total of 12,697 up to 28th February, and 13,482 up to 11th March, the latest date for which figures are available.
    Mr. Jones:In view of the fact that the rate of disposal of these vehicles seems to be slackening, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it time to give up this nonsense, and look at the matter again?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:Before the hon. Gentleman reaches a conclusion about the rate slackening, he would perhaps be wise to await the lists now coming forward for sale during the spring.
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he can yet give an estimate of the further length of time it will take to dispose of all the vehicles due to be disposed of under the Transport Act, 1953.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jones: Having regard to the fact that his predecessor anticipated that this would be completed by December, 1953, and that we are now in March, 1955,how much longer does the right hon. Gentleman think he is going to keep trade and commerce in this country in doubt about the eventual pattern of road services?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question only shows how wise I am not to prophesy.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that if the Minister goes on at the present rate it will take anything up to seven or eight years to dispose completely of these lorries, and how much longer is the country to put up with this particular piece of nonsense?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's mathematics are correct, and I do not draw the same conclusion from the facts as he does.

    Cross-Country Haulage Services
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that British Road Services are now having to abandon many of their cross-country haulage services, in order to make available vehicles to be disposed of by sale; that no alternative services are being provided by private hauliers, and that the absence of services is causing apprehension to individual businessmen and to associations of businessmen; and if he will now repeal the Transport Act, 1953, to avoid ending these services.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." The answer to the second, third and fourth parts is "No, Sir."
    Mr. Jones: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman recently received a deputation from the A.B.C.C., led by an eminent gentleman who has recently been appointed to an important position in another section of the transport industry, which voiced to him the apprehensions of commerce based on the possibility, indeed the probability, in the very near future of numbers of trunking services being withdrawn in order to make vehicles available for disposal?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have the advantage of a great deal of advice from a wide variety of directions.
    Mr. Renton:Is my right hon. Friend aware that, before denationalisation, we frequently had complaints about the inefficiency of British road services, but that we are now not getting anything like the same number of complaints in regard to those B.R.S. services still operating or with regard to those services which have been taken over by private hauliers?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the road transport system of this country is running none too badly.
    Mr. Callaghan: The Minister says he is not aware of any apprehension about the breakdown of trunk services, but would he say what representations have been made to him by chambers of commerce or any other body on this subject? Is he telling us he has had none?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should prefer not to answer without notice about views which other people have put to me. As I said, I receive them from a great many people and I should not like to misrepresent any of them. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for precise information on that,it would be much better if a Question were put on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Callaghan:I am sorry to pursue this matter, but is not that the Question which my hon. Friend has asked? Does not the third part, about which the Minister gave a "brush off" to my hon. Friend, ask about the apprehensions being felt by individual businessmen and associations of businessmen? Should the right hon. Gentleman not be prepared to answer it
    1300
    now? What representations has he received from chambers of commerce or other bodies?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has not quoted his hon. Friend's Question completely. It refers to "absence of services"and I have had no communication about any absence of services.
    Mr. Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman dissent from the view that the deputation of the A.B.C.C. told him quite definitely that they were apprehensive about the effect if services should be withdrawn in the near future, and does he deny the fact that the deputation was led by a very eminent gentleman from the North-East, who occupies the position of Chairman of the North-East Railway Board?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:If a Question is put on the Order Paper about a particular deputation I will endeavour to answer it, but the hon. Gentleman's own Question does not refer to apprehensions in the future but to the absence of services in the present.

  REPATRIATED BRITISH PRISONERS, KOREA (QUESTIONING)
  Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Defence on what date the questioning of our returned Korean prisoners of war was begun; when it was completed; how many men were so questioned; and how many were officers and how many other ranks.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Macmillan):The questioning of the first batch of repatriated sick and wounded began in April, 1953, and the last interview was conducted in June, 1954. All repatriated British prisoners, that is, 43 officers and 935 other ranks, were interviewed on release in Korea.
  Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister give us detailed information about how the evidence was taken, how much of it was oral, how much was written, and can he indicate how much of it was based—[Interruption.] It is rather important that we should have these details—on books written by prisoners, particularly in the Gloucester Regiment, and whether he has

  1301
  made representations to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to our having a debate on the question?
  Mr. Macmillan: In regard to the first part of that question, if the hon. Gentleman will put it down I will try to give him a detailed reply, but I hope he is not associating with those who are trying to throw themselves against the bona fides of these reports.
  Mr. Hamilton:Is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House are just as much concerned to get at the truth of this matter as he is? If he has anything to hide let him say so, but if he has not let us know the truth.
  Mr. Macmillan: I have nothing to hide, but I rather resented what seemed to be an innuendo.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make on business?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank):Yes, Sir. I have an alteration to announce in the order in which it is proposed to take the Report stages of the Service Estimates tomorrow.
We shall begin with the Report stage of Vote A of the Air Estimates followed by Votes A of the Army and Navy Estimates.
Mr. Wigg:Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell us whether it would be possible to have a general debate on Vote A on the Report stage of the Air Estimates tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Vote was not debated in Committee. Therefore, in my view, a general debate on Vote A on Report would be in order.
Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged.

BILLS PRESENTED
  AGRICULTURE (IMPROVEMENT OF ROADS)
  Bill to make provision, by means of Exchequer grants and otherwise, for the improvement of certain roads situated in, or affording access to, livestock rearing areas; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, presented by Mr. Heathcoat Amory; supported by Major Lloyd-George, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Henry Brooke, and Mr. Nugent; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 60.]
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to remove the limitations imposed by section one hundred and ninety-one of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, and by section fourteen of the Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1887, on the annual expenditure and the power to borrow money of county and town councils for and in connection with public libraries: to facilitate co-operation among statutory and non-statutory library authorities; to authorise the revocation of a decision to adopt the Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1887; and to extend the lending powers of statutory library authorities, presented by Sir William Darling; supported by Sir Ian Clark Hutchison, Major McCallum, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, Sir David Robertson, and Mr. Oswald; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Crookshank.]
  Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

  ORDERS OF THE DAY

    SUPPLY
    [8TH ALLOTTED DAY]
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1954–55; AIR ESTIMATES, 1955–56, AND CIVIL EXCESSES, 1953–54.
      CLASS II

        VOTE 9. COLONIAL SERVICES
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,973,550, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for sundry colonial services, including grants in aid; and certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine.

    COLONIAL AFFAIRS
    3.33 p.m.
    Mr. A. G. Bottomley: The Secretary of State for the Colonies appears at the Dispatch Box boiling over with confidence, but my experience seems to be that he has very little steam left with which to do anything effective. The answers I have been given over a period of months now have either been flippant, or no answers at all, and that is not good enough. On other occasions I have referred to the previous Secretary of State for the Colonies and I do not want at this stage to make a contrast, but I expect that as a result of today's debate we shall at least get some answers.
    The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I sent a letter to him on 5th January concerning Malta, of which I will not quote the substance. Ten days afterwards, on 15th January, I received a letter from his private secretary stating that the Secretary of State would like to talk to me. A telephone call was made and a meeting was agreed. The Secretary of State then went away and, of course, I recognised that he was on official duties and, therefore, made no attempt to disturb him.
    1304
    However, as soon as the right hon. Gentleman returned from his official tour, I telephoned again and suggested that we might have the agreed meeting. To date that meeting has not taken place. I cite that as an indication of what I consider to be dilatoriness on the part of the Secretary of State.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): May I say straight away to the right hon. Gentleman that he and I meet repeatedly in the House of Commons. No one who knows me well, as I thought he did, would accuse me of being unapproachable. Even yesterday evening we had a brief talk about the debate today and this is the first time he has made any such charge. If the right hon. Gentleman feels it necessary, for purposes unknown to me, to make these suggestions in Parliament, surely he should also, as a colleague, make them to me first.
    An Hon. Member: Monstrous.
    Mr. Bottomley: It is not at all monstrous—for this reason, that I made this suggestion to the Secretary of State and if his office is not in a position to convey to him messages that I leave, he must look to his Department. I would not have thought that he would want to hide behind his own Department, but rather that he would wish to accept responsibility.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd:In fairness to the Civil Service, which serves hon. Members of all parties with equal impartiality, and whose merits and integrity are known to the right hon. Gentleman, who was one of my distinguished predecessors, I indignantly repudiate that suggestion. If there is any fault, it is my fault, and certainly not that of my officers. The charge I am making is that the right hon. Gentleman, for purposes which perhaps will be disclosed later, is making general charges which he has never made personally to me or, as far as I know, to my advisers.
    Mr. Bottomley:The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot, on the one hand, say that he knows nothing about representations that I have made and, at the same time, try to suggest that I am criticising the civil servants. I am quite sure that the civil servants conveyed to him my request for a meeting.

    1305
    Therefore, he must accept responsibility and expect a rebuke from this Box if he does not give the kind of treatment which a colleague in the House of Commons has a right to expect.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have in my hand a recent answer to the right hon. Gentleman over which, with my advisers, I took enormous trouble. It dealt with a host of points affecting Kenya, and the right hon. Gentleman might have drawn the attention of his colleagues and of the Committee to this answer. It extended over six columns of Hansard of 17th February and went into great detail. It was given after much research into what I thought were all the outstanding things which were causing anxiety to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bottomley: I was referring to delay over a matter concerning Malta.
    I am coming to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman gave me in reply to the Kenya questions and I shall have a great deal to say about that. At least I can say now—and you, Sir Charles, will remember—that on an earlier occasion, when I tried three times to get answers to Questions, I had to seek the support of Mr. Speaker to find out how it was possible to get answers. Mr. Speaker suggested to me that I should seize the right opportunity. I thought that was today, and if the Secretary of State will wait, I will acknowledge the great work he put in to provide those answers; but he must not expect me to say that they are satisfactory if I consider them to be otherwise.
    What I want to do, after this initial brush—about which I feel just as unhappy as the Secretary of State, but for which he must share the responsibility—is to talk about Kenya, because that is the matter about which I am most qualified to speak. To meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, I am beginning with that and, as he knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) will follow, with some support on other matters. It is to meet the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman that I have agreed to follow this procedure, which is not customary. Perhaps, later, the right hon. Gentleman will make an acknowledgment of that, as an indication that he has not found me unresponsive in trying to work on these matters to our mutual advantage.
    1306
    During the debate on the previous Estimates, on 16th February, I pointed out, quite rightly, that we in Britain were being asked to subsidise the handling of the emergency in Kenya. No one can dispute, therefore, that we here have a right to say how we think that emergency ought to be handled and how a settlement can be brought about.
    I stated certain principles and made a number of suggestions on that occasion and, while they may have been considered, there has been no answer about the things which I believe to be fundamental to a settlement of the emergency in Kenya. I want the Government—we have a right to expect it—to state exactly what their position is. In the present confused situation in Kenya it is absolutely essential that the Government should clearly make known their attitude to the methods of handling the emergency and to the new Kenya which we all hope to establish.
    I should like to know, for instance, where the Government stand on land policy. The Secretary of State must be aware that three European elected members who are members of the Council of Ministers have publicly stated that they will allow no tampering with the White Highlands. Let it be noted that this statement has been made before the Royal Commission has reported. We have been told to keep off the subject until the Royal Commission makes its report. Consequently, the comments which have been made by the European elected members who are members of the Council of Ministers should be noted. They have been heard by the Africans in Nairobi and the Reserves. How do the Government think those Africans feel about things? Is that the way to conduct affairs and make it much more profitable for negotiations to go forward?
    The Secretary of State ought to be in a position to tell us whether those views represent the views of Her Majesty's Government. In the present situation we cannot wait another six weeks before we get the report of the Royal Commission. We and the people of Kenya have a right to know whether the views of the European elected members represent the views of the British Government. Is the demand of the Africans for a new

    1307
    land policy to be supported by the British Government, or are we to allow the claims of the Africans to be by-passed because of the statement made by the Members of the Council of Ministers?
    The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) is well qualified to speak on these matters, and he has made his position about the land situation clear. I commended him at the time, and I do so again, for the very statesmanlike utterance that he made. We have a right to know whether the statement that he made represents the views of Her Majesty's Government. Something must be said about this.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the views of the Africans are on the land problem, so that we may follow him better?
    Mr. Bottomley:If the hon. Member wants me to take a good deal of the time of the Committee I will certainly try to give the information that he wants. However, the views of the African have been presented and are well known. The views of the Africans are by no means solidified any more than are the views of the Europeans, but the Africans are unanimous in their opinion about the White Highlands, and that is a matter that we can debate and discuss.
    I have views of my own on this subject, and I have previously expressed them. We can certainly say that to lay down that the White Highlands area is to be a permanent reserve for the Europeans is not the way to secure the support of the Africans. If we say that at this stage, that is about as far as we can go in the present debate.
    I also want to know whether the Secretary of State is in agreement with an integrated educational system in Kenya. That is the only way that we shall secure a genuine multi-racial society in Kenya. The Secretary of State must be aware that this has been tried out in some parts of Africa, particularly the Belgian Congo. If it can be done there, why cannot it be done in Kenya?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we should also follow habits elsewhere, where there are no political rights of any kind? Once
    1308
    we started on a system whereby there were no political rights for Africans or Europeans, no doubt economic development could take another form; but that has not been our method.
    Mr. Bottomley: Do I understand that the Secretary of State is answering me already and is saying that he does not believe in an integrated educational system?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was merely replying to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Belgian Congo.
    Mr. Bottomley: Apparently to that extent the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with what I thought was the ultimate desire of all of us, a multi-racial Government and a multi-racial country.
    I also want to know whether it is still the view of the Secretary of State that there should be separate racial political organisations and representations. From my point of view, that, again, is a negation of a multi-racial society. I want to know whether the Secretary of State will consider introducing by some method or other a common electoral roll so that it will be possible to have representatives of the Kenyan nation instead of separate racial groups.
    Does the Secretary of State think that we can help the healthy development of African politics by creating tribal associations? I gather that there is already an attempt to bring this about in Nairobi. It should be an essential part of the handling of the present emergency to state clearly to the Africans, in particular, what our intentions are about their political future.
    The Secretary of State referred to certain answers which he has given me. I thanked him for them at once. Perhaps I was being over-generous in doing that He will recall that I sent him a letter on 20th October, but I had to wait until the middle of February before I got the answers. I agree that it took some time to prepare the answers. However, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman got the answers out when he did because it was the day before we had a debate on Kenya. Having taken that into consideration, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman gave replies as full as he might have done; some of them were far from direct and others certainly were not clear.

    1309
    The right hon. Gentleman said that Africans could be encouraged to stand for election to location and district councils. In his answer he said that by this means we should ultimately get leaders. Does he really believe that we can get leaders when most of the prominent Africans are in detention camps? If we are to get leadership which will really be effective, we want it now. If we do not have the leadership now, the emergency will continue.
    As is well known by my colleagues who are interested in Kenya, I took up with the previous Secretary of State the question of a mission. I pay tribute to the courage and determination of the previous Secretary of State, for he went to Kenya and secured, against great argument, particularly with certain sections, the establishment of the multi-racial Government. But does the present Secretary of State really believe that one African Minister and two African Parliamentary Secretaries from a nation of more than 5½million Africans is the way to secure proper democratic representation? I have heard Africans describe it as a mockery, and if I were an African I should probably take that view.
    I want to know when the Government will give genuine encouragement to, or even the opportunity for the development of, African political organisations. Without such organisations there can be no truly African representative leadership.
    Continuing to deal with the answers which the Secretary of State has given me, I should like to say that there has been no satisfactory explanation yet of the resignation of Colonel Young. The Parliamentary Mission, led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), said it was essential that the Kikuyu Home Guard should have strong backing from the military and the police. The Secretary of State says that it is necessary to absorb selected members of the Guard into the tribal police.
    Speaking as a member of the Mission—I know that some of my colleagues share this view—Ishould say that that is hardly the kind of backing and police leadership for which we were looking. I should like to know from the Secretary of State when the police force of Kenya is to be freed from the political restric-
    1310
    tions which have been placed on it. Unless that happens, it cannot give genuine support to the attack upon subversive movements.
    While we are talking about subversive movements, we must not forget that there is a white subversive movement. I read the other day the remarks of a prominent African trade union leader, one of those upon whom we are depending for some kind of help to end the emergency. He said:
    "The trend of events shows that if certain sections of the European settlers are allowed to continue as they have shown during the last few weeks, then any hope of race harmony in Kenya will have been completely destroyed."
    We want that kind of leader. It is such leaders who will help us to bring about the kind of society in which I thought we all firmly believed. These irresponsible Europeans, by their behaviour, are sowing deep seeds for future racial tension and perhaps of outbreaks of even more serious emergencies in the future.
    We also said, in the Parliamentary Mission's Report, that we found it essential to formulate and declare policies for dealing with the long-term problems of Kenya and we insisted that the Government should be reinforced with new elements of personnel. Speaking for my colleagues on this side, we cannot accept that the establishment of either the War Council or the Council of Ministers has met these demands. No new principle was involved by setting up the Council of Ministers. The Executive Council, which was a system to be compared with the Cabinet system, had included members of all races, so that although it was a move in the right direction it was no new principle.
    It is essential to make a totally new approach to the political leadership in Kenya. We really should draw upon the abilities of all, whatever their race or creed, who are willing to try to help to end the state of emergency in Kenya. In our Report we suggested that the Government reconsider giving all the help they could to the trade union movement. One of my colleagues went so far as to suggest that there should be released from detention under the Emergency Regulations all trade union delegates and representatives. I do not know what has happened about that. Perhaps the Secretary of State will

    1311
    tell me how many trade unionists have been released since the Report was published, which is now a very long time ago.
    We also recommended an inquiry into the sociological and the psychological aspects of Mau Mau. This was carried out by Dr. Carothers, who prepared an excellent report. But we are entitled to know what the Government and the Government of Kenya have done about it. Are they accepting some of the recommendations? Is there any desire to implement these regulations? We have a right to know the answers.
    From the answers given in the document to which the Minister referred, it appears that another committee has been set up to investigate wages and conditions of employment in agriculture. There was, as he knows, a committee established as long ago as 13th October, 1953, to deal with social security legislation. We will not deal with the emergency by appointing one committee after another. That is only delaying matters, allowing the troubles to grow, failing to remove the Africans' grievances and making it possible for Mau Mau still to continue.
    I ask the Secretary of State whether he can truthfully say that he has attempted in the House, even after several pleas from me, to make any kind of answer. I do not claim to have any greater knowledge, but if I put forward suggestions and make propositions, I do not want them lightly pushed aside after the time and trouble that was taken by members of the Parliamentary Mission. Without in any way suggesting that these are the things which will end the trouble—these are questions I have put to the Secretary of State privately and in the House—has any consideration been given to a general amnesty for all who are detained in the camps? Has he considered the appointment of a Resident Minister in Kenya? Is there any intention that the Parliamentary Mission should revisit the Colony? Have the Government discussed holding a conference in London with members of all races in Kenya invited to discuss the situation and the future? It will be within the knowledge of the Committee that, not once but many times, I have put these questions. I have received, except in the case of the first one which
    1312
    was answered by the previous Secretary of State, no answer at all, or one of a flippant character.
    I conclude by saying that we are subscribing £14 million out of £16 million which is to be spent on the Kenya emergency and we have the right to hear from the Government the answers to the questions I have put. On this side of the Committee we firmly believe that the only hope of ending hostilities in Kenya—and, equally important, ending them in a way that will enable Kenya to look forward to a peaceful and co-operative future—is by clearly stating the shape of the new Kenya which we envisage.
    We cannot expect to secure the support of the African community unless we are prepared to show them that we are determined to help their interests. If we can bring about this kind of atmosphere in which they can trust us, then the end of the emergency is more likely to be in sight than it is now. We have to show them that we are different and mean to be different from the past, and that they have as bright a future as we can wish them, if they are prepared to co-operate.
    This subject is of world-wide importance. Nowhere else in the world do we have these communities—Africans, Asians and Europeans—living and working together. If we can overcome this emergency, if these people can work together, that may pinpoint a way towards solving racial problems. The Secretary of State was affronted by what I had to say this afternoon. Let me retort in kind by saying that he has been ill-advised in the way he has attempted to answer questions in the past. I certainly hope, for the future of Kenya in particular and the desire of the world in general, that he will answer some of the points which have been put this afternoon.
    3.57 p.m.
    Mr. Bernard Braine: I am very glad to have caught your eye, Sir Charles, because, as the Committee knows, I was privileged to be a Member of the Parliamentary Mission which visited not only Kenya, but other East African territories, Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa in the autumn of last year. I carried away with me three abiding impressions of Kenya.
    The first was the extraordinary restraint and courage of not only the European

    1313
    settlers, but the African loyalists. I do not for one moment subscribe to the view of the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) that the bulk of the African leaders in Kenya are at present in detention camps. On the contrary, I was privileged to meet Africans of many kinds, Kikuyu in particular, men of great Christian character who possessed qualities of leadership that gave great promise for the future of Kenya.
    The second impression was the degree to which multi-racial government has already been accepted by the European community. The third impression that I carried away was the way in which, despite the awful psychological and economic pressures of the emergency upon the economy and the life of Kenya, agricultural development, industrialisation, new housing schemes, and so on, were being pressed forward with great vigour.
    It struck me then—this was last August and September—that the major problem facing Kenya was not the shooting war, although, of course, many months of that lay ahead, but the rebuilding of the shattered lives of the Kikuyu people, the problem of rehabilitation. Because of that, I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I believe my right hon. Friend and the Government of Kenya were absolutely right about the surrender terms. I can quite understand the feelings of my friends in Kenya, the loyalists among the Africans and the Europeans, who felt frustration and bitterness over these surrender terms. But the choice in politics, it was once put to me by a very wise man, is never a choice between the good and the bad. It is the choice between the bad and the worse, and it is terribly important that we choose the bad. That, of course, is a cynical point of view; but there is much wisdom in magnanimity.
    What Kenya needed then and what Kenya needs now is a cessation to the fighting and an opportunity to get on with the job of rehabilitation. There is a great deal of talk about rehabilitation and about the need to raise the living standards of the Africans and to change their pattern of life, but there is not a great deal said about the means by which these ends are to be attained.
    I submit to the Committee that, broadly speaking, north of the Union of South Africa, where large-scale industrialisation
    1314
    is possible, there is only one way of bringing a change to Africa, and to Kenya in particular, which does not mean the complete disintegration of social life and the creation of a vacuum into which either Communism, Mau Mau or some other evil cult will rush, and that is by the development and expansion of the peasant agriculture by which millions of Africans still live.
    As I have said before, land is life to the African, but the tragedy is that it represents only a miserable life. It need not. That is why the key task, not only in Kenya but throughout the whole of the Colonial Empire, is to change the traditional methods of cultivation and to do so quickly. Everything of importance flows from that, higher living standards, social betterment and political stability. I think that it is in order to refer to the great achievement at Abyan in the Western Protectorate of Aden.
    A Parliamentary Question elicited from my right hon. Friend recently the fact that here in what was part of the Arabia Felix of the ancients—happy Arabia, which has remained in obscurity for long centuries—change is coming today as a result, on the one hand, of the great Aden refinery and, on the other, of the patient, painstaking agricultural work being done at places like Abyan where ten times more people live today than in 1947, all on a higher standard of life.
    This, then, is the means by which we shall bring about change in Kenya and elsewhere in the Colonies. It is a task which cannot be tackled leisurely. Everywhere, it is a race against time. On one side, we have Governments doing their best to arrest soil erosion, to restore lost fertility to the soil and to persuade peasants to change their methods of cultivation; and, on the other, we have population increase threatening to outstrip even the barest means of subsistence, overstocking in some areas hastening deterioration of the land and everywhere we look environment conspiring against change.
    Inevitably, congestion on the land leads to a drift to the towns and to the creation of a landless, frustrated, and embittered proletariat. If these tendencies are allowed to continue—and they are manifesting themselves in Kenya and elsewhere—the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots"—already wide—would

    1315
    widen. Frustrations—already great—would grow. The goal of partnership in multi-racial territories, to which we on this side subscribe just as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite, would become remote, if not impossible of attainment.
    Here are two problems upon which my right hon. Friend might care to comment. The first is the problem of the urban African living in squalor in the town, not knowing whether his roots are in the town or way back in the tribal homeland; and the second is that of the rural African whose present unorganised and inefficient methods of cultivation yield but a low level of subsistence. Basically, the task is to find an answer which provides a satisfying status for a man. It may be that for the urban African that will find expression through the medium of trade unions, through achieving industrial status and home ownership.
    When I was with the Parliamentary Mission I saw some really fine housing schemes, both in Nairobi and Mombasa, which were a great credit to the Kenya Government and an example to the rest of Africa. This is the direction in which we should move. But I do not want to make any further observation on that; I am concerned primarily with the agricultural problem. The need here is that the rural African should be provided with a real stake in the land, and the knowledge, skill and the inducements to farm it scientifically.
    The answer in Kenya, clearly, is not to provide more land for the African to misuse in his customary, traditional way. Sir Philip Mitchell, in his famous despatch, made the point very clearly when he said:
    "A solution for the problems of congestion commonly suggested in Kenya is that more land should be added to the area affected for occupation and cultivation by Africans on traditional tenures and by traditional means … the addition of more land with no change in methods of farming is in fact no solution at all."
    Those of us on both sides of the Committee who have visited Kenya, or lived and farmed there, know that there is widespread misuse of land. One reason, which, I hope, will occupy the attention of my right hon. Friend, is the native law and custom on land tenure.
    The Swynnerton Report is extremely illuminating on that subject. It points out that:
    1316
    "All the African lands in Kenya naturally suited to semi-intensive, or intensive, farming are already populated, some more, some less densely, suffering from low standards of cultivation and income and, in particular and as a result of African customary land tenure and inheritance, from fragmentation whereby any one family may possess several, and in recorded instances 10 to 29, small to minute fields scattered at wide intervals so that they cannot be developed economically either to the system of farming best suited to the area or to the inclinations of the farmer himself. It is impossible under such circumstances to develop sound farming rotations, to cart and apply manure, to establish and manage grass, to improve the management and feeding of livestock or to tend cash crops in any satisfactory manner."
    The delegation which went to Kenya was delighted, therefore, to discover that great changes are beginning.
    Mr. James Johnson: To which delegation is the hon. Gentleman referring?
    Mr. Braine:The all-party delegation which went to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference at Nairobi last year and which, both before and after the conference, toured the territory.
    Among some tribes—and this is most remarkable when one recalls the situation there ten or twenty years ago—there is now a movement towards the consolidation of fragmented holdings, and a development of the idea previously alien to some of them of individual ownership. The authorities are encouraging enclosures to prevent the misuse of grazing land.
    I was most impressed by the way in which the agricultural officers are devoting themselves to their task. It was refreshing, for example, to note that even before consolidation of the holdings is carried out agricultural officers were insisting upon a basic conservation plan being drawn up, upon proper surveys, correct siting of roads and waterways, and the building of protective bunds along the contour lines. All this is preliminary to persuading the peasant to abandon monoculture, to diversify his crops and to accept de-stocking. Some African communities are co-operating very well. In the Kipsiqis Reserve of Nyanza Province about 10 per cent. of the farmers have switched over to progressive farming and more are following.
    In the European areas I think that the time has come to end the squatting system.

    1317
    The Committee will know that the squatting system is an arrangement under which an African squatter lives on a European farm, with his family, and is given permission to cultivate a small acreage, and perhaps to run a few head of cattle, in return for work on the farm. There is a growing fear among African squatters—in fact, it has been in evidence for a long time—that they are insecure. Dr. Leakey, in his very remarkable book, "Defeating Mau Mau," says that in his opinion the squatter system is most unsatisfactory, and that,
    "certainly the Mau Mau leaders were able to get a very big following from among these people, because of their discontent and mental state of uncertainty."
    In other words, basically what is required is agricultural change which will give the African a feeling that he has a real stake in the land, and a satisfying status. All the airy talk about multi-racial government is useless unless it is based upon a recognition of that fact. The limiting factor—and here I come to my major point—to bringing about this change is the acute shortage of specialist personnel. I noticed a few weeks ago, in a statement made by the Department of Agriculture, in Kenya, that the recruitment of agricultural officers was only just keeping pace with the wastage. That is bad enough, but to effect real agricultural change, one needs to encourage people to think in terms of soil and water conservation. That means surveyors and soil scientists; it means drainage and water engineers.
    There is an acute shortage of those people, as any one who has studied the Swynnerton Plan will have observed. Over and over again the Swynnerton Plan refers to the shortage of water engineers and surveyors. Referring to the African Land Development Board, it states:
    "The staff of two of the sections, both for hydraulic and irrigation engineers and for surveyors, is depleted because salaries are not attractive or competitive to trained or experienced men."
    This is an extremely serious situation.
    We all know the story of how, for want of a nail, the shoe was lost, and for want of a shoe the horse was lost. If we lack these people, these experienced personnel, we may talk until our faces are black and blue about the need to induce change in Africa, but the change will not
    1318
    be induced. It seems to me that here is one field in which false economy could pave the way to utter and irretrievable disaster.
    Nearly everything in the Colonial Empire depends on the availability of administrative and specialist personnel of the very highest quality. It may be that blood and sentiment will keep together the older parts of the Commonwealth. But where new emergent African and Asian States are concerned, what, more than anything, will determine the pattern of their loyalties, the probity of government, the possibility of economic development, the raising of standards of health and education of the people concerned, is the quality of specialist advice that we make available.
    I wish to know what my right hon. Friend is doing about the shortage. I wish to know from him whether he is satisfied about recruitment, particularly for the agricultural departments in the Colonial Empire, and in Kenya especially. Is he satisfied that the job is important? If so, salaries and conditions of service must be made sufficiently attractive to bring in the right men. I wish to ask, also, whether our recruiting agencies are hard at work in the Overseas Dominions. I am more than ever convinced that what we need is a broad Commonwealth Service, a corps d'elite of specialists, in which none but the very best of Her Majesty's subjects are employed. I wish to know too whether a special effort is being made to attract younger men from the universities.
    There is a great deal of talk about this being the new Elizabethan age. The old Elizabethan age was great precisely because the spirit of adventure led great men in little ships to sail into the unknown. It appears to me that those who, today, go to Dependencies, like trouble-torn Kenya, to assist simple, backward, unsophisticated peoples to conquer their environment and to stand on their own feet, are, in fact, helping to make the new Elizabethan age a memorable one. They will do that—if there are enough of them—because they will be setting a seal upon the world in a fashion which they can scarcely comprehend. I hope that I may receive from my right hon. Friend a reply to the questions which I have raised.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I take their attention away from the Continent of Africa for a few minutes, though I fully appreciate that their attention will not be diverted from that subject for very long. I wish to draw particular attention to the situation in Malta and the Aden Protectorate.
    For Malta, we are asked to grant an additional sum of £142,000 in aid of the local revenues. It is said that the money is required for an expanded emigration programme. All of us are aware that Malta is afflicted with a number of very grave problems. There is, first, the problem of over-population, which presses very hard upon her limited economic resources. Secondly, there is the problem of the maintenance of employment and the prevention of social squalor. Thirdly, there is, for the Maltese Government, the problem of financial viability. Some of us are beginning to fear that there is no easy answer to these problems, and that perhaps Malta may prove quite incapable of solving them herself. Indeed, the verdict of her recent general election was just this: that she is prepared to prejudice her own autonomy to some extent in order to find an answer to her social and economic problem.
    I have no desire to enter now into the constitutional problem at present being raised by the Government of Malta. But I wish to know whether it is the intention soon that representatives of all the parties in the Malta Chamber should come to this country to discuss with us the constitutional problem. Certainly, Malta now seems prepared to forgo some of her autonomy to find an answer to this problem.
    The Vote is concerned primarily with the emigration scheme. We well appreciate that a policy of emigration, important and helpful as it is for the social problem of Malta, will not solve the economic difficulties which confront her, or give her the answer to the problem of the employment of her people.
    While it may not be the function of this House—having conceded so much in the way of autonomy to Malta—to ask about her economic and social policy, none the less it is important, when we are making money available for emigration, that we should know what the Govern-
    1320
    ment of Malta are doing in the planning and organising of their own resources, and about the development which may be called for in that connection. Therefore, because this country may be faced with a recurring liability in regard to the problem which I have indicated, I should like to know what is now being done by the Maltese Government in the matter of their own economic and social arrangements.
    Have the Government of Malta any new economic programmes, or are any plans being worked out to cope with the problem of employment, which seems only capable of some partial solution in terms of emigration. Secondly, I should like to know—possibly I ought not to confess my ignorance of this matter—how far the reconstruction work which was planned during the latter part of war and immediately following it has proceeded, and whether those big plans of rehabilitation and reconstruction are now completed. That work certainly absorbed a great number of builders and employees, and it would be interesting to know whether the £30 million which was voted by this country has now been exhausted, or whether a great deal of that building work has still to be done. Those are the points to which I wish to draw attention on Subhead B.2. in this Vote.
    I am also interested in the problem of the Aden Protectorate. I think that we shall have the advantage this afternoon of hearing from the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs who recently paid a visit to that Territory. I feel that we should congratulate the Government on making that visit possible, because I believe that this is the first time that a Minister of the Crown has gone into either the Colony or the Protectorate to examine it for himself. A Minister may have called at the Colony on a voyage, as I did on one occasion, but he has certainly never examined the Protectorate for himself.
    I think it appropriate that we should ask the Minister to give us some indication of the progress that is being made in the Colony and in the Protectorates. Under this Vote, we are asked for £157,000 for central and Protectorate services. Those services include education, transport, subsidies to local forces, fisheries, and so on. Therefore, the money required will be employed in a fairly wide way.

    1321
    We are all aware that, in the last year or so, very substantial developments have taken place in the Colony and in the Protectorate. There has been the provision of the oil refinery, rebuilding, and the extension of port facilities. All these things are of very great importance, not only for the development of the Colony, but obviously for the development of the Protectorate as well. I think that one ought to say that this country owes a debt to a number of its colonial servants who have administered this part of the world in days gone by, and I refer particularly—although it is invidious to mention names—to Sir Bernard Reilly, and also to Harold Ingrams for the peace arrangements which he made with the tribes in the Protectorate.
    I confess that I was a little puzzled when I saw this application for £157,000, because the prosperity of Aden seemed to be assured. At any rate, from the latest returns of the Protectorate which I have been able to see, all seemed to be going very well. Four years ago, the revenue was £1,100,000. Last year it was £2,400,000—£750,000 greater than was actually estimated. What puzzles me is why, with a surplus of £344,000 in the local coffers, it is necessary that this additional money should be paid out by the British Government.
    I merely want an explanation. I do not object to local territories building up their revenues and securing surpluses for their future works, but it certainly seemed to me a little odd that, with a surplus of £344,000, we should now be asked to make a further grant of £157,000, quite apart from moneys which may have been voted under the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund.
    Will the Minister tell me what is going forward in the Protectorate? First, I should like him to tell me, if it is in order, what is the situation in Aden itself so far as the crater is concerned. I must confess that when as Secretary of State for the Colonies I saw the damage that had been done in the crater, I was really astonished at its magnitude, and I therefore thought that a very considerable amount of rebuilding and reconstruction was necessary. I should like to know whether the rehousing and the re-establishment of that area of Aden has yet been achieved.
    It is quite true that some new industries are coming in. As I understand, a
    1322
    huge refining plant has recently been created, and there has been a great deal of work for people in the building trades. But what other work is actually being done?
    As we are concerned in this Vote with educational services, I should also like to know whether the educational facilities in both the Colony and the Protectorate have now been reasonably well expanded. For many years now there was talk of a Lloyd College, the establishment of a technical school, secondary instruction, and the rest. I should like to know what educational progress is now being made, and whether certain of these secondary schools have already been established.
    The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) referred to the irrigation scheme at Abyan. I was pleased to note in an article which I read the other day that, last year, first-class cotton to the value of £2½ million had been produced there. This really magnificent development plan—the irrigation work, the conservation work, and the new or improved products which were forthcoming caught the imagination of the people at one time. All that is a remarkable story which redounds to the great credit of our technical officers, and one which ought to be widely known in this country. I should like to know whether further development work of this kind is taking place in the Protectorate and whether colonial development and welfare moneys will be made available for the purpose.
    I come now to my last point, which concerns constitutional development. Perhaps I should be the last person in the world to urge that no steps should be taken in the field of constitutional growth, and especially that the model adopted in so many of our Colonies should apply in the Protectorate of Aden, but I am anxious to know something about the constitution which was offered to both the eastern and western sides of the Protectorate, and also what is to be the final situation, in the light of some resentment which has been and is being shown by certain of the local rulers. I believe that there are 19 protected States on the western side, and two on the eastern side—or it may be the other way round—most of which are protected as a result of treaties.
    In those treaty arrangements the respective States are guaranteed their

    1323
    independence and a large degree of autonomy. In accordance with form, I believe that during the last few years we have been trying to create a legislative council and a governor's full-blown executive council, with some relationship to the legislative council. I may be wrong, but the rumour has reached me that when the rulers were sounded as to the wisdom of some modification of the existing arrangements they expressed their desire to continue along the old orthodox lines, and thought they had little reason to put any faith in some remote authority such as a legislative council and the proposed executive council. It did not seem that they would view with very great favour a political development of this kind.
    The Minister has been reported as telling the rulers, during his recent visit, that these matters would not be forced upon them. This situation gives rise to a great many questions, and I should welcome a statement from the right hon. Gentleman about the present position. This part of the world is undergoing rapid change. The developments seem to be all to the good. I felt it right, especially in the light of his recent visit, to ask the Minister these questions so that the Committee could be informed and have an account of what the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs did when he was in the territory.
    4.35 p.m.
    The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson):I hope that it will meet the convenience of the Committee if I intervene at this stage to deal with the points relating to Malta. Aden and the Aden Protectorate, which were raised by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones)—who had so much to do with the beginning of the reconstruction work in both territories during his period of office—and by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), who also touched upon the question of the Aden Protectorate. I should like to deal with those points at this stage, leaving my right hon. Friend to reply at a later stage to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley)—whose speech surprised me
    1324
    —and other speeches dealing with Kenya and Africa.
    As the right hon. Member for Wakefield said, after the war Malta was faced with a great task of reconstruction and, with the approval of all parties at the time, generous help, amounting in all to about £31 million, was given to her by Her Majesty's Government. This money was primarily intended for the repair of war damage. It is hoped that that scheme of reconstruction will be completed within about a year. Of the sum given, about £7 million now remains.
    When that work is finished a problem of unemployment will be created in Malta, which makes it all the more important for us to consider the increase and development of emigration. Under colonial development and welfare funds Malta receives additional help, which has largely been used for building schools, hospitals and roads. All the money has been allocated, but it has not all been spent. A satisfactory feature of the situation is that for the past three years the Maltese Government have balanced their budget—but there still remains these two overriding economic problems of unemployment consequent upon the completion of war damage reconstruction and over-population.
    In 1952, Her Majesty's Government undertook to meet two-thirds of Malta's annual expenditure upon emigration up to a maximum of £200,000 in any one year. This was to last for a period of four years, beginning with the financial year 1953–54. During last year it became evident that, owing to the favourable reception conditions for Maltese emigrants in Australia, many more could be sent than had been foreseen. As a result, it was decided that the financial provision for emigration, to which Her Majesty's Government were contributing, would not be enough, and it was therefore arranged that the sum of £475,000, which had been granted to Malta for general financial purposes in 1952–53, but which, thanks to the balancing of the Maltese budget, had not been used for that purpose, should be reallocated for emigration.
    In order to do this, there will be a total notional repayment by Malta of £475,000 and a voting of fresh sums to Malta—again notional—which is what we hope to do this afternoon. Last year, £227,000 was voted as a Supplementary

    1325
    Estimate; £142,000 is being asked for today, and the balance of £106,000 will be asked for at a later date as and when it can be spent by the Maltese Government.
    The result of this vigorous emigration policy, which has been fully endorsed and supported by Her Majesty's Government throughout, has been that since 1946 over 47,500 persons have emigrated from Malta. Last year over 11,500 emigrated, which is by far the largest number in a single year. Of these, about 8,500 went to Australia. Since the war, in fact, 60 per cent. of all emigrants from Malta have gone to Australia, the majority benefiting from the assisted passage agreement and other assistance given by the Australian Government. It is only fair to say that the outstanding success of the Maltese Government's emigration programme has been due not merely to the provision of money but also, and very largely, to favourable conditions in the receiving countries, especially Australia.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me to say something in a rather general way about the political situation. The position is that my right hon. Friend expects to have round-table talks with party leaders from Malta in the next two or three months to discuss the so-called "Home Office offer" and related topics. The new Maltese Government have only just taken office and will require some time to settle down before they are able to discuss these matters with us here.
    I turn from Malta to Aden and the Aden Protectorate. I was very fortunate in being able to pay a short visit to these territories during the Recess, and, as the right hon. Gentleman says, I think I am the first Colonial Minister to visit the Protectorate at all. It was a most fascinating experience to visit some of these Sheikdoms and to go up country in the hilly country on the frontier with the Yemen, not unlike the North-West Frontier of India in more than one respect.
    I had not been in Aden for some 15 years and was inevitably impressed by the tremendous development that has taken place in that Colony since the end of the war. I am not thinking only of the extensions made to the port or of the actual development in the town, of which I shall have something to say in a few minutes, but of the great new oil refinery
    1326
    constructed in about 18 months at a cost of £45 million. It is a tribute to the Government and people of Aden and of the Protectorate that the strains and stresses which accompany such a very great development, including the employment of thousands of Arabs from the Protectorate coming down from the wilds of the country for the first time into the town in order to work at the refinery, have been successfully withstood. It is very remarkable.
    In the Western Protectorate, where I visited some six of the States, there has been development throughout, and in particular on the Abyan scheme, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I am satisfied that the development which has taken place in that Protectorate is very welcome to the rulers with whom we are in treaty relationship. They are most anxious to have further help from us and for further progress to be made. I have also found—I made this point when I left the Protectorate—that there was doubt in some of these States whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to continue to fulfil their obligations under our treaties with these territories. I wish to take the opportunity of stating again most emphatically on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that there is no foundation for these doubts and that we are determined to carry out all our obligations, both now and in the future.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Federation proposals. These are no more than proposals. They are in fact little more than cockshies at what might be done. I know they cause anxiety to some of the rulers, but the proposals have not been put to them formally. They are something that has to be thought about before any definite step can be made. We must all realise the advantages which can be gained from unity in this part of Arabia and in other parts of the world.
    As regards the Abyan scheme, I pay tribute to the foresight of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers at the time. This territory was only entered for administration purposes for the first time in 1938 to quell the feuds between the Yafai and the Fadhli tribes. At that time there were only some 1,000 acres under a desultory sort of cultivation. Between 1940 and 1947 cereal production took place and some 5,000 acres were cultivated. It

    1327
    was then that the Abyan Development Board was created for the specific purpose of developing a very large area of 120,000 acres in all on the basis of flood irrigation from two rivers, the Wadi Bana and the Wadi Hassan. Through irrigation, it was hoped to be able to produce not only cereals but many other crops, and particularly cotton.
    The hopes of the right hon. Gentleman at that time have been more than justified. The Abyan board was organised on the lines of the Gash board, which some hon. Members may remember operated very successfully in the Kassala province of the Sudan. It is a triple partnership between the Government, the tenant and the landlord, the members being appointed by the Governor of Aden. The success of the scheme can be judged by results. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that some £2½ million worth of cotton, of a very fine grade of the best Gezira cotton, was produced lastyear. This was an increase from the production of 1,500 bales, worth £115,000 in 1949. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the effects of the scheme are no less remarkable than the economics. It is a very great achievement, and great credit is due not only to members of the board but to the Government of Aden, and particularly to the Government's advisers who have helped so much with the scheme.
    The oil refinery at Aden was constructed at a cost of some £45 million. It is now in full production. In fact, when I was there they were cutting down production owing to lack of world demand for crude oil. At that time the Government had secured a £4 million Treasury loan to provide municipal services and repairs to the refinery.
    Port developmentis also going ahead. I will not attempt to go into the details of this scheme, but the plan is estimated to cost about £2 million, which is a very large sum in a small place like Aden, which had only 50,000 inhabitants. This population has now grown to no fewer than 130,000, and the increase has created the housing problem to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The problem is being dealt with as rapidly as possible by the Government, particularly in the suburb of Sheikh Othman, which the righthon. Gentleman may remember is just on the edge of the Aden Protectorate.
    1328
    Building is also taking place in the Crater zone, not on as large a scale as in the Sheikh Othman. It is hoped that the housing programme of the Government will make it possible to provide for a very large number of people in Aden in the next few years.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me why, if Aden Colony is so prosperous, which it is, and if it has a surplus, we are asking this Committee for additional funds. The fact is that the central services referred to under the subhead of the Vote serve both the Colony and the Protectorate and that while the Colony is prosperous the Protectorate remains extremely poor. It is in particular for the services for the Protectorate alone that the money is required.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me about education both in the Protectorate and in the Colony. In the Western Protectorate there is the Lahej secondary school, which was the first to come into existence of a number of secondary schools which it is hoped will be established. It is under the control of the Sultan of Lahej, who has the advice of the Governor of Aden in matters of organisation, staff and so on. In the Eastern Protectorate there is an impressive secondary school—unfortunately I had no time to visit the Eastern Protectorate—at Gheil-Ba-Wazir in the State of Mukalla. It has been very successful, and it is in fact a show-piece.
    Meanwhile, efforts are being made to develop primary and secondary education in other parts of the Protectorate, but lack of teachers is one of our great problems, and consideration is being given to the starting of some form of small teacher-training college.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are school places for all the Somali children who go there?
    Mr. Hopkinson:I shall have to look into that point and write to the hon. Member. Certainly the schools in the Colony are catering for the Somalis in Aden, of whom there are already a great many. In the Colony itself there is a pressing need for additional schools, largely due to its economic growth and the expansion of the population. The Government are being repeatedly urged to provide more schools,

    1329
    and in particular more schools of a technical character, so that there will be available the skilled labour to fill more senior posts in government, commerce and industry without undue foreign immigration which has hitherto taken place.
    A Select Committee is going into this matter, and the Government are pressing on with developments which will certainly be carried out as the necessary funds become available. They have in mind particularly the construction of two intermediate boys' schools and one primary school at Bureika, which is the main village for the new refinery across the bay at Little Aden. Then, of course, there is Aden College itself which is designed to serve the needs of both the Colony and the Protectorate. That was finished in 1953. It has 15 staff houses, two laboratories and theatres, an assembly hall, a mosque and boarding accommodation for 30 boys. It takes pupils as far as the Cambridge Certificate and the General Certificate of Education.
    Then there is the Associated Technical College which was opened a few years ago and which will take pupils as far as the examinations of the City and Guilds of London Institute. Again attached to the Aden college—I am speaking of the Colony and not the Protectorate—there is a one-year teachers' training scheme for men teachers. Our hope is that this Aden college will in due course develop into a university college.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to constitutional matters. I think he had in mind in particular the question of federation to which I referred just now and which, as I said, must be regarded as being in a very preliminary stage—something which we are all thinking about but which is not being proceeded with at the moment. I should perhaps take this opportunity of calling attention to the fact that the Aden Executive Council, which was originally established in 1937, and the Legislative Council which was established in 1947, in the time when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in power, have now also been modified and their powers increased. On 17th January the Governor announced that the Executive Council, consisting at present of himself, five officials and one unofficial, was to be increased by one Arab unofficial member, and at the same time there are to be changes in the Legislative Council,
    1330
    which will include some degree of election of unofficial members, which are now being discussed with unofficial nominated members. I can tell the Committee that this statement has been extremely well received in Aden itself. The changes are now under discussion and, therefore, confidential for the time being.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that I have dealt with all the points that he has raised. I apologise for taking time on this subject, but we must remember that there are these smaller places in the Colonial Territories to which attention should be given and which deserve the interest and the support of this House as much as some of the others which occupy more prominence in the public mind.
    4.55 p.m.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I do not think the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs has any reason to apologise for answering the questions which have been put about Malta and Aden. There is a danger that we may overlook parts of the Colonies which are regarded as small.
    It was particularly relevant that the references to Malta should have been made. I believe this is the first occasion on which there has been a discussion about Malta since the General Election there, and this House ought to take note of the very historic expression of opinion which was made in that election. There, I suppose for the first time in the history of the British Colonies, the people have decided by democratic means that their desire is to become associated with this Parliament.
    I recognise the right of Colonial Territories to independence when that is their desire, but equally I welcome the fact when the people of a Colony desire to be associated with our Parliament in that kind of way. I hope very much that in the discussions which are to proceed a time will come when we shall have the opportunity of welcoming their representatives in this House.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: Ought not the hon. Gentleman also to recognise the right of the English people to independence if they want it?
    Mr. Brockway: I hope that my later remarks may cover that point, which seems to me a little irrelevant now.

    1331
    I want to deal particularly with the subject of Kenya, not because the problems in Kenya are important for that Colony alone, but because I feel that they are so symbolic of what is happening in Colonial Territories generally. In the minds of many of us there is the question whether the Colonies in Africa, and in East and Central Africa particularly, are to move towards racial equality and racial co-operation, or whether they will develop into the unhappy situation which exists in Kenya of violence, conflict and race war. I believe that our answer to the present problems in Kenya may determine not only the future of Kenya but the future of other territories in Africa as well.
    Ever since I first visited Kenya five years ago I have had the dream of that Colony becoming an example of a democratic multi-racial society, a society in which the European, Asian, Arab and African populations could co-operate politically, socially and economically, and I still cherish that hope today. I cherish it despite the physical conflict which there has been in Kenya in recent years, and the only contribution I want to make to our debate this afternoon is to submit proposals which I believe would help in the realisation of that goal.
    I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will himself agree that the most urgent issue in Kenya, if there is to be hope of establishing a democratic multi-racial society there, must be an effort to bring about an end of the fighting now taking place. When I put a Question to him in the House the other day, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that I was harking back to old issues. I want to assure him that that is not my mind at all and that my reference to old issues was only because I thought some illustrations could be drawn from them to avoid mistakes in dealing with the immediate issue.
    I have welcomed the surrender proposals which were made to try to bring about an end to the fighting, but the point I want to make to the right hon. Gentleman is that the methods by which those surrender proposals have been offered may prejudice their acceptance and may prejudice the realisation of peace in Kenya. On the last occasion on which there were negotiations to bring about the end of the fighting, what has been
    1332
    described as an unfortunate accident occurred. A thousand Africans, who had gathered to lay down their arms, dispersed because they had been tricked.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That would be a very inaccurate statement to have on the record. It is thought that a large party of Africans—a thousand—dispersed because of the unfortunate firing of shots in the neighbourhood. Even that is not proved. But what is absolutely certain is that there was no trickery of any kind and that the firing in the neighbourhood was an unfortunate accident and had nothing whatever to do with the possible large-scale surrender.
    Mr. Brockway: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, but I choose my words carefully and nothing which he has now said is a correction of what I said.
    What I said was this—and I did not mean it in an unfair or misleading way at all: a thousand of the Kikuyu and the Mau Mau had gathered together to lay down their arms, and an unfortunate accident occurred which led them to disperse because they thought they had been tricked.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If that is what the hon. Gentleman said, I beg his pardon, but I think the record of the House will show that what he said, in fact, was, "because they had been tricked." I should not have dreamed of interrupting him if he had said that they thought they had been tricked. Indeed, that is quite possible, and if that is what he said, I apologise to him. But although my voice is bad today, my ears are still very keen.
    Mr. Brockway: If this exchange has cleared up that point, I am quite happy. I certainly intended to say, "because they thought they had been tricked." I did not mean to suggest that they had been tricked on direct purpose in any way at all.
    The point I am trying to make is that the fact that that happened meant that there was distrust in the minds of the Mau Mau; and therefore any further offer of surrender which had to be made should have been made after preparation to destroy that distrust. That distrust being present, the Mau Mau had to be convinced of sincerity and reality in the offer.

    1333
    On more than one occasion I have made the suggestion in the House, as well as privately to the right hon. Gentleman and in correspondence, that preparation for any surrender offer should have been made by starting talks through a European and through an African who had the trust of the Africans. I have privately suggested names. I do not want to suggest names publicly, but I say that there are Europeans, outside this House, who would have had the trust of the Africans in that way and that there are Africans who have been found not guilty of any association with Mau Mau, but who unfortunately are still in detention, who similarly would have had that trust. If they had been able to commence negotiations in Kenya, to commence conversations, I believe that they would have been able to convince the Mau Mau leaders of the sincerity of the offer which was being made.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: Would the hon. Member say who are the Mau Mau leaders with whom these negotiations could be carried out, because that is very important?
    Mr. Brockway: Certainly. We found them in the case of "General" China, who is quite well aware who the other leaders were. Indeed, he intended to go from gang leader to gang leader, if the previous discussions had not broken down in the way which I have described. I think it would not be difficult, if contact were made with some of the leaders, to find other, at present unknown, leaders whose names are not immediately available to us.
    What I was arguing was that if an effort had been made on those lines we might have expected large surrenders by members of the Mau Mau. I have no doubt at all that they now appreciate that the continuing of the physical conflict is of little avail. I have little doubt that if an offer had been prepared in this kind of way, which had their trust, we might today be very near the end of the fighting.
    I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in saying this my intention is not to be critical but it is to ask him, even at this stage, when the surrender offer has only one more month to last, to try to find some method by which an approach can be made which will convince the adherents of Mau Mau of its sincerity. I
    1334
    emphasise that because I believe that some approach of that kind is the first necessity in the Kenya situation today.
    The next thing I want to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman is that he should make some change in the conditions under which Africans are being hanged in Kenya. I have in my hand the answer which he gave to a Question I put last Thursday, which shows that since the emergency 836 Africans have been hanged. That means an average of 30 a month. What is particularly disturbing is the fact that less than one-third of them—262 out of 836—have been found guilty of murder.
    I understand the emotions about this matter. I understand what may have been in the mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite—the thought that Europeans have been killed and that a much larger number of Africans have been killed. I understand that emotion completely, but there is a difference between that and the cold-blooded hanging of people by methods of justice, by methods of administration; and the bitterness which arises from that is much longer-continued than the bitterness which arises in violent conflict between one side and another.
    May I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to make some revision of the offences for which these hangings take place? Out of the 836, 330 are for unlawful possession of arms and ammunition. I do not want to revert to the point which I put to the right hon. Gentleman before—that in conditions of animosity such as exist in Kenya, not just animosity between the Armed Forces and Mau Mau but among the Africans themselves and among the Kikuyu, it is so easy for emnity to lead towards bullets being placed in huts and then men arrested, but—
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman would also agree that when charges are often made against loyalists for certain offences, it is almost equally easy for those charges, too, to have been framed.
    Mr. Brockway:Certainly. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that I am arguing this from only one side. I accept it entirely from the other point of view and I welcome it from the other point of view What I am saying is that on both sides

    1335
    one ought now to limit the capital offences to cases of murder and that unless we do so, we are likely to maintain the bitterness and the racial hatred.
    The third question I want to put to him has been raised a number of times from these benches, and it is the question of discipline in Kenya. I do not think that the cases in which British troops have been involved are in the least typical. Indeed, I am inclined to take the view that the presence of British troops in Kenya has been of disciplinary value and has limited the acts which have been exposed in other cases, but when we have said that we must add that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be happy about the reports of illegal, physical conduct by the forces, military and police, which have so frequently been seen in the Press and to which attention has been drawn from these benches. I hope that there will be a further inquiry about this and a further insistence that justice will be meted out fully.
    I thank the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) for raising the issue of Kenya in his opening speech, and I want to deal briefly with four points which he put forward. The first is the land question. Of course, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) is right when he says that one does not want more land to be used if that land will not be well used. But that is only half the picture. The other half of the picture is this. The Kikuyu are now so crowded upon their land that even if they were farming the land well, they would be unable to exist by their own production. One million two hundred thousand Kikuyu crowded into a Reserve, 440 to 1,000 per square mile—even with the best agricultural system possible, they would not be able to exist under those conditions, and 500,000 of them have been driven away.
    On the last occasion that we discussed this matter, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) made a very courageous stand. I have been so often attacked in the Kenya and East African Press that I had sympathy for him when the attack turned on him rather than on me after that debate. Is there any doubt at all, in view of the land hunger that there is in Kenya, that the White Highlands must be made open for competent African farmers to engage in cultivation?
    1336
    How can we possibly maintain that in a British Colony where, as long ago as 1923, a Conservative Minister declared that the interests of Africans should come first, when there is land hunger among the African population, the White Highlands should be reserved for Europeans only? I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is very desirable indeed that those who hold official positions in Kenya should not prejudice this situation before the report of the Land Commission has been received.
    The second point mentioned by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham, to which I want to make some reference, is the co-operation of the Africans. May I again try to convey what I apparently failed to convey before when I made this plea to the right hon. Gentleman? I recognise that there are African loyalists who are co-operating with the Government. But when we divide the Africans into loyalists and into Mau Mau, we are not making a proper analysis of the African point of view. Indeed, I would say that between those two there is a great body of Africans who hate the methods of Mau Mau but who also are not prepared to become indentified with the British Administration in Kenya because of the character of that Administration in the past; and, indeed, as these hangings illustrate, in the present.
    In my view, the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in Kenya itself ought to have had the breadth of mind to seek the co-operation of Africans who, while they are critical of our Administration, equally hate the methods of Mau Mau. It is that type of African, some now in detention camps, some outside, who is likely to appeal to the mass of the African people much more than either the Mau Mau extremists or the African who is sometimes regarded as the stooge of the British Administration.
    The next point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and which I support, is the plea for multi-racial education. When I was last in Kenya I found a good deal of antagonism between the European, the African and the Asian races. The most inspiring thing that I saw was the children's queue at the Saturday morning cinema. In that queue were European, African and Asian children standing side by side. They were excitedly discussing, without any of the poison

    1337
    of racial antagonism, the film which they were going to see. I do not believe that in children there is any natural race antagonism at all. If there is hatred, it is because they have been poisoned by the minds of their parents, and if we are really to develop a multi-racial society in Kenya we should begin in the schools.
    I recognise facts, and I recognise that in Kenya now there is an antagonism which would mean that parents would not be sending their children to multiracial schools, but I am going to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should follow up the present multi-racial nursery schools with multi-racial elementary and secondary schools. He should not make them universal at the beginning, but he should make them the best in Kenya, with the best buildings, the best equipment and the best teachers. If he would open pilot schools of that character, invite parents to send their children to those schools, and give the best education available, I believe that he would do something to penetrate the present racial system of education that we have there.
    The last reference I want to make is to the plea of my right hon. Friend against tribal political organisations. I join in that plea. I want to ask this question of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am putting it as a question because I have not the answer. I have seen it stated that it is now proposed, not only that political organisations should be on a tribal basis but that trade union organisation also should be on a tribal basis. Ido hope that if the Government are thinking on those lines they will think again. It would be absolutely disastrous if the workers in Kenya when joining trade unions must remember that they belong to this, that or the other tribe. If there is any suggestion of that character, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will repudiate it this afternoon.
    I regret having spoken rather longer than I intended, but I hope the Committee will agree that the issues about Kenya which I have raised are of some importance.
    5.22 p.m.
    Mr. C. J. M. Alport: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) and I seem fated to follow each other on occasion after
    1338
    occasion and on most occasions I find myself in very strong disagreement with the views he puts forward
    On this occasion, however, I would prefer not to follow his speech in detail because he has expressed his point of view and I wish to apply myself, in the short time I have to speak, to expressing a different point of view, one which does not touch on many of the points raised in his remarks. But I must say this in reply to one point he made. I cannot see how he can maintain that the memory of a judicial hanging is more repellent and long lasting in the minds of the people than the memory of a brutal murder by the slashing, with a panga, of an infant, whether a European or an African.
    I always think the hon. Member is apt to get his ideas—his sense of values—out of proportion in these matters. I respect his objection to capital punishment, but I do not think he should allow that to get his appreciation of the attitude of mind of Africans and Europeans in Africa, in Kenya in particular, out of perspective.
    The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), who opened the debate, referred to a speech I had the privilege of making here just before Christmas and asked my right hon. Friend whether, on that occasion, I spoke for the Government. The right hon. Member knows as well as I do that no private Member ever speaks for the Government in this House.
    Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) will look at Hansard he will see that he has misunderstood what I said. I said that the hon. Member was a supporter of the Government and made comments with which I agreed. I wanted to know whether Her Majesty's Government supported those views.
    Mr. Alport:Then I withdraw, but I was quite clearly under the impression that the views stated by the right hon. Member, if read by a perhaps not very well-informed public outside, would give the impression that he was trying to pin on Her Majesty's Government the personal views I expressed on that occasion.
    Mr. Bottomley Mr. Bottomley indicated dissent.
    Mr. Alport: I think there is convincing evidence that the situation in Kenya during the last three or four months has shown a very considerable improvement. For instance, twelve months ago there was an imminent danger that the Mau Mau movement would spread to other tribes, yet within the last few days we have seen that an influential section of the badly disaffected Meru Tribe has renounced the evil doctrines of Mau Mau. I think there is no reason to doubt at all that the operations "Hammer" and "Anvil" have dealt a very severe blow indeed to the organisation and morale of the hard core of the Mau Mau movement.
    At this time, the rains will soon be breaking, or have already started. That means that those gangsters who are on the run will have a most unpleasant life in the forests, if they are still there. For Africans everywhere there is the immemorial urge to plant the crops on which the survival of men, women and children depends for the ensuing year. As those who know Kenya will realise, the clouds lie low, like wet blankets, over the whole of the Highlands. I suggest that this is the psychological moment, this moment when the fiercer tensions of life in Kenya today are perhaps temporarily relaxed, when a supreme effort should be made to give a new direction of policy to the Colony.
    I am convinced that the majority of the Europeans are sick of the dissensions which have been such an unhappy feature of political life in Kenya during the last 12 months and which, incidentally, I fear have done such great harm to the reputation of the European community in the Colony. I am convinced, likewise, that African and Asian opinion is ripe for a decisive lead which will direct the minds of the people as a whole and their energies, regardless of race, away from the fears and irritations of the emergency to the constructive work of rebuilding the life of that Colony.
    I think that that lead must come from the top. The idea seems to have grown up in recent years in the Colony that democracy means government by public meeting. That, I feel, is a most dangerous fallacy, particularly during an emergency when the memory of the recent past and the anxieties for the immediate future tend to warp human judgment. I do not think that responsibility for initiating
    1340
    what I call a decisive lead can be left only to the individual members of the Kenya Government. I believe that the initiative, primarily, must rest with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, secondly, with his Excellency the Governor of Kenya.
    To my mind, there is a choice between two lines of policy. On the one hand, there is the possible policy of retribution. I was startled and amazed to hear a report of a speech made by one of the unofficial European members of the Kenya Legislature in which he said—when he was expressing his antipathy to the amnesty—that he would prefer the emergency to go on for another three years than to accept the conditions of the amnesty I cannot believe that responsible opinion in Kenya as a whole feels that is a possible or desirable policy to follow.
    One thing, I think, should be remembered. It is that as the emergency goes on with the rough justice—if I may use that expression—which any emergency entails for all races, and in this case particularly for Africans, bitterness is bound to increase. It is wrong to suppose that the memory of that bitterness and of the petty injustices, the restrictions and the irritations of life in an emergency will easily be removed from the minds of Africans in this generation or in the next.
    I remember very well that during the last war we were unable to recruit any of the Nyasas for the Military Labour Services. The reason was that they remembered all too clearly what had happened to the Nyasa porters in the East African campaign of 1916 and 1917. The tribal memory—the clan and family memory—of the African is very long, and what we do not want to do is to feed that memory with continued bitterness and with the continued irritations and inevitable injustices, as they may regard them, which are occasioned by emergency conditions. Therefore, I believe that not only for the present but, what is far more important, for the future it is vital that we try to bring the emergency to an end as quickly as possible. We cannot do that if we follow that first alternative, the policy of retribution.
    The second alternative is a policy of reconciliation. I agree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough and with my hon. Friends on this side who have

    1341
    underlined the support which we give on an all-party basis to the efforts made during the present amnesty to bring about a substantial surrender of the Mau Mau. It is important that that should be continued. I regard it as most important that particularly during this last month—if. indeed, it is to be the last month—a new and more vigorous appeal should be made by the Government, now that the rains are coming and conditions for the gangs will be worse than during the last nine months or so, to obtain a greater measure of surrender and to impress on the minds of the Mau Mau the urgency and the fact that in the end, if they fail to take this opportunity, then, for that hard core that remains irreconcilable, retribution will be the only policy available to the Government of Kenya.
    There is another point that we must not forget. Admittedly, it is relatively easy for the House of Commons to vote another £12 million to help with the emergency in the Colony, but how much all of us would prefer that money to be spent, not on police measures or on the creation of new internment camps, but on the essential and vital work of producing new economic and social development to improve the life of Africans, Asians and Europeans in that part of Africa. Therefore, I would say that again the policy of reconciliation, in so far as it is most likely to reduce the length of the emergency, is the only one which can be followed.
    Since I have been bold enough to say that the initiative in this must rest with my right hon. Friend and with His Excellency the Governor, I should like to suggest one or two of the steps which might appear to be desirable. First, I believe it urgent that the process of handing over responsibility for operations against the Mau Mau from the military to the police should be accelerated. I know that great progress has already been made in establishing a firmer police control over the Kikuyu reserve but I should like to know, after the latest operation in the Forest of Mount Kenya is completed, what is to be the administrative and military policy towards future operations and responsibility for them.
    I believe that as the new phase starts it would be valuable if the new Commander-in-Chief designate were to proceed and be available on the spot to
    1342
    take over responsibility for the new phase, which, presumably, will fall to his lot. Can my right hon. Friend say when General Lathbury will be available in East Africa to take over command there? I ask that question without any sense of criticism whatever of the services rendered by the present Commander-in-Chief, General Erskine. I merely feel that the long gap between the announcement of a new appointment and the taking up of an appointment by the officer concerned is always a mistake and should be avoided as far as possible.
    Secondly, I believe it is vital that there should be a speeding up of the restoration to normal life of those who are cleared of direct implication in Mau Mau and who are at present being detained in the camps. It has been fascinating to me to hear from many of those whom I know in Kenya, who have been employers of Kikuyu in the past, that they intend to take them back into their service, and that as far as the great majority of them are concerned no questions will be asked. If that is the spirit—it shows immense generosity and breadth of mind on the part of European employers—the sooner they are able to take these men back and restore them to the normal routine of life, the better for all concerned.
    We cannot allow a Colony which is really a small Colony in numbers and resources to bear indefinitely the burden of administration and of cost which is involved in maintaining large numbers of Africans in the very unsatisfactory, as it must be, and certainly unnatural, expensive life of the internment camps.
    The third thing which I also regard as vital is that there should be a new programme of development which would give concrete evidence of the intention of Her Majesty's Government here and the capability of Her Majesty's Government in Kenya to provide higher standards of living for the African population. I know that my right hon. Friend could quite easily reply, "We are already doing that," and I know the constructive efforts which have been made, not only in the last few months, but over many years, to achieve this aim; but now is the moment when one wants some dramatic development.
    It is interesting that in the case of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the decision to go ahead with the Kariba

    1343
    dam has been, so to speak, a shot in the arm to the morale and attitude of mind of all sections of the Rhodesian community. Some big and imaginative scheme of that sort, although, obviously, it would not solve all the problems, would at any rate give a feeling to all the people in the Colony that we in this country and Her Majesty's Government in particular were confident of the future of that Colony.
    For instance, nothing could be more important to Africa as a whole and to Kenya in particular than the development of a comprehensive water policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), in an earlier speech, said that the development of peasant agriculture was vital; he said that land was vital. But millions of square miles of land in Africa are no good because there is no water. In some ways water is more important—it is certainly equally important—than land.
    We know quite well that in various parts of the Wakamba Reserve and the Masai area, and in other parts of Kenya away from the well-watered highlands, African and European alike, there are great stretches of land to which the answer is water, and water only. If there has been a successful experiment in Tanganyika of providing water for waterless country on a co-operative basis, in which Africans are encouraged to provide some of the finance—for the provision of water is very costly—cannot that same principle be extended to Kenya? Cannot we make progress in that way in associating the Africans directly with the development of their own territory as well as with the enjoyment of the advantages of that development?
    I ask my right hon. Friend what new industries are coming to Kenya at the present time? I know very well that one or two have been started even during the emergency. It would be a tonic to public opinion in the Colony if the people there knew that British enterprise from this country had gained sufficient confidence in the future of the Colony that at this moment in the Colony's history it was prepared to make new money available for development and that new industrial development was indeed taking place. I should like my right hon. Friend, if he can, to give me some idea of the progress there.
    1344
    What progress has been made in extending the supply of electricity from the Owen Falls scheme towards Nairobi? From the point of view of the scheme itself and from the point of view of Nairobi that extension of supply is absolutely vital, and it would be another indication that, despite the setback of the emergency, this great Colony is making progress and has a great future.
    Some reference has been made during the debate to a speech which, as I have already recalled, I made at the end of last year. I still believe that it is quite vital that the land issue should be removed from politics and treated as an agrarian problem. I am well aware that my right hon. Friend has given an undertaking, as, indeed, did his predecessor, Lord Chandos, that there would be no change in the present situation in Kenya before 1960. While I am, frankly, suspicious of a timetable of standstill, as I am of a timetable of a programme of advance, at the same time, knowing that that undertaking has been given, and that, therefore, there will be no—does my right hon. Friend wish to intervene?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, if my hon. Friend will allow me to do so. In view of the very great important of what my hon. Friend is saying, perhaps I should interrupt the debate once more—for almost the tenth time. When I was in Kenya I said, knowing, as I do, the intense interest that all races feel in the land, that I interpreted the undertaking that there would be no fundamental change before 1960 to mean that there was nothing in the agreement that would preclude consideration of the Royal Commission's report. In so far as there might be proposals affecting the rights of any community in land which was reserved to it by ordinance or agreement the word "consideration" meant consideration alone. I think it is rather important to repeat what, I think, are almost exactly the words I used, in view of the possible misunderstanding.
    Mr. Alport: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. What I am trying to say is that undertakings have been given by the Government in respect of this matter and that I believe that this is not a question in which the initiative should come from the Government here or, for that matter, from the Government of Kenya, but that

    1345
    it should come from the European community in Kenya. That is because I believe that unless the people of that community are prepared to take this initiative in trying to draw the land problem out of the sphere of politics it will continue to bedevil the politics of Kenya and race relations in Kenya indefinitely. I believe that it can be done without doing any damage at all to the legitimate and proper and long established interests of the European community.
    For instance, we are to have, as we know, very shortly the report of the Royal Commission. I must say I had hoped that that report would have been available now rather than in about six weeks' time or two months' time because, as I have said, I believe that this is the critical moment in the history of the colony. However, it should not be an initiative resulting from the Royal Commission report that should start the European community in Kenya trying to find a solution to the land problem. It simply cannot be ignored. It is there for better or worse, and, like all political problems, until it is solved, until the attitude of mind of the people there has changed towards it, it will continue to be a source of difficulty and division.
    After all, if a community in any society claims the rights of leadership it must realise—as this community realises, I am sure—that leadership involves paying a price, and the price that has to be paid is taking the initiative in tackling the most difficult questions. It is very often a price which involves concessions, concessions which may not be particularly popular, but concessions which are inevitable if that leadership is to be maintained.
    Therefore, I would ask—and pray, indeed—that instead of trying to put off facing the great problems which land undoubtedly produces for Europeans, Asians and Africans alike, the European community in Kenya will do its best to try to find a solution, which may be along the lines which I have suggested, or which may be along the lines which Mr. Lipscombe, in his recent book, suggested; but a solution which will draw the whole question of the land out of the dangerous arena of politics.
    I believe that it is wrong for us to approach either the problem of the land or the whole problem of Kenya simply
    1346
    upon a single Colony basis. I think we are doing wrong not to realise that, whether it be in dealing with the land or dealing with power supply, communications, or any of the great problems of Africa, we have to deal with it on a regional and area basis, and not allow our minds to be cribbed and confined by the artificial frontiers and boundaries created by the political carve-up of Africa at the end of the last century. One example of this is to be, seen in the difficulty that arose in Somaliland and resulted in the recent protests of the Somali representatives. In that case we were inevitably bound by the ties of history, but we cannot allow that to happen for ever. The artificial frontiers of Africa will burst if we do not deal with such problems as land on a regional basis.
    I have, therefore been concerned—and I must say so—at the way in which, during the last three years, particularly during the emergency, the other two territories of East Africa, Uganda and Tanganyika, have tended to draw away from Kenya and to dissociate themselves from the problems of that Colony. They cannot do so in the long run. They cannot live in a little world of their own, remote from the great movements and the great problems of Africa. On the whole, the future of those three territories, whatever form that future may take, will be a single one. I do not say that that means political federation, but it does mean much closer economic collaboration than we have known in the past. I hope that that is one of the matters upon which the Royal Commission, when it reports, will be able to give us advice.
    I really believe that the greatest of the difficulties which is facing the Government and people of Kenya at present is psychological. They have been told that their problems are unique. I do not believe that they are unique. They have happened in history many times before. I do not believe for a moment that the Kikuyu are so very different from other
    Africans in their general approach. I am quite certain that the Europeans in Kenya are no different from other Europeans, that they do not live in a little world of their own, isolated, with different problems, with a different point of view, remote from the rest of the Commonwealth and remote from the rest of Africa. They are all part of a whole. That being

    1347
    so, I believe that a lead at the present time, an attempt to bring to the people of Kenya, regardless of race, giving new hope and prospects for the future, from the Government and through His Excellency the Governor, will do more than the voting of money by this Committee to improve the prospects of that Colony, and to restore to it at an early date the programme of development which was undertaken before the awful tragedy struck it.
    5.50 p.m.
    Mr. James Johnson: It is always a pleasure to catch your eye, Sir Austin, but especially so when it means that today I follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport). I hope that the hon. Member will not mind my saying that, as I listened to him, I had the impression that the mantle of Elijah had fallen on Elisha, since he followed my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway). The words of the hon. Member and of my hon. Friend will go out to East Africa and no doubt will be published in the "East Africa and Rhodesia Magazine" and the "Kenya Weekly News." Settlers, particularly in the Highlands, will be saying, "At long last we have what we have so long asked for—something like a Council of State in the House of Commons," because the two speeches have been so complementary.
    I could not agree more with both speakers in emphasising the significance of the so-called "passive wing" of Kikuyu people between the hard core of Mau Mau in the forest and those outside—again a hard core—the anti-Mau Mau Home Guard. There are about 1 million passive Kikuyu and if we do not get the African leaders among them behind us we shall never solve the problem of Mau Mau. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) spoke of having met African leaders, and stressed the fact that not all African leaders were inside the detention camps. Who knows who are the African leaders, until we have elections, and thus allow the Africans to choose their own leaders? I therefore welcome the appointment of the Coutts Commission and look forward to the 1956 elections when the Africans will be able to say, "These elected Members in Nairobi have the same coloured skins as we have.
    1348
    These men who are facing Mr. Blundell and Mr. Havelock are our leaders." Africans too often see, whether in Zomba, in Nyasaland, Nairobi, or Dar-es-Salaam, people in office, whom I will not describe as "stooges," but whom the Africans certainly regard as men who are there because they are favoured by the whites. Until we have in Kenya a feeling among the Africans that people chosen openly by themselves are to be their leaders, we cannot say that we have on our side loyal Africans who will co-operate freely and fully.
    When we last debated Kenya, on 16th February, I quoted a London evening newspaper in connection with the amnesty terms, and by inference criticised Mr. Michael Blundell for having said, to what the newspaper described as
    "… a hostile meeting of European electors …"
    that the following day he would give the date of the withdrawal of the amnesty terms.
    I asked the Minister to say whether that was to be so and the right hon. Gentleman replied:
    "Here, let me say straight away to the hon. Member for Rugby that there is no question whatever of any statement being made tomorrow in Kenya or anywhere else that this offer is being withdrawn. It has always been clearly understood that it would be an indefinite offer, and I can assure the Committee that it would not be withdrawn on the morrow of a Parliamentary debate here without my telling Parliament all about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 507.]
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. Member knows that I did not say "indefinite." I said that it was an offer that would be limited, or a phrase to that effect. It was inadvertently reported as "indefinite." Immediate steps were taken to correct that, but I think the hon. Member knows that I myself made it quite plain that it would be subject to some eventual repeal. Three months had been mentioned and that would take it up to April, but nothing final had been said about this coming to an end yet.
    Mr. Johnson: I am most happy to hear that admission. I feel, personally, that these terms should be offered indefinitely. It would be a pity if they were withdrawn in the near future. I believe that I misunderstood Mr. Blundell on that matter. I am sure that he spoke at that meeting with the full knowledge of his colleagues in the Government and the

    1349
    War Council in Nairobi, and that he said quite sincerely and wittingly that he would make an announcement the following morning. I want to make that clear.
    I turn from the question of amnesty terms to say a few words about land, which has been mentioned so often in our debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough is, of course, correct. There are in the Kiambu location about 40,000 Kikuyu on 40 square miles. That is simply appalling, and we have to find some place for these people to go. What will happen to the White Highlands? I feel, like the hon. Member for Colchester, that the European leaders and the white highlanders must soon face the fact that the White Highlands will not always be a tribal enclave for white people.
    We may have sometime to go to Tanganyika and Uganda to settle the land hunger of the millions in Kenya. However, some emigration of the Kikuyu into the White Highlands will not settle their difficulties by any means, because there is insufficient vacant land there. Again, I am not in favour of evicting white farmers or buying them out, but access to the White Highlands would pay enormous psychological and political dividends, if we allowed some Africans to enter as tenant farmers. A test of competent farming could be applied and a clearance certificate by a board required, just as in this country the county agricultural executive committees have to give a competence certificate A, B or C, as it were, to British farmers. I see no objection at all to that.
    At the moment, tens of thousands of black Africans are farming among the white settlers. What are squatters but black African farmers? They have two or more acres among the white farmers, and what is the objection to giving them larger units for 20, 30 or 40 years, of land on which to farm? If, as it is whispered, the Commission were to come out in favour of access to the European White Highlands and if the European leaders in the Government were to oppose that, and were even to leave the Cabinet, what would happen in Kenya? Would we be able to carry on with the situation as it is, with nominated white Ministers like Mr. Vasey, Mr. Cavendish-Bentinck, and others, plus Asians, plus Africans,
    1350
    or would we have to suspend the Constitution and govern from London?
    The detention camps have been mentioned and I share the fear and dismay of hon. Members about the slow tempo of screening in them. I would not only go faster with the clearance, but I would clear out up to 90 per cent. of those now in the camps. There are many in them who will never be given a black certificate. They are perfectly clear. I would take a chance and clear out 90 per cent. and allow them to pursue their own normal activities in the Reserve. I appeal to the Minister to look at this matter again and to consider what is said by African labour leaders like Mr. Tom Mboya and others whom we know, and in whom we have confidence, that there are trade union leaders in the camps who should be cleared and be free to help in the job of organising African labour. Particularly is that so in view of the difficulties which there have been at the Mombasa Docks and elsewhere over these last few months.
    If the amnesty terms are withdrawn, if we take a long time over the screening in the camps and if we contemplate a fight to the finish—I myself think that things are on the mend and that they are better than they were—I want to know what is to happen to the "hard core" in the jungle and bamboo forests. Where are they to go? Are they to be sentenced and put away in camps in the Northern Territories? I should like the Minister to tell us what are his intentions about this hard core of gangsters who are at the centre of the Mau Mau conspiracy.
    I do not want to see them again living among the Kikuyu society. They are thugs and gangsters, who are not fit to be back there. I would hate to see that hard core of 2,000 or 5,000 return and carry on a sort of internecine or civil war vendetta, paying off old scores against the Home Guard or other loyal Kikuyu who are on our side today against these gangsters in the forests.
    I should like the Minister to say what are his hopes about the future of government. I would like to see him introduce an experiment by means of a "common roll" electorate. I should like to see an experimental constituency, perhaps in Mombasa, perhaps in East Nairobi or in some of the other areas, where common polls could be introduced. In that event,

    1351
    what would the Minister's attitude be if the Europeans were vehemently opposed to it? Would the Minister and the Government go on with this suggestion of common polls if they were consistently and persistently faced with opposition from the white electorate in Kenya?
    Like the question of land that was posed by the hon. Member for Colchester, we have to face up to these facts, because we are moving towards a multiracial society based upon a multi-racial electorate. I do not want to see a black Kenya in the same way as one talks of a black Uganda. I want to see a multiracial society and a multi-racial government, but the dominant white society will have to make some concession, not merely on land but on political matters, too, because if they showed—and, personally, I do not think that many of them will—a desire to copy the Union of South Africa in this matter, I imagine that they could not do it. There are only 10,000 white families in Kenya. They have not a white police force or a white army, as the Strydom régime has in the Union of South Africa, where there are two million whites to seven million coloured. In Kenya, we are faced with the fact that the whites will have to co-operate with the Africans and that in the future we shall have to tackle these problems together.
    I would say to the Minister, if he wants my advice, that he cannot deny to the Africans their advance in these matters, and to the white leaders overseas I would say that they would be short-sighted indeed if they stand in the path of the African march. It would be for them to make a declaration on the subject, and their leaders have to show some leadership, and make some concessions. I hope that in the future, on the question of land and of multi-racial education and, even more important, on the question of political advance, the white Africans—and I name "white Africans" because many of them have been there for one or two generations—will make a gesture, if one likes a psychological gesture, to the black Africans which will convince them that the whites are there to stay and work and live with them, and, in the shortest possible time, to lift up the black Africans alongside them.
    6.6 p.m.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) started his speech by commenting upon the fact that in this Committee this afternoon we seem to have resolved ourselves into a Council of State. I shall be saying some things which may tend to break up that happy atmosphere for which I shall be very sorry.
    Mr. J. Johnson: A realistic atmosphere.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: If an hon. Member wants to say something contrary to the general tone of the debate he always says that we must be realistic or we must face the situation with realism; but I will not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman.
    Before I draw attention to some particular points, there are one or two things which have been said which ought to be corrected. We agree that one of the main problems of Kenya now, and, indeed, always has been and will be for many years to come, is the problem of land. The hon. Member for Rugby suggested that there was something in a report which is shortly to be published about African settlement in the White Highlands. I have no knowledge of it, and I do not understand where he got that from, because I understood that a report not published, and particularly a report of a Royal Commission, until it was published was highly confidential.
    Mr. Johnson: What I did say was that if in the Commission's report there were recommendations for access to the European Highlands I hoped that the Minister would tell us what his attitude would be in the face of almost certain white opposition.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock:I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I had no intention of misrepresenting him at all. All I would say about the report of the Royal Commission is that I hope that when it does appear my European settler friends in Kenya and the white Africans generally will give careful consideration to it before they come to any definite conclusions. That is very important indeed.
    When land in Kenya is mentioned—and this is the point that was indicated by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), who, I am sorry to

    1353
    say, is not here now—I always turn to Colonial Paper No. 290, published in 1952, on "Land and Population in East Africa," which is a series of dispatches from Sir Philip Mitchell. All of us know that Sir Philip has greater knowledge of the problems of East Africa than anyone living today and over a long period has rendered tremendous services to those territories.
    It is important that this should be said in connection with land. I want to refer to paragraph 18, page 6, of this document, where Sir Philip says:
    "Secondly, the extent of arable land in European occupation adjoining the Native Land Units is exceedingly small in relation to the area at present in African occupation and could at best provide only slight and temporary relief for African congestion."
    Sir Philip goes on to give details of the very small proportion, relatively, of land occupied by the white settlers in what are commonly called the White Highlands.
    Then as my last quotation from this document I want to read an extract from paragraph 20, page 8, where he says:
    "For the basic problem of the future is a much wider one than of the European farm lands in Kenya; it is the problem of adapting the system of African agriculture to the needs of rapidly growing population."—
    That is very much on the lines of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine).
    I have a good deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough as to his attitude towards the hangings that have been going on since this unhappy emergency arose as the result of Mau Mau. Everyone deplores it, but we have to get it into its right context. We must not forget that in the same period, when about 700 Mau Mau have been hanged, 1,350 civilians—African, Asian and European—have been killed and nearly 800 have been wounded.
    As far as the security forces are concerned, in the same period 480 have been killed and about 400 have been wounded. So, when we talk about hanging, which we all deplore, we should bear in mind the other side of the picture, because the bulk of the civilians who have been killed and wounded have been mauled in the most brutal and ghastly fashion by that appalling instrument the panga.
    In this debate and in others to which I have listened in the House, and in Questions, there has been a certain amount of
    1354
    criticism of the European settler—I will not put it higher. When I hear such criticism I recall an unpleasant experience which I had some years ago when travelling up country in East Africa. On that journey I spent one night in a rest house. It was the usual mud and wattle hut familiar to many of us, with a corrugated iron roof and, inside, bare rafters. When I awoke in the morning, I looked up and, to my horror, I saw immediately above my head, curled round the rafters, a large horrible-looking snake. I lay there absolutely stiff with terror. Part of its head and body was moving and weaving about. I wondered whether it was about to strike or would uncoil and drop on top of me.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Perhaps it was too particular.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: It may have been, but it was a very unpleasant experience and you can judge of my relief, Sir Rhys, when, after a few moments, it turned away and glided along the rafters. I got out of bed and out of the door of that rest house with a speed which, even compared with the four-minute mile record of these days, would be judged remarkable. It took me some hours to get over what was a frightening experience.
    I always recall this experience when I hear criticism of the attitude of the European settlers, and indeed of the Africans, because my nightmare lasted only two or three minutes, or five at the most, whereas the African and European settlers in Kenya have been enduring for the last two years a continuous nightmare every minute of the day, never knowing when they or their wives and children might be brutally attacked. So, when we hear unfortunate expressions of opinion from the white settlers, it is only right that we should not forget the appalling nervous strain which they have had to undergo during this period.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), in opening the debate, gave me the impression that he believed the Mau Mau trouble was entirely a political one and could be settled by political means. That view is shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, but I do not subscribe to it. I have always been of opinion that Mau Mau was a reversion of certain Africans to witchcraft and barbarism and that it

    1355
    had nothing to do with land settlement or political differences.
    Mr. R. W. Sorensen: What is the cause, then?
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: It is not a new thing. I have said this in the House before. I remember seeing, in the early 'thirties, some Africans in Kenya horribly mutilated because they would not join one of these secret societies. I cannot explain it, I do not suppose anyone can, but I believe it is an inherent characteristic of this stage of their existence. We must not forget that only fifty or sixty years ago a large number of these people were cannibals. Having, therefore, lived for centuries in an atmosphere of superstition or witchcraft, it is not unreasonable that there is a tendency among some of them to revert to it.
    Mr. Bottomley:I know that the hon. Gentleman and myself are at one in wanting to overcome this problem, and I put the emphasis on the political aspect for this reason: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a desire to go back to the bush—the Parliamentary Mission said that—but we say that the aim at political control has made it easier for Mau Mau because the Africans are being taken back along the road of the Mau Mau movement, whereas by good political leadership they would be taken along the road of progress and wellbeing.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: I am grateful for that explanation, though I cannot agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman, because much has been done over many years for the Africans in Kenya and in East Africa and Central Africa. I believe that, if there is any rational explanation of the Mau Mau trouble, it is the desire of certain of the more educated Africans, who are out to get power, to drive the European and Asian out of Kenya, and, to do so, they have played on the superstitions of their fellow Africans. It is difficult really to find the real cause of it, but I agree that every effort must be made to stop it.
    Cmd. 9103 of March, 1954, gave a statement of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The first objective was:
    "To prosecute the fight against terrorism with the utmost vigour and to ensure the maintenance of law and order throughout Kenya."
    1356
    I believe that anything calculated to bring about the cessation of this unhappy state of affairs should be tried, and I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that Her Majesty's Government were wise to issue the recent surrender terms. They may not succeed at first, but they were worth trying, and all we can hope is that they will succeed in due course.
    The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham rightly said that we ought to be considering the future of Kenya all the time. I was going to suggest that what was needed was a certain amount of original thought but, on reflection, I do not think there is any substance in the idea of original thought, any more than there is substance in the doctrine of original sin. Be that as it may, what is wanted is re-thinking, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
    Not so much in this debate as in the past, when this House was voting money for the emergency in Kenya, the criticism has been voiced: why should the Europeans not be asked to pay higher taxation? We ought to have the facts of this matter on record. In Kenya's financial year 1953–54, Income Tax raised more than £5 million sterling, and 90 per cent.of it came from the Europeans in Kenya and only 10 per cent. from the Asiatics. That is astonishing, particularly when we remember that there are only 40,000 Europeans compared with more than 100,000 Asiatics.
    Also, to put it very mildly, we all know that the Asiatics are doing rather well. The only direct taxation that the Africans pay is poll tax, and from 5½ million Africans it brings in £800,000. Africans also contribute to indirect taxation, of course, but I am now talking only of direct taxation. Therefore, when statements are made that the Europeans should pay more, do not let us forget the facts as they exist today and have existed for a long time.
    For the future, I am sure everyone will agree that one of the things that must be done is to increase still further than has been done in the last year or two the number of administrative officers. I believe that good administration is the basis of good government and progress. It is not easy to obtain these people. I know that my right hon. Friend is alive to this fact and is doing his best, and the same

    1357
    was true of his predecessor and the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite who previously occupied the post. I agree with what has been said by members of the delegation which went to Kenya—
    Mr. Bottomley: "The" delegation?
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: I am not going to say that it is "the" delegation, but it was a delegation which produced a very good report.
    I refer to the delegation of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) was the leader and of which the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham was a member. I agree that one of the most important things for the future is to have a well-trained police force, and that means many more European police than there are today. In my view, two of the most important requisites of sound progress are good administration and well-trained and efficient police officers.
    We all recognise that the things about which we are talking call for more money. At this juncture, Kenya is not a tremendously wealthy country. I believe that we shall have to continue helping her with finance for many years. I believe that the Mau Mau trouble has retarded Kenya's progress for at least 10 years and perhaps 15 or 20 years. Consequently, a greater burden will fall upon this House and also upon the European settlers.
    I believe it to be right and proper to remind right hon. and hon. Members opposite that the backbone of Kenya is the European settler. We all appreciate that in past generations the African has made very little contribution to agriculture in Kenya. The African, whether agricultural or pastoral, has been nomadic. Consequently, we have the situation, which is often forgotten, that the European settler has as much right to be considered a native of Kenya and East Africa as has the black African, whether the Kikuyu, the Meru, the Embu or whatever tribe one likes to take.
    For many a long day the prosperity of Kenya will have to depend, as it has done for many years, on the productive power of the White Highlands where the European settler is farming. It may well be possible for land to be leased to Africans in due course on condition that
    1358
    they cultivate the land according to the principles of good husbandry. In Kenya the period since the beginning of the century has been one of extensive farming. We have now to concentrate more and more on intensive farming if we are to produce the wealth and the food to keep the rapidly growing population going.
    I am sure that every other hon. Member will agree with me when I say that I am all for giving as much help as possible to the African through colonial development and welfare funds. I believe, also, that we shall have to devote a certain amount of money to emigration from this country to Africa to help the building up of a still stronger agricultural community there. There is in Kenya at present an organisation which has been built up with the idea of helping young farmers from this country and other parts of Europe to start farming in Kenya, but I believe that in the interests of the future of Kenya we must do very much more in that direction. I hope that my suggestion will be found worthy of at least consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
    I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) said about the future. Probably there will have to be some sort of federation. We do not know what form it should take. I do not believe that Kenya, Tanganyika or Uganda can exist on their own. The problem of federation is really a problem of Uganda at present, and it has been so for many a year. I doubt whether Uganda will ever be—in fact, I am satisfied that it will not be—a country for European settlement. Uganda is essentially, for want of a better expression, a "native" or African State. Having lived there myself, I do not believe that the climate is such that any Europeans could settle there and bring up their families as can be done in Kenya and Tanganyika.
    I believe we ought to be thinking about federation between Kenya and Tanganyika, leaving out Uganda at this juncture. It may well be that the inevitable trend and final form will be some federation of Kenya and Tanganyika with the Central African Federation. Be that as it may, I believe that that is probably the way it must go eventually if these territories are to expand and progress as we all wish them to do. I see the hon.

    1359
    Member for Rugby shaking his head, but—
    Mr. J. Johnson: I should like to see a black federation of Nyasaland and Tanganyika, but not a federation of Tanganyika with Kenya.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Federation is outside the scope of this Vote.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: I am much obliged, Sir Rhys, and will conclude my remarks.
    Suffice it to say that I believe that all of us in the House of Commons, whatever our views may be, have precisely the same goal, the happiness and prosperity of these territories, although we may differ as to methods or speed. I am very glad to support the Vote, and I hope that, above all, it will help to bring the emergency to an end.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mrs. Eirene White: I think that if any of us on this side of the Committee thought that the money we were being asked to vote would be used towards promoting federation, we should have very different views of the question that is now before the Committee, but, obviously, I cannot pursue this topic at great length.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) brought that into this speech. He spoiled an otherwise excellent speech and I can only say that it is extremely dangerous to make references of that kind in a speech primarily devoted to other matters. It might be taken out of context and quoted in East Africa. Surely he will have learned from the experience of his former right hon. Friend, Lord Chandos, who made a remark by the way on federation. It was, of course, misconstrued and misconstructed and caused endless trouble in Uganda. We do not want the same sort of thing in Tanganyika.
    The main part of this debate has been devoted to Kenya, which is the major item in the Vote. I should like to have an explanation of another item, that referring to internal security measures in African territories. I should especially like, at the outset, to have a definition of what is meant by internal security. It may be said that it is self-evident, that it means law and order, and so on.
    1360
    However, a short time ago there was a conference in London which was concerned with defence problems in Africa. We have never had in this House—or, I believe, in the other place—any very detailed account of what took place at that conference. Obviously, the major part of the discussions was concerned with wider strategy and would not be in any way connected with internal security. I am concerned to have a definition of what is meant by internal security in the light of what was said in the Union of South Africa.
    Mr. Erasmus, the South African Minister of Defence, was present at the conference, which discussed defence and security throughout the Continent of Africa south of the Sahara. Mr. Erasmus's ideas on the defence of South Africa seemed to be rather different from what we would recognise as being the normal sense of that expression. As recently as 7th March, in a policy statement in the South African House, Mr. Erasmus said that the policy of the South African Government was to defend South Africa against possible Communist aggression—presumably from without—and to prevent fifth column activities.
    Again, it has been said in the newspaper "Die Transvaler," which is very closely associated with the present Prime Minister of South Africa, that the South African Government's policy there and in the talks held in London was to urge countries in Africa with interests south of the equator to work together to combat possible Communist aggression in Africa. The writer continued that these countries, Portugal, France, Belgium and the United Kingdom, should co-operate with South Africa on the basis of reciprocal obligation in an alliance through which South Africa could ensure its home defence.
    All this leaves us with rather an uneasy feeling. What does the South African Minister mean by fifth column activities? What was agreed at these discussions about the use of these forces for which we are making provision in any sort of co-operation with South African forces? For instance, the Central African Federation is concerned in this matter. Has there been any kind of agreement that the forces in the Federation should be at any time, or in any way, at the disposal of the South African Government, or that there should be any right

    1361
    to call upon forces from the Union against what Mr. Erasmus and his colleagues called fifth column Communism?
    Mr. F. Harris: On a point of order. If reference to federation is to be out of order, is not a reference to South Africa rather strained?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that the hon. Lady is asking what this sum involves, and for a definition of internal security.
    Mrs. White: It has been announced that an agreement has been reached. I want to know the scope of this agreement and whether there is any kind of understanding that the forces for which the money has been asked can be used for internal security. Are these forces to cross the borders of their own territories? If so, under what circumstances and at whose behest? We are entitled to have this information. I see that Nyasaland forces are particularly mentioned and I want to know whether or not forces from Nyasaland might be used in certain circumstances.
    Mr. Hopkinson: I think my right hon. Friend will probably wish to deal with this point later, but I can now tell the hon. Lady that all the forces in the Federation are a Federal responsibility and do not come within the scope of this Vote.
    Mrs. White: I find that a little hard to follow. Am I now being informed that the Nyasaland forces are in no way included in the present Vote? They were included in the original Estimate.
    Mr. Hopkinson: The Nyasaland forces form part of the Federal forces which are now a Federal responsibility and are not included in this Vote.
    Mrs. White: In other words, forces which were included in the original Estimate which is asterisked in page 33 are now excluded in the revised Estimate. Is that so? I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will make this clear. In page 33 the asterisked figures refer to Mauritius and Nyasaland.
    The Deputy-Chairman: If these forces are now a Federal responsibility, it is clear that it would not be in order to discuss them on this Vote. That provides
    1362
    a partial answer to the hon. Lady's question about the meaning of internal security. They are under Federal control.
    Mr. Hopkinson:I will ask my right hon. Friend to look into this and give the hon. Lady the information she requires when he replies to the debate. As I understand, forces in Nyasaland have now been transferred entirely to the Federal Government, although they were at one time part of the K.A.R. They were referred to in the original Estimates possibly because responsibility for them had not then been transferred to the Federal Government.
    Mrs. White: Presumably that means that none of this money which we are being asked to vote is for any forces in any part of Central Africa, or in Mauritius. But what about Mauritius? That is referred to in the starred items. Is that figure now deducted or included in the revised Estimates?
    I see that the Colonial Secretary has now come back to the Chamber. I do not know whether he can clear the matter up. We are in some difficulty. It is possible that in the original Estimates, page 33, certain amounts were included which relate to Mauritius and Nyasaland. It is now being suggested that the whole cost of forces in Nyasaland has been deducted and, therefore, nothing in the revised Estimate in any way refers to Nyasaland, although presumably some of it refers to Mauritius. It is most important to know whether or not we are discussing expenditure in relation to Nyasaland or expenditure referring only to the other East African territories, and presumably also to Mauritius.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I regret that I have not had the advantage of hearing the discussion. I am sorry that I was absent for a few moments. I hesitate to intervene and certainly could not with any great authority, but I shelter behind any view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, who is invariably right. Also, of course, there is the constitutional fact that the Nyasaland services are a Federal responsibility.
    Mrs. White: If that is so, then, as a matter of drafting, it would have been of great assistance to hon. Members if it had been made clear in page 33. If one lot of expenditure is to be included in the

    1363
    original Estimate and then removed before we reach the Supplementary Estimate, then that should have been explained in the explanatory note. That has not been done. The note says:
    "In regard to the East African Forces, assistance from Her Majesty's Government has hitherto been necessary only in respect of that part of the cost of the internal security provided by those Forces which relates to Mauritius and Nyasaland, but it has now become necessary to make a special contribution towards the cost of the internal security forces not met by the increased contributions of the other Governments concerned."
    That is not clear. If the Committee is being asked to discuss something different, then those who prepared the Supplementary Estimate should have made it clear, in fairness, that since the original Estimate was presented there has been a radical change as far as part of the expenditure is concerned. We should have been told.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry if, in any way, this is having any effect on the scope of the hon. Lady's speech. I think that the explanation which, I understand, my right hon. Friend gave is the correct one, but I will check on that before I reply to the debate. Though I had intended to deal almost exclusively with Kenya, I will gladly deal with that point.
    Mrs. White:I hope that the Minister will. It is of great interest to know precisely what our obligations are in this respect, especially, as I was saying when the right hon. Gentleman was absent, in view of the policy of the Union of South Africa in this matter. As there seems to be some doubt, it is very difficult to say anything about the conditions of internal security in Nyasaland, which is the subject which I had hoped to discuss.
    Ido not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to say anything about the other territory in which in fairly recent times we have had internal disturbances—Sierre Leone. I should imagine that it is difficult, because we are awaiting the report of the Royal Commission on Land. That being so, I must restrict my remarks and await with interest the reply of the right hon. Gentleman.
    I should like to make a few comments on the major subject of our debate—Kenya. I hope very much that we shall soon have the report of the Royal Com-
    1364
    mission. Again and again this matter has been mentioned here, but until the report is available it is difficult to have constructive discussion either here or in Kenya. I am at one with everyone on this side of the Committee in welcoming the recent expressions of opinion by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) on the subject of land. I wish that some of those in Kenya who privately hold the same opinions would have the courage to express them publicly.
    It is discouraging to find, when talking to visitors to this country from Kenya and discussing the matter with others in Kenya, that, privately, they will agree that the policy advocated is the proper one; but that, such has been the pressure of public opinion in Kenya, apparently these people find it impossible to express their opinions openly. That applies to people in the very highest ranks of the administration and of politics there.
    I hope very much that when we get the report of the Commission it will give some added courage to those who undoubtedly agree with the hon. Member for Colchester, the hon. Member for Spelthorne and others, but who have doubts or fears which make them unable to give public expression to their view. The sooner we have the report, the sooner we may hope to have something of the local initiative which is much the best way of dealing with the problem.
    I hope that there will be no question of us having to press upon the Government of Kenya a way of dealing with the land problem which would be done so much better if it could come from leaders of opinion in that Colony itself. If one could solve the land problem satisfactorily in the next few years it would hold out some hope to African opinion. It would focus progressive opinion among Africans; it would make them feel that there really is some chance of genuine co-operation with the other races.
    I believe that the publication of the report, which has been long awaited now, will be of the greatest importance to all of us. I wish that this debate had come after the publication of the report, so that we could have had a rather more constructive discussion on the subject. It is unfortunate that we should have had two debates on Kenya within a fairly short

    1365
    time. When we receive the report we shall have to hope that, within the Parliamentary time-table, we can have another discussion on this extremely important matter. I am certain that none of the money which we have been asked to give to Kenya could be better spent than in implementing what I hope will be the statesmanlike recommendations of that report.
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. Ronald Russell: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) and divert the debate from the troubles of Africa to what are, politically at any rate, the more peaceful waters of the Caribbean. I refer to Subhead F.14 under the heading: "West Indies. Purchase of Canned Grapefruit." This may appear to be a detailed and mundane subject in the light of the debate so far; nevertheless, it is important, and there is a phrase in the Vote which puzzles me. It says:
    "Reimbursement to the Ministry of Food of the net difference between the cost of purchase and the proceeds of sale of 1953–54 surplus production of West Indian canned grapefruit."
    I should like to know what is meant by the words "surplus production." Surplus to what? Has any direction been given to the West Indian canning industry to restrict production? In the excellent reports of the Commonwealth Economic Committee on fruit—published every other year—I can find no reference to any restriction on production in any part of the Colonial Empire. Therefore, I am puzzled by the meaning of the words "surplus production."
    I hope that there is no intention of restricting the production of fruit or anything else, especially in the West Indies, which are probably facing greater economic difficulties than any other part of the Colonial Empire today. Perhaps I am asking too much in raising this problem today, because I know that my right hon. Friend is awaiting the report of a fact-finding commission on the citrus fruit industry which went to the West Indies, I think last autumn.
    Secondly, I know that we are all awaiting the White Paper, to be published next Tuesday, on the results of the conference on G.A.T.T. recently concluded at Geneva. I, and I know many of my hon.
    1366
    Friends, are hoping that this White Paper will reveal that some aid is to be given to the canned grapefruit industry and other industries in the West Indies which are suffering so much at the present time.
    Naturally, I support this supplementary Vote of only £60,000. But I wonder also whether a great deal more could have been achieved if a certain amount of money had been spent, not only on reimbursing the Ministry of Food for the loss of this fruit, but also on stimulating the sales of canned grapefruit in this country. I may shock connoisseurs of fruit by saying that I prefer canned grapefruit to fresh grapefruit—certainly so far as the flavour is concerned—just as I prefer canned pineapple and canned rhubarb to fresh. I gather that a number of hon. Members agree with me.
    We should think of doing what we can to stimulate the sales in this country of Empire grapefruit and fruit of all kinds. A little money spent in that direction would perhaps help towards alleviating the economic conditions of the West Indies just as much as any fiscal alteration which we may hope for from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
    6.52 p.m.
    Mr. M. Philips Price: I know that the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I wish to say a few words about Kenya, which has concerned this debate quite a lot and to which I understand that the Secretary of State proposes to devote a good part of his speech.
    This debate has shown that both sides of the Committee are actuated by one motive and are in general agreement, at any rate on the fundamentals, namely, that after this terrible struggle in Kenya there must be reconciliation; and after reconciliation there must be reconstruction. The object of this debate is to discuss the voting of money for the purpose of reconstruction. I hope that a good part of the Vote will be used for that, although I suppose some of it must be devoted to the successful issue of the emergency.
    But money will not solve everything. There are many intangible problems hidden in the dark forests of Kenya, and money can assist only indirectly in their solution. I am not sure whether we all

    1367
    realise the nature of these problems. No amount of money will, quickly at any rate, solve the problem caused by the breakdown of the tribal system in that part of Africa, with all its age-long beliefs and superstitions.
    Unfortunately, there never was an ancient culture—as in Asia and in Europe—on which the institutions of man could be founded, whether it be Christianity or Islam. The Arabs came down the east coast of Africa and founded their religion—great civilising religion as it is—but alas, they did not extend their influence far into the interior. They kept to the coast, and when they went into the interior, alas, it was only for the purpose of carrying on the slave trade. Of course, Christianity has been growing in Central and Eastern Africa and is a basis on which something can be founded. But the fact still remains that the ancient tribal customs and beliefs are breaking down, and for many Africans there is nothing to put in their place.
    Not only is there a spiritual vacuum, but there is also a social vacuum. The uprooting of Africans from their tribal system of land tenure has resulted in a drift in search of work to towns like Nairobi, Nakuru and Mombasa, and there is no social welfare system or proper housing plan to deal with them—or such things are only just beginning. In consequence a kind of gangsterdom has developed on which Mau Mau has flourished.
    When I was in Nairobi last autumn I had a very interesting talk with that fine man, the Bishop of Mombasa. He said that, in dealing with Mau Mau, we have to deal with a problem of something like Chicago gangsterdom mingled with the black magic of the backwoods. Indeed, it is a terrible potion. I am afraid that in part we are responsible because of our neglect; because of our failure to see that in the growing industrial centres of East Africa there must be proper social services and welfare arrangements to deal with the inevitable drift of the detribalised African into these centres and thus prevent evil organisations and evil ideas from spreading.
    After all, it was "Operation Anvil" which showed, when the military authorities struck in Nairobi, that there was the chief centre of the Mau Mau—or, at any rate, one of their important centres. After
    1368
    "Operation Anvil" it was possible to say that we had struck a serious blow at Mau Mau which was operating right under the nose of the Government.
    I believe that the difficulties of the Kikuyu are the difficulties of a very intelligent tribe; the most able and intelligent of all the tribes in East Africa. I understand from those who know the Kikuyu well, and with whom I have discussed this matter, that they are, of all the tribes, seeking out something new. They are trying to modernise themselves. They are anxious to obtain education, but their minds are undisciplined.
    The Kikuyu are a people of the forest, they are not like the Masai and other tribes north of the Great Lake who live largely in open country. For various reasons, including the fact that when the Masai were powerful they drove them back into the forest, the Kikuyu have had to adapt their lives to forest conditions. They have lived in the past—and to some extent still do so—in small clearings in the forest, which they clear and cultivate themselves. They live a strong, independent type of life in their struggle with nature. They are self-reliant, but they are not easily subjected to discipline.
    Now they wish to modernise themselves and learn European ways of living. But though able and intelligent, they are handicapped by the backwash of this old type of mind which does not easily train or discipline itself to the new task. Hence, so I am told, the tendency of the Kikuyu has been, whenever they come up against difficulties, to say, "Ah, it is an act of fate." And "fate" is the hated foreigner—in this case the British. That is why, I think, we have this anti-European, anti-British line just among this tribe; not, apparently, extending anywhere outside, but confined to this forest area. I believe there is a definite physical reason, a climatic reason, for this. In voting this money, we must hope that it will help them to perform the task which they are trying to perform, but I firmly believe that it is a problem which will not be solved by money alone.
    It has been said in this debate that at the back of the minds of the Kikuyus there is the question of more land. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) stressed the land problem as one of the main causes of the present difficulties. I am

    1369
    certainly inclined to agree that there is great overcrowding in the Kikuyu reserves which is made worse by the fact that, since the emergency began, many Kikuyu workers have been sent back to the reserves because the European farmers in the White Highlands did not think that they were any longer to be relied upon. Again, many went to the reserves of their own accord, which has, of course, only increased the problem.
    But, from what I saw from my stay in the Nyeri district, I am convinced that not only is the land not overcrowded, but that it could support a bigger population than at present if properly farmed. As I went round with the agricultural advisory officers, I saw land being terraced where erosion had taken place through overcropping and overstocking. I saw dams being built, in spite of the fact that the emergency was actually going on, in the forest only 20 or 30 miles away. Coffee plantations were being laid out, and the Africans were being encouraged to grow coffee. Coffee is a very valuable commodity, and the growing of it calls for a great deal of skill and attention. Not everyone can grow it. A little further in, I saw the effects of the irrigation work which had been started.
    If all these things are maintained and further expanded—and I hope that some of this money will be used for these purposes—then I do not think that there need be any serious overcrowding even in the Kikuyu Reserve which, as I have said, I believe could support an even bigger population than it does at present. I hope that it will be possible for the European farmers in the White Highlands to take back those Kikuyus who have left the farms. I believe that one hon. Member said that he understood that would be the case.
    I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), who most courageously stated his view today, as he has on previous occasions, that the agricultural communities in Kenya should be settled side by side and that no political issue should be involved. If we truly believe in the multi-racial State in East Africa—as I believe we all do—then we must support the idea of allowing some of the waste lands in the White Highlands west of the Aberdares to come under African cultivation.
    1370
    I know that on this matter the Secretary of State is tied by various agreements and treaties which go back, perhaps, for very many years. But treaties were made for man, not man for treaties, and, in time, they must give way to the only wise and common-sense treatment of this subject. I believe that nothing would better demonstrate to the Africans that we really mean business in the multi-racial State than by allowing African settlement to take place in the White Highlands.
    I saw a lot of very interesting colonisation going on in the area close to the White Highlands, in the Mau forests which I visited, where Kikuyus have been settled and are working in the big State forest round about. I know it is sometimes said that the Africans get very low wages, that the Kikuyu tribesmen are earning only about £2 a month. But I found that on land newly planted by them, these tribesmen are allowed, on half the estate, to cultivate crops between the young trees for four years. The whole of those crops belong to them, and some of the Kikuyus were making very good money out of it. Therefore, the £2 which they receive for their work for the State was being supplemented very substantially by the crops they were growing for themselves. That is the kind of thing for which, I hope, this money will be used, because it is the sort of thing that, more than anything else, will help to overcome this serious psychological difficulty.
    There is also the question of the enclosures. It is very important to raise the standard of African cultivation, and to cut adrift from the old communal, tribal distribution of land which makes it impossible for the cultivator to improve his land. Improvement is going on, and must be encouraged still further. In the Elgevo Reserve, where recently I spent a little time, I saw some magnificent crops of wheat being grown by Africans. They have demanded the right to enclose for themselves land from the tribal reserve so that they can spend money on it, in many cases co-operatively. The holdings are their own and are fenced and stocked by themselves.
    I know that there are difficulties here, but a conflict on the matter is going on within the tribe. The elders and the old people want to see the old methods perpetuated, while the younger men want

    1371
    to see new methods adopted. The Government are in a bit of a difficulty over this, but, of course, they must come down on the side of progress in this matter, and the old people must not be allowed to hold up this progress.
    There are other problems, too, connected with the towns, many of them in Kenya. The other day, I read a very interesting pamphlet written by Dr. Carothers entitled "The Psychology of Mau Mau," in which he goes into the whole question of the mentality of the Kikuyu tribe. He says that a very serious and rather dangerous divergence has developed between the sexes in the tribe. Some of the men have gone to the towns where they have worked for months, and even years, always intending ultimately to go back to their families. In many cases, owing to the long separation, the wives have fallen victims to Mau Mau. A very interesting thing is that many Kikuyu women have been found to be very great protagonists of Mau Mau, whereas the men have been much more indifferent about it. Hence the danger of this segregation to which Dr. Carothers refers.
    I think that the only answer to that problem is better housing conditions and better welfare facilities in the towns, and equally, if not more important, better wages. The time has come when those who bring their families to live in the towns, in houses properly provided by the local authority, should receive better wages than those who come for only a short time, with the idea of going back to the Reserves. We must do something to stop this tendency to drift between town and Reserves, because it helps to create these difficulties.
    Once more, it is a problem which is concerned not only with the money which we are voting this afternoon, but with the question of confidence. When I was in Kenya I was enthused by the prospect which I saw there, in spite of the dark times. I saw a great opportunity to build a multi-racial state, which is the only real reply to the dark South African theory of apartheid, on the one hand, and Mau Mau on the other. I do not know which is worse. To those who think that there is a simple way out of these difficulties we can quote the words of Shakespeare:
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    7.12 p.m.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: I agree with very much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price). He has obviously taken a very deep interest in the problems of Kenya, especially those of the Kikuyu tribe.
    When we remember the many millions of pounds which we unhappily lost on the groundnuts scheme in East Africa and the £14 million Emergency Vote about which we are now talking, we must agree that it would have been a great step forward indeed if only some of this money had been spent in really benefiting Kenya, by way of increased water supplies, better communications and major matters of that kind, and what a great improvement that country would have enjoyed by this time from such expenditure.
    Reference has been made to the fact that we may consider ourselves to be a body of experts on matters of this kind. It must be very difficult for people in Kenya to appreciate that we have to deal with their problems in this way, but if we are expected to vote large sums of money for the benefit of the Colony we must definitely be satisfied that the money is being properly spent.
    Many of us may not have realised the great improvement which has taken place in conditions in Kenya during the last few months, but on all sides one hears that a real advance has taken place, and I am sure that nothing that any hon. Member says this afternoon is intended in any way to retard that improvement in the unhappy conditions which have existed since the emergency.
    The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) seemed to be the only person to have introduced a jarring note into the debate.
    Mr. Bottomley: I am interested in the emergency. That is more than the hon. Member is.
    Mr. Harris:That is quite untrue. The right hon. Gentleman made remarks which were extremely unhelpful. He made some very wild statements. His speech was quite contrary to that of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), who, on this occasion, took up quite a proper attitude towards the problems which face us. The right

    1373
    hon. Member deplored some of the statements which have been made recently by Europeans in Kenya. He is not the only one who deplores them. In the previous debate many hon. Members on both sides of the House sought to dissociate themselves from the unfortunate comments which had been made. We must make it clear, however, that they are isolated comments, and should not be automatically associated with the main body of Europeans in Kenya, who are desperately anxious to see that this emergency is brought to an end as quickly as possible. It must be borne in mind that there are many people in this country, too, who make wild statements, and we do not necessarily assume that such persons represent the views of the majority of our people.
    The right hon. Member also suggested that certain Africans should be released from detention camps because they were members of trade unions. That seemed to me to be a most extraordinary view. I realise what must be behind his remarks, but, surely, respect for law and order must come first in a matter of this kind. A man should not be released from a detention camp simply because he happens to be a trade unionist.
    Mr. Bottomley Mr. Bottomley indicated dissent.
    Mr. Harris: That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said. I was very careful in noting his remarks.
    We are all very anxious that the surrender offer should have the greatest possible success. If it is thought that there would be a better chance of success if we extended the period for a while, I am sure that the Minister will give very careful consideration to such a thought, because we do not want anything to mar the possibility of the greatest number of Mau Mau surrendering under the present offer.
    The right hon. Member has referred on many occasions to the advisability of having a resident Minister in East Africa, and I put a similar question to the Prime Minister some years ago. But we now have not only a Governor but a Deputy-Governor in Kenya, and with two such people stationed there permanently, together with the support of the Kenya Government, I doubt whether it is necessary also to have a resident Minister. I believe that the right hon. Member is the
    1374
    only person who has made that suggestion today, but I thought that I should mention it because I once followed that line of thought.
    Mr. Bottomley: The Prime Minister said it first.
    Mr. Harris: I urge upon the Secretary of State, and also the Kenya Government, the need to speed up the rehabilitation of the Kikuyu as much as possible. I feel that the whole process is moving far too slowly. The machinery is much too rigid. I have recently been in communication with provincial commissioners in Kenya, and I have received the impression that to some extent officialdom feels the same way as I do in this matter.
    It is not merely a question of acquiring more land for the Kikuyu, for the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West made the point that the reserves and such districts as Nyeri, about which he was talking, contained some of the finest land in the world. The problem is to teach the Kikuyu to work the land to the best advantage. The agricultural officers are doing fine work in this respect, but it must be speeded up, and there is really a great need to increase the numbers of these officers. We must assist with this as much as we can. That is a far better answer than holding out the hope of land which, if obtained, they might, unhappily, eventually destroy and which would not be any good for the Kikuyu in the long run.
    I know from practical experience the great work that has been done by agricultural officers working with Kikuyu in the pineapple growing industry. The Kikuyu went on planting pineapple after pineapple, eventually destroying the land, but under the guidance of agricultural officers they have been banking and terracing the land—so looking after it. That is an example of the great work that has been done, and I am sure that more of that work will yet be done.
    Reference has been made to the squatter system. Do not let us be misled on this point. There are some 500,000 Africans working in the Highlands and their proportion is between 100 and 200 Africans to every European. The idea of holding out the hope of Africans going into the White Highlands and owning land there will not help to ease their numbers or even to solve the land prob-

    1375
    lem. Many Africans, too, like the squatter system, although I am not saying that it is necessarily good. They like working their bit of land and getting wages as well. They cultivate such land, with benefit to themselves and to all concerned. In this way it is not just a question of the land which they get; they get proper employment as well.
    Much more should be done to help the migration to Kenya of people who want to go to that country to guide the Africans in developing a future for themselves. We have suffered far too much from stopping Europeans and British people from going into Kenya. Possibly that has not happened so much in the last few months, but since the war it has been very difficult for many good British people and Europeans to get into that country. It is astounding to remember that people can come from the West Indies into Britain even without jobs to go to, yet our own people, with jobs waiting for them in Kenya, have found it extremely difficult to get into that country, although Kenya needs them very much indeed. It may be that as we now have full employment here it is not easy to get people to go to Kenya and to countries like that.
    If that is so, I beg the Colonial Secretary to consider seriously whether we can encourage more people from other European countries to go to Kenya. We have Italians and Germans, but such immigration is not seriously encouraged. The country needs to be opened up as much as it can be and we must endeavour to get as many such people as we can there to guide the Africans in their future.
    I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), that whatever decisions we take they must be made now. The time is absolutely right, because conditions are improving slightly in Kenya, and we must try to bring the emergency to an end and give a definite lead from this country to the Kenya people. We must try to tell them exactly what they can expect for the future. I do not know whether General Templer is expected to play any part in the long run in helping to end this emergency. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary will tell us. People in Kenya of all races, British, African and Asian alike are waiting now for a lead and for
    1376
    guidance to bring this tragic period to an end, and I hope that the time has now arrived when such guidance can be given.
    7.24 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd):I have been dreading the moment when I would have to give my voice full play. I must apologise to Members on all sides of the Committee for the harshness of my voice, which may introduce into some of my comments a harshness of feeling that is normally absent from it.
    We have had a very interesting debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) for his intervention and for what he said in regard to Aden and to Malta. The points he made were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was recently in Malta and the Governor has recently paid a visit here. As soon as it can be properly arranged, it is intended that there will be a conference here of all the party leaders in Malta.
    We have had two other speeches dealing with matters not concerned with Kenya. I must apologise to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) for not having heard the whole of her speech, and even more for the fact that the observations she had planned were not relevant to the Vote now being discussed. The original sum of money proposed did make provision for a contribution by Her Majesty's Government towards the cost of the Forces in Nyasaland, but that contribution has now been made.
    In the Vote for which I am now asking the authority of the Committee, no contribution whatever goes to Nyasaland, where defence is now a federal responsibility, or to Mauritius, for which no Supplementary Estimate is being asked. I am afraid that the points that the hon. Lady wanted to make would not have been in order. No doubt an opportunity will arise whereby she, with her usual ingenuity, will find it possible for me to answer on some of the points; and on others the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations can tell her that it is a matter of federal responsibility.
    The hon. Lady asked me about Sierra Leone. A Commission having been

    1377
    appointed, as she said, we must await the result. She referred to the question of land and population in East Africa, as other hon. Members have done. I hope it is unnecessary for me to say that I have not attempted to exercise the slightest influence on the members of the Royal Commission, either as to what they say or on the speed with which they say it. I have certainly not, as has been suggested once or twice, though not today, taken steps to delay the publication of the Report. Nothing like that would be done by responsible Ministers on either side. The Report is made to Her Majesty, and it will, as I said a little time ago, be ready in about six weeks' time.
    We had a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), dealing with the West Indies. He and I share a great interest not only in those Colonies but in the primary agricultural production on which their welfare depends. Last year an undertaking was given to the West Indies that we would help them out if they could not sell all their canned grapefruit. This they were not able to do, so the Ministry of Food bought the unsold balance. I do not want to give ammunition to those who invariably criticise the Ministry of Food, in which I had the honour to serve as Parliamentary Secretary for a short time, when I say that through no fault of theirs the Ministry has resold it at a loss of about £60,000. Nor shall I enter into the machinations of Government in trying to explain why that loss should be borne on my Vote; but there it is.
    In the interest of accuracy, it should be realised that the West Indies were unable to sell this crop in part because under American aid in relation to M.S.A., we had already agreed to take a proportion of American canned grapefruit. We saw the consequences of that, and I myself gave an assurance to the West Indian delegates when they were here some months ago that, though grateful for any offers, we would not take any more grapefruit from America this year. Therefore, this particular item is not likely to recur next time these Estimates are presented.
    I was asked what the word "surplus" meant. I think the meaning of the word in that connection is surplus to what has already been exported. There is certainly
    1378
    no intention of applying ruthless production controls in that field. Reference was also made to the Report of the Citrus Mission, which is a very formidable document and is now in my hands. This is an opportunity to express publicly to those who went out on that inquiry the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government for the zeal with which they handled their task and the speed with which they have produced a very important Report.
    The bulk of this debate today has turned on Kenya. The debate was opened by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) in a speech which—I hope he will nottake it amiss—somewhat surprised me by the personal references to myself. I have at all times made it plain to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, as far as I am concerned, the door to the Colonial Office or the door to my room here, or the door to my private house, is always open to any Member, whatever his political view, at any time he cares to take advantage of it; and indeed a whole host of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues alongside him and behind him regularly do so.
    I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and I, who have together explored the East End looking at the conditions in which some of the West Indian immigrants were living some time ago, can both face problems in the knowledge that we are both anxious to promote the welfare of the Colonial Territories. What happened in this case—and I will not take too long about it, because I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we have greater issues to discuss—
    Mr. Bottomley: I am sure we do not want anything to be between us. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the ever-open door. I would only say that in this House, in Question and in debate, I have submitted matters to the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration and I have never had an answer. I do expect the Secretary of State to give me an answer in this House. I do not think it should be for me to go and ask him privately. May I say that I would not have taken up so strong a position had I known that the Secretary of State was rather under the weather?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd:Oh, no; I fought and won a General Election with no voice at all, and I am prepared to do that

    1379
    again if and when the need arises. Although I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration, I hope he will hit me just as hard if I appear to be sick as he would do on any other occasion. At the same time, I value very much the kindly thought which prompted the right hon. Gentleman.
    In this case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, he wrote to me on the subject of Malta and the West Indies, and his letter arrived during the week when I had prepared to go to Nigeria. My departure for Nigeria was delayed for two days during which I was in constant discussion with the Governor of Kenya on the surrender terms which, though announced when I was in Nigeria, had clearly been discussed with me and Her Majesty's Government while I was in this country. Therefore, though my departure for Nigeria had been delayed, those last few days were exceedingly hectic and, as my note to the right hon. Gentleman said, we hoped he would be good enough to ask his secretary to telephone mine so that we could fix a date to discuss that matter. Prolonged researches in my office have not disclosed that such a telephone conversation took place, but if it did I am sorry that nothing has happened about it. A chance will, no doubt, arise for that and for many happy meetings.
    The right hon. Gentleman also used the word "flippant" as applying to some of the answers which I had given. I hope no one will think that, when dealing with a matter of such absorbing importance involving the future of a great Colony like Kenya and our obligations in the world, the word "flippant" would be a proper phrase to apply to any approach by any Secretary of State. I am deeply conscious, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) said, that much of the initiative for vigorous approaches to this problem must rest with me personally as Secretary of State, and although we have a Council of Ministers in Kenya, an excellent Governor and an excellent Deputy Governor, the Secretary of State himself has very considerable responsibility.
    The first real point made by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham was to refer to the fact that—these are his words and not mine—we were
    1380
    subsidising the emergency in Kenya. Had there not been an emergency, clearly Kenya would not have been in need of aid at the present time. I made a long statement in the House on 23rd February in which I disclosed what were our financial intentions with regard to Kenya for the coming year. I agreed that a further £14 million—a grant of £10 million and a loan of £4 million—would be made available to Kenya towards the cost of the emergency in 1955–56.
    In an answer which I gave to a supplementary question asked by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), and on which I do not think I can improve, I answered his charge that the Kenya people were not playing their full part. I said:
    "In fairness to the taxpayers of Kenya and to the Europeans"—
    I agree with one of my hon. Friends who spoke about the major Income Tax contributions of the Europeans—
    "… I must point out that in the April Budget in Kenya last year the taxation increases, of which by far the largest was the Income Tax increase, has enabled the Government of Kenya not to call upon the full assistance which we granted in 1954–55. Income Tax in Kenya at the highest rate is 16s. in the £. There are no free hospitals, no free educational services, and the Europeans themselves, who desperately need to attract more capital and manpower, have been in the front line for over two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 1284.]
    I would only say this, that when Mr. Vasey was over here he made it plain that it was absolutely imperative that at this stage we should not put such another burden on the taxpayers of Kenya as to depress still further the situation already made sufficiently critical by the emergency.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question about East African land. He used some hard words, which I shall not remember tomorrow morning, but I hope he will allow me to say that if his speech was meant to be an essay on statesmanship it would have been rather an extraordinary form for it to take if, six weeks before the publication of the Report of a Royal Commission which has been sitting for years on the subject of East African land and population, I should make some contribution from this Box on what I think that Report ought to include.

    1381
    The right hon. Gentleman also referred to African representation in the Legislative Council. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) also referred to this subject. He knows that Mr. Coutts, who has done such excellent work in the West Indies, has now arrived in Kenya to make his initial report on the methods of securing the return of Africans to the Legislative Council.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Resident Minister, and I am sorry that I did not deal with this in the previous debate. I think on that occasion I was talking against the clock. This matter was raised by an hon. Member opposite during the period of office of my predecessor, and he made it plain that with a Governor and Deputy Governor in Kenya, who are the proper links between the Secretary of State and the Council of Ministers, the appointment of a Resident Minister would only be a further link in the chain. It would blur the real responsibility of the Governor to represent to me, as I do to my colleagues, the views of his Council of Ministers. No Government in peacetime, and very often not in war, could be committed by a Resident Minister without reference back to the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government at home.
    Mr. Bottomley:The Resident Minister would be there for a certain period and he would have knowledge of the situation. I imagine that he would indicate, in connection with a statement by European elected members of the Council of Ministers, that they ought not to make irresponsible statements prejudging the Report of the Royal Commission.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd:I must say that I deplore irresponsible statements, whether they are made in Nairobi or from apparently responsible quarters in Westminster.
    Mr. J. Johnson:Could not this Minister of State, all the way down the line between Aden and Somaliland, for instance, to Nyasaland and Mauritius, do a good job there, moving about and making political judgments and political decisions, as opposed to the Governors who, of course, are civil servants?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd:The close contact which exists between the Governors of the various territories and their people and Her Majesty's Ministers in the United
    1382
    Kingdom provides all the links that are required. We must also bear in mind the speed of modern travel. In the last two days two Governors have come back to see us very quickly on points which we wanted to raise, and another will be coming next week. With the speed of modern travel there is every opportunity for the views of the Governors, of their Governments and of Her Majesty's Ministers here to be known respectively to each other.
    The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether we could have another Parliamentary delegation to Kenya. Of course, in time we should have one, but there have already been two very important delegations comparatively recently. There was one of which the right hon. Gentleman was himself a member, the follow up to which was in the long answer which I gave him on 23rd February. There was a further delegation—the Commonwealth Parliamentary Delegation—to the Union Conference in Nairobi.
    Now, at an early date, we expect a delegation to the United Kingdom from the Kenya Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Surely that is the best way to do it. We have been twice to them from this House and they are now coming here. After that, when we have had time to digest all we have learned from each other, we might well look at the possibility of another delegation—that is to say, those who are then responsible might do so.
    Mr. Walter Elliot: The return visit of a delegation from Kenya is very welcome news. Could my right hon. Friend give any indication of the date on which we might expect it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I had proposed to ask the right hon. Member, who made the original suggestion, to see me tomorrow about the date. The proposal is that the delegation should come early in July. I know it will have a most warm welcome here. The members of the delegation are coming as guests of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and we look forward to their visit.
    The right hon. Gentleman also asked about a possible round-table conference on which, I gather, one representative might be somebody from the Kenya Africa Union. Frankly, I do not think that is the way to conduct either the emer-

    1383
    gency or the planning of the post-war Kenya. We have a multi-racial Government in Kenya. It is feeling its way, amazingly successfully, in the face of a great deal of difficulty, towards a common approach to a host of problems.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris), who said that there has been a significant change recently. There is now, I think, widespread condemnation, amongst the British sectors as much as anywhere else, of the issue of those monstrous leaflets about which I did not disguise my views in the House when the news first came out. Patiently and slowly and under huge difficulties a common approach is being evolved, and a round-table talk by people who would not have the responsibility for carrying out the various recommendations might well lead to nothing but disorder.
    The right hon. Gentleman also asked me, as did the hon. Member for Rugby, about the position of trade union leaders who had been brought up for screening. This is a matter at which I have naturally looked personally and carefully and on which I have had talks with people outside the House who are keenly interested in the development of an orderly trade union system in Kenya. Altogether, 45 trade union leaders were arrested, of whom, I regret to say, after very careful examination—and the Governor looked at all these himself—27 have had detention orders made against them. The remainder have been released.
    Although I am always anxious to see that the potential leaders in all branches of Kenya's life—as here—should have the utmost freedom to develop their talents, we cannot conceivably have one law for trade union leaders and another for everybody else. Although I would commend the 18 who have been released for being sincere and brave people—as no doubt attempts were made to intimidate them, too—we must not forget that the high proportion who have been detained shows what importance the Mau Mau organisers attached to the trade union movement and how keen they were to infiltrate there. Those figures, I am afraid, are significant, but they do not destroy our belief that a trade union movement, beginning patiently with small beginnings, can once more arise in Kenya.
    Mr. J. Johnson:No one wants the union leaders to be let out because they are union leaders. What we stressed was that because they are leaders in their own right they should have their cases examined promptly and not be left to languish with thousands of others in camps.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can give an assurance that the case of every single one of them was personally examined by the Governor. I was in close touch with him about every single case. I have given that assurance outside the House, too.
    The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham also asked me about the Carpenter Report on conditions in agriculture and, if my voice lasts out and the patience of the Committee allows me, I will deal with it briefly towards the end of my speech when I give a progress report on the work of the Council of Ministers.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) made, if I may say so, a speech of very considerable interest. Indeed, many speakers on both sides of the Committee have lifted our eyes up to the future and away, but not too much away, from the problems of the moment, and I should like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Billericay, Colchester and Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) and the hon. Members for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), Rugby, and Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) for the general approach from which they have fashioned their remarks today.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay asked what we were doing to get people from the Dominions into the Colonial Service. This has been an aspect of the problem of recruitment in which I, no doubt like my predecessors, have taken a keen personal interest. I will get out the latest figures, but from the end of the war to the end of 1953—which is the latest date for which I have the full figures available—some 346 people from the various Commonwealth countries have entered technical and other posts in the Colonies. Many of us must have met dozens of them all over the place and have been impressed by the vigour and freshness which they have brought to the consideration of age-long problems. I will deal with one or two of the other points which my hon. Friend made in the

    1385
    course of the summary of the progress being made.
    The hon. Member for Eton and Slough sent me a note to say that he is sorry that he cannot be in the Chamber to hear my speech, and I will leave a number of points which he made until I have the chance to talk to him, but I must make it plain at the start that the situation confronting us when the offer was made in Kenya was different from the situation at the time of the "General" China offer. He has suggested from time to time that certain Africans who may have been thought to have sympathy with Mau Mau but who have been acquitted by the court might be used as intermediaries to secure a wider surrender, but we have also to remember that these same Africans are viewed with the maximum distrust by a large number of very loyal Kikuyu, and the use of such people to bring the emergency to an end, while it might enable more surrenders to take place, might well lose us the loyalty of people who have stood fast by their own people in very difficult times.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me about capital cases. I can only repeat that I am at all times in touch with the Government of Kenya on this matter and they are fully aware of the need to keep under constant review the list of offences for which the death penalty is mandatory.
    Another point to which wide publicity was given was one to which I must refer very briefly, even though the hon. Member for Eton and Slough is absent. A letter was published in a newspaper and the hon. Member himself asked me a very long question about it. It was the alleged brutal treatment of some people who were held for screening very recently. The story is completely untrue, and I hope that after reading the report of this debate the hon. Member will give me an opportunity, by putting down another Question, to tell the House exactly what happened on that occasion, because it is so easy to pick up chance gossip in the present state of emergency in Kenya and to pass it off as gospel truth.
    As a further illustration of what chance gossip can do, no doubt there has gone into thousands of British homes the pamphlet which the Church Missionary Society put out. The Society does such good work that I regret some of the
    1386
    aspects of the pamphlet, which said that General Erskine had said that 20 per cent. of those held in custody would be found to be innocent. That has gone to thousands of British homes. I believe that 600 copies of it were put into the church in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs.
    Needless to say, General Erskine said nothing of the sort. General Erskine is one of those people who does not feel it desirable on all occasions to deny what is said, if it is untrue, either in Parliament, from the pulpit or in the newspapers. But he authorises me to contradict publicly as inaccurate and unfounded the suggestion that he had made any such statement.
    In the course of the debate we have had references again to "black," "grey" and "white" and other words in connection with the process of screening. I have long detested this particular terminology, and I am glad to say that the Government of Kenya tell me that instead of the terms, "black, grey, and white," with all the misrepresentation and thorough unsuitability of those words in a multi-racial community, the expressions "dangerous, suspect and clear" will be adopted for public use in the future. I hope that every hon. Member will set a good example in using those words.
    Several hon. Members have referred to the rate of release. Clearly, we are anxious that those who are "white" should be released at once. [Laughter.] I mean those who are "clear." That shows how dangerous it is to use these words. We are anxious that those who are clear should be released immediately. I understand that there are at present no such cleared people under detention, but the high figure of those held under "Anvil" and waiting for transit to camps to be officially screened—just over 6,000—causes distress to many of us. The delay has been due to the need to build the necessary works camps and to the incidence of typhoid of which, with the exception of a small part of Manyani, the camps are now clear. I hope that this figure will be speedily improved upon.
    In February, there was accommodation for 15,000 in works camps. Further camps are being opened, three for 5,400 in March and five more during April for 3,500 and by June it is hoped that the

    1387
    camp accommodation will take 30,600. It is possible in the works camps to carry out effective rehabilitation, without which the trouble in Kenya would be indeed hopeless. In reply to those hon. Members who have had the anxieties which we must all have had about certain strictures made by judges and others with regard to judicial conduct in Kenya, as I think the Committee knows, after Mr. Justice Cram's judgment a Commission of Inquiry was set up under Mr. Justice Holmes.
    That Commission has made a report, Part I of which has been received. It has been submitted to the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the East Africa Court of Appeal who have their own views about it. It would be unwise for me at this stage to comment further. I should like the Committee to know, however, that the strictures of Mr. Justice Cram were not allowed merely to pass into forgetfulness but were the subject of an early hearing by Mr. Justice Holmes of all the circumstances that led to those comments.
    Another inquiry was held under Sir Vincent Glenday to inquire into the general administration of the screening camps and interrogating centres. His interim report has appeared and, in view of the changes made, he is now satisfied with the situation. Various administrative and other measures have been taken to prevent any possible abuses when persons are held for screening. Suspects cannot be held for more than 24 hours in Kikuyu Guard Courts and must be released or transferred to interrogating centres under the control of European officers. Therefore, it can be fairly said that any abuses that have come to light are being speedily dealt with—and we cannot but remember that it is the action of the Government of Kenya that has brought abuses to light.
    The hon. Member for Rugby asked whether the amnesty could not be made indefinite. That really would not be a very desirable situation. After all, amnesty gives freedom from the capital sentence for those who committed offences prior to 18th January and, in time, the purpose of the amnesty would clearly work itself out. The hon. Member also asked me for an assurance that the irreconcilables will not be allowed to return to the homes of loyal Kikuyu.
    1388
    I repeat the assurance which I gave in Kenya and in Press conferences and on other occasions recently that irreconcilables will not be allowed to return. But as Christian and hopeful people we must not lose hope of anybody. We shall pursue the task of rehabilitation to the utmost extent, but as long as anybody is irreconcilable there is no question of his return to his former home. This assurance which is absolutely essential for the peace of mind and co-operation of loyal Kikuyu, cannot be too often stressed.
    A chance has now arisen to take stock of the situation in Kenya and see what progress is being made to carry out the statement of policy of Ministers when a multi-racial Government was first formed in Kenya under the auspices of my predecessor. With regard to the first and most urgent matter—the emergency—we can say that the scale of attacks on terrorists has mounted steadily and there has been also a great reduction in the number of civilians and loyalists attacked—a very great reduction indeed. Numerous firearms have been recovered and very few lost, which is a significant improvement. The gratitude of the whole Committee must go also to General Erskine, whose drive and leadership has played such a large part in successful military operations.
    It is fair enough to say that the ordinary African population in the Reserves or the farms is showing increasing hostility to the gangs and is helping the Government. This has been much aided by the growth in the number of villages and the protection which that provides to loyalist families and the way in which it bars the terrorists from obtaining information and food. A further operation in Mount Kenya is now under way and we have also the surrender offer, the results of which I could not claim were spectacular but which has brought in a number of waverers and a great deal of valuable information.
    The next task which the Government of Kenya set themselves was to improve the general administration in the Reserves and throughout the country. Their aim is to bring about an orderly economic, social and political development in the native land units and to bring home to the Africans in the undisturbed districts

    1389
    the clear realisation that there is no question whatsoever of their interests being subordinated to the interests of those who have joined Mau Mau. We must never forget that only one-twelfth of Kenya is subject today to the horrors of Mau Mau.
    This definite intention to have closer administration, demands an increase of administrative staff and the building of more administrative sub-stations. Twenty-one have been built and 28 have been planned. Increases in the number of administrative officers have brought the authorised total now to 230, of whom 190 will be in the field. We hope that some will come from the Sudan. Others will be local or from the United Kingdom. This will enable there to be much closer and more effective contact with the Native Authority.
    Side by side with this there is the transfer of the Kikuyu Guard to the tribal police, the tribal police reserve and the special watch and ward group, which will be responsible for local protection. The tribal police, especially of the Central Provinces, has been increased to 1,800 from 900 and the tribal police reserve will be 6,400. The remainder of the Kikuyu Guard are armed only with native weapons, and yet it is responsible for the protection of the villages and adjacent areas. At the same time we have to build up the police force in the sense of consolidating it rather than expanding it. The European officers are up by 33 to 238, the inspectors by another 100 to 1,565 and the African police by another 1,000 to some 10,000.
    Recruitment, I am glad to say, is going very well. There are 63 inspectors from the United Kingdom already training at the police training school and 33 European officers to increase the establishment to the desired number are already in Kenya and in training. A great deal of emphasis is being placed on the Service side of the police force and, in fairness, we must make it quite clear that on this Colonel Young throughout his distinguished career here and in this Colony has always laid such considerable stress.
    The work of rehabilitation is now considerably improved and, together with the improvement in the works camp which I mentioned, will, I hope, lead very definitely to a better situation. The first step in this dreadful business is to get the poison out of the minds of the men and
    1390
    women, and this can only come from a personal confession, and the tribal elders and others well versed in the difficulties of making contact with Africans in these circumstances are playing a large part in this initial stage. Then comes the task of rehabilitation on which the future so much depends.
    Another great issue with which the Kenya Council of Ministers has been confronted has been the economic progress of their country. There is a very elaborate Agricultural Bill before the Legislative Council, about which I talked when I was in Kenya some months ago, to see that land in African and European hands is being properly used and developed. There is the Troup Report on the Highlands with its provisions for better loan facilities, for water development, for reducing the size of the average farm to about 2,000 acres, and by which capital investment in the Highlands will be increased, it is hoped, in 10 years by £20 million a year produce of that great territory.
    There is also the Swynnerton Report on African farms demanding, as it does, a large increase in the number of officers, a subject referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay. No fewer than 63 of the 95 officers required to carry out these Swynnerton Report plans have been recruited, and we can confidently hope for a really substantial increase in production. Indeed, if our hopes are fulfilled it will take a most impressive form.
    We hope to raise in 15 years the African tea acreage in Kenya from 41 acres to 12,000 acres, the coffee acreage from 3,000 acres to 71,000 acres, to double the cotton acreage and to raise the pyrethrum production from 1,000 to 48,000 acres. When people talk as if the eyes of all Africans ought to be turned covetously and harshly on the White Highlands, I hope they will remember the words of Sir Philip Mitchell which have already been quoted, of the minute contribution this will make to the real problem of African nutrition. Though I would hesitate to make any dogmatic statement, I have been told by quarters which invariably are accurate that if the Swynnerton Plan succeeds—and we have given £5 million to help it—the problem of nutrition may well be conquered. That is a very impressive story, and the Gov-

    1391
    ernment of Kenya are entitled to great credit for not having lost sight of all these real needs, despite innumerable difficulties.
    There are many things which a progress report would bring to light. There is the work done in regard to the preservation, development and conservation of water and soil; and the employment for part of the African population with their families. It is very much hoped that forestry development in Kenya may provide useful employment for some 5,000 Kikuyu families in addition to the by no means negligible labour force even now employed. They are preparing for the opening of 30 forest stations over the period of the next three years, and the planting of a further area of 6,000 acres each year with exotic softwoods in addition to their present planting programme.
    I think that is another very formidable achievement, and at the same time they are pressing on with the encouragement of industry in Kenya through the Industrial Development Bill and the excellent work of the Minister of Commerce and Industry. In response to the request of my hon. Friend, I will get out details of the survey and what results have been achieved, but I must point out that any penal taxation imposed on Kenya at this stage to make it appear as if it is paying for what is called its emergency—and it is an emergency of us all—would have a disturbing effect on future investment.
    At the same time there has been a really impressive improvement in the educational system, and those of us who have been privileged to go among the people engaged in this task and in the welfare societies which are co-operating know the fund of goodwill there is in the further education of Africans of all tribes. There is no desire whatsoever to hold up this education so that the better jobs can be preserved for the Europeans. The real danger comes from half educated people, and we are anxious that there should be good education with the highest posts only available to those who can prove that they are qualified to hold them.
    It would be quite unrealistic to think that this sort of thing will happen overnight, or that there may be turned out by Makerere, or any other university enough national leaders to take over responsible tasks. Of the 136 Kenya inde-
    1392
    pendent schools which were closed because of the emergency, 59 have been declared redundant—and their purpose was not entirely educational—andi 68 have been reopened or have been scheduled for reopening. The volume of African teachers has largely increased. Some 1,600 teachers were in training in 1952, in 1954 there were 2,300, and by the year after next that figure will be up to 2,800, with a new African women's training college being built. The standard of education in the Arab primary schools has been much improved. We have very considerable responsibilities to the Arab population in Kenya as elsewhere.
    I also attached a lot of importance, as I know the Committee does, to the education of women and here we have many formidable and local difficulties to surmount. Nor must we forget the need to press on with European education in Kenya, because all members of the Committee recognise the problem of the White Africans whose home is in Kenya and whose families have been there in many cases for many generations. It is one of which we must never lose sight. The new technical and trade school for Africans at Kwale in the coast province will admit its first pupils this year, and the Royal Technical College at Nairobi will also open this year to students of all races. We will watch that experiment with interest and great sympathy. There has been considerable advance in the question of adult literacy which is a matter of considerable importance.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham asked me about the Committee on African Wages. I had a copy of this Report together with the Sessional Paper implementing the Committee's recommendations placed in the Library some time ago. The Government of Kenya have accepted most of this Committee's recommendations, but they prefer to adopt the policy of advancing the adult wage over a period of five years, rather than in the first instance the family wage over a period of 10 years. I should be very glad if the chance arises to deal in greater detail with that approach. The Report was arrived at after very careful study and in the light of the close local knowledge of the problems involved.
    There has also been considerable improvement in the health service in Kenya

    1393
    to deal not only with the problems now but, even more so, with the problems when the emergency is over. A new infectious diseases hospital at Nairobi will be completed in about three months' time. There is to be a large new group hospital at Mombasa, the first part of which we hope will be completed by the middle of this year. The hospital at Naivasha is being increased considerably, and, in the field of preventive medicine a great deal of work has been done.
    Anyone who has visited the new villages in Kenya, which have been remarkably successful, will know how much easier they make it to provide good health facilities. Indeed, the new villages have been so successful that at the moment approximately 75 per cent. of the total population in Nyeri and Embu are now in villages, and in Fort Hall some 50 per cent.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay asked what the Council of Ministers were doing in regard to the welfare of urban Africans. Here again the Council is entitled to considerable credit for the way in which the Central Housing Board has tackled its task. We all recognise the compelling urgency of providing proper facilities for de-tribalised Africans who arrive in great towns; indeed, it is necessary even in Britain that care should be taken of people who come from remoter parts of this small island. The Central Housing Board received a loan of £2 million last July from the Colonial Development Corporation and has earmarked this for local authorities for housing schemes of various types in Nairobi, in Mombasa, in Nakuru and elsewhere. I think the results ought to be highly satisfactory.
    Finally, as I mentioned earlier, in the field of political advancement, Mr. Coutts, who served in Kenya before, has begun his inquiry, and all who feel that the story would not be complete if it were not to include progress in this respect can take comfort from that fact.
    All hon. Members have been looking hopefully to the future. It would be idle to suggest that we could be complacent about the situation now, but it would be equally wrong not to give great credit for the work that has been done in the way of social advance under appalling difficulties. That must be my justifica-
    1394
    tion for taking so much of the time of the Committee in telling the earlier part of this story. There is a romantic future ahead for Kenya, and it is in our hands to make it a splendid chapter in Imperial history.
    I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester that romantic, inspiring actions are needed at this time. In particular, he mentioned the harnessing of the Owen Falls which, who knows, may owe much to the original inspiration of the Prime Minister 50 years ago in taking the power from the Owen Falls to Kenya. I am glad to say that an agreement between the Uganda Electricity Board and the Kenya Power Company has just been initialled. The future is full of difficulty, but there has been considerable progress, and we are entitled to look forward to it with sober confidence.
    The most helpful and encouraging feature of all has been the help given to the Government of Kenya by the chiefs and the loyalists and by the close association between African and local European youths who will have to live then-lives together in the Kenya of the future, as district officers, as members of the Kikuyu Guards and as members of the police. This has provided a new contact, an atmosphere of shared danger and common endeavour, and it ought to be of prime importance in the future.
    I know that I shall be echoing the feelings of all hon. Members of the Committee if I send a message of goodwill to the people of Kenya in their difficulties and ordeals and, in particular, to those who support the conception of the multi-racial government, behind which I believe the whole of this Committee is completely and irrevocably united.
    Mr. Johnson: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, can he give an assurance about the constitutional future of the multi-racial government if, unhappily, the European elected Ministers were to leave it? Let us not forget that Mr. Blundell has called a public meeting in his constituency for a vote of confidence? Would the Colonial Secretary allow the present Government to continue with nominated European Ministers alongside the elected Asians and Africans?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope I shall not be accused of flippancy if I say that a

    1395
    number of people in different parts of the world are subjecting themselves to the views of their constituents rather out of the normal time of elections, but it would be unwise for me to anticipate a situation which I do not believe will arise. It was made quite plain by my predecessor, Lord Chandos, however, that in the unhappy event of the constitution breaking down, the powers of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were absolute as to any action we then chose to take, but I do not think we are dealing with a probability.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,973,550, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for sundry colonial services, including grants in aid; and certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine.

    VOTE 4. UNITED NATIONS
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for grants in aid of expenses of the United Nations and of technical assistance for economic development.

    UNITED NATIONS (TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE)
    8.16 p.m.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: I welcome this opportunity of saying how glad I am to support this Supplementary Estimate—I hope nothing has gone wrong?
    Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Sir Rhys, I understood that the Minister would open the debate by explaining the Supplementary Estimate; indeed, I had a message to that effect.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member was on his feet.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): Perhaps we could agree to let it go. I apologise to my hon. Friend. I was on my feet and on the way to the Box but, if the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) does not
    1396
    mind, it will do no harm, I think, if I suggest that my hon. Friend continues.
    Mr. Osborne: I will fit in with anything the Committee likes to do—
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Carry on.
    Mr. Osborne:Then may I repeat how much I would like to support this Supplementary Estimate though, generally speaking, Supplementary Estimates go through the House of Commons far too easily and vast sums of money are passed without receiving the consideration they should receive from us, since the taxpayers have to find the money. However, this Supplementary Estimate comes well after the one we have just discussed, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies emphasised to the Committee that the pacification of Kenya depends upon its economic progress, and the solution of its problems depends on getting that country properly developed so that its people can enjoy a higher standard of life.
    The United Nations, through its technical assistance to economic development, is doing that in every part of the globe, and of all the work being done under the auspices of the United Nations this is the most fruitful, the best and the most practical. It produces results which everybody can see. Before asking one or two questions of my hon. Friend about it, it is only fair to put on record that this technical assistance receives 60 per cent. of its total income from the United States, so that, to every extra 20s. we are prepared to subscribe, another 30s. is added by the American Treasury.
    In view of the fact that from time to time criticisms are made in the House of Commons of American foreign policy, it is right to say that the Americans carry 60 per cent. of the technical assistance bill of the United Nations in addition to their own Point Four programme, which provides ten times as much through their own Treasury as that provided by the rest of the world.
    This Vote has come along at just the right time. I commend to hon. Members a report issued a week or two ago by the Federation of British Industries. It is a most remarkable document, and in view of the soundness of the views on this problem expressed in it by business men, I feel that it has not received the publicity that it ought to have done. Often there is criticism by the business

    1397
    world that United Nations and other international efforts are so much airy-fairy wishful thinking by theorists; there is a great deal of criticism from what are called hard-headed business men about grants such as these.
    The best answer to that criticism, and the best support the Minister could have for the Supplementary Estimate, is contained in this extraordinarily good report. The foreword says:
    "We in Britain have a special understanding of the benefits which flow from the injection of capital and of technical and managerial skills into less developed areas of the world. To those areas themselves, it brings the opportunity of developing natural resources, of earning higher incomes, of securing a higher standard of life. To the more developed countries, it brings access to raw materials and a growth of trade."
    Then comes the most significant sentence of all:
    "For all, it is a great influence for peace."
    If one sentence was wanted to justify the £300,000, it is that one.
    The booklet is signed by the directors of some of the largest industrial concerns in the country. They are men who understand the value of money and want a good return for their money. They say, finally:
    "We commend to British consulting engineers, contractors and manufacturers the desirability of maintaining closer touch with this work."
    I want my hon. Friend to tell me what is being done from the Foreign Office or the Board of Trade to keep contact with the industrialists who in their own report have shown that they are taking a very practical interest in the work of Technical Assistance. These people make a number of suggestions. First, the pamphlet says:
    "… we are satisfied that the concept of technical assistance, besides being right on broad humanitarian grounds, is, in general, politically and economically sound."
    If there is to be any criticism of the expenditure of such money as this, note should be taken of that comment coming from the business community, from men who are usually regarded as being hardhearted and hard-headed, which I think is the wrong way to look upon them. This is just the sort of support required by the Minister. I should have liked him to ask for a great deal more than £300,000.
    1398
    Secondly, these business men say:
    "We hope that British policy will be to provide for increasing United Kingdom participation in this work, both financially and operationally."
    The amount that we subscribe represents about 4d. per person per year. If we are honest with ourselves, we must say that this work will help to fight world Communism. Other Departments are spending about £1,600 million a year upon defence for the same purpose. I sometimes wonder whether arms can do as much for that purpose as Technical Assistance can. If we can teach the people in underdeveloped countries to raise their own standard of life by helping them with the means to do so, we shall minimise very greatly the attraction of Communism. The £300,000 is a puny sum compared with what the Defence Ministers have been asking for.
    My next point is particularly important. Two years ago, when I was in the United Nations headquarters in New York, the men in charge of the T.A. department put this very strongly to me. They said that they could not plan their work ahead with any confidence because they were not sure how much money they would get from time to time from the various Governments. They pleaded with me to ask the Government to promise or to budget two or three years ahead so that they could plan their work more satisfactorily, knowing where they were instead of having to live from hand to mouth. I did my best in a previous debate to put that point of view.
    I am glad to see that the F.B.I, supports it. It says:
    "We think it most unfortunate that pledges by Governments of their financial support for the following year are given so late as November."
    It is unreasonable to expect an international organisation which is planning operations all over the world to get its plans right when it does not know whether it will have the necessary funds.
    The F.B.I, also says:
    "Besides hoping that the British may progressively increase their share in this work, we urge that fresh consideration be given by Her Majesty's Government to giving a lead to others by announcing the scale of support it will give at least two years ahead …"
    This is now a most important factor.
    Is there any hope of the assistance that we are to give being promised and made

    1399
    effective at least two years ahead as the F.B.I. suggests? This is actually more important than giving a bigger amount at the last moment. I am sure that that is what those who are responsible in New York for the work will feel about it. If my hon. Friend has not discussed this with the Treasury, will he do so and make a statement as soon as he can? In a Budget of £4,500 million an extra £300,000 promised two years ahead is chicken feed.
    Lord John Hope: Might I, for the purposes of the record, remind my hon. Friend that the £300,000 is only a Supplementary Estimate? My hon. Friend is rather giving the impression that this is the whole of our contribution, but our total contribution is nearly three times as much.
    Mr. Osborne: I am sorry if I am giving that impression. We are obviously discussing a Supplementary Estimate. The total is £800,000. That is a very small sum compared with a Budget of £4,500 million of which £1,600 million is spent on arms. The work done by Technical Assistance experts with this money is of utmost importance. I urge my hon. Friend not to minimise it.
    The F.B.I, goes on to say—and as a businessman I was surprised to read this—
    "What has chiefly surprised us as a result of our visits is how little we knew of what was going on."
    If the business world is to provide the machinery and the technical experts, then, obviously, the Government must contact the people who will supply them. The fault may lie with the boards of directors of the business houses concerned. It may lie at the door of the Minister. Wherever it lies, I want to know whether anything is being done to improve the liaison between the responsible Government Departments and the concerns who will provide the men and the machinery to do the work.
    I want to pin down my hon. Friend to the F.B.I.'s next point. It says:
    "This experience led us to feel dissatisfied with U.K. liaison arrangements, and we have developed ideas for improving these which we will discuss with the authorities."
    Have any discussions taken place? If so, what is their result? If not, will my hon. Friend undertake to promise the Com-
    1400
    mittee that he will contact the F.B.I, representatives to see what suggestions they have made, meet them willingly and accept the offers which they are prepared to make?
    They pay tribute to the work of the Technical Assistance agencies and say that they are very accessible. Then they criticise British industry.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
    House counted, and 40 Members being present—;
    Mr. Osborne:I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have left their dinners to come to our rescue and allow those of us who are interested in the United Nations to continue our discussion. I hope that they will not suffer too much from indigestion.
    I was saying that the F.B.I, report said that the agencies were very pleased to see its representatives, who were urged to ask British companies to play their part. Will my hon. Friend contact the Board of Trade—if there is no agency in the Foreign Office—to see that the offer which is now being made by the businessmen to do this work does not die for lack of welcome by officials?
    Lastly, the F.B.I. says:
    "We express our opinion that there are many technical assistance projects for which the offer of really good experts from the United Kingdom is most desirable, and we urge all concerned to be readier to release men in such efforts."
    Can my hon. Friend tell the Committee what inducement he can offer so that such men will come forward? What steps are Government Departments taking to assist the United Nations to get experts from this country? It would be an unhappy state of affairs if a reasonable proportion of the technical experts did not come from this country.
    Where I have seen Technical Assistance schemes working in the Middle East, I have been struck by the fact that the teams are so cosmopolitan. They work well together and it would be a great pity if there were not a fair representation of men from this country. I am certain that if the facts were put before the experts, we should not be lacking volunteers from men qualified and willing to help in this all-important and magnificent work.

    1401
    Two other points in this report struck me. They showed how enormous are the opportunities and how little we are doing. The F.B.I, were not men who were likely to have the wool pulled over their eyes. I suppose that they went there as sceptics rather than as enthusiasts. But they saw the scope of the work that could be done, if sufficient men and material were available.
    The F.B.I, report goes on to say that
    "With half the world's acreage still reaped with the sickle, the potential improvement in food production, even with the introduction of the scythe, provides an immense field for improvement to the work of this Division."
    When I reflect that every year there are 30 million more people to be fed, I am terrified. I wonder how long we shall be able to carry on before there is a great question throughout the world: will there be enough to eat? But when it is pointed out on good authority that half the world's acreage still has no machinery of any kind, the fear and dread that haunts me from time to time is partially removed. What could we do if in these regions we had tractors and decent machinery? The fear of hunger throughout the world could be removed.
    The other example that the F.B.I gives is timber. It shows that only 25 per cent. of the world's timber that is cut reaches the consumer and that 75 per cent. is wasted in one way or another through lack of knowledge, lack of equipment and absence of proper methods of handling. Timber will be one of the materials of which there will be a world shortage if we are not careful. If there were no other justification for the granting of this money, this surely is good enough.
    I wish that every hon. Member would read the F.B.I report carefully. In page 24 it says:
    "Much of the help given to underdeveloped countries brings to them the benefits of modern knowledge about the control or prevention of disease and about nutrition, and has the effect of producing rapid population growth."
    Then it warns that unless there is an immense increase in the production of food there must be a lowering in the standard of living.
    It is tremendously important that, as we save the underdeveloped peoples from the diseases that have ravaged them for ages, we should give them the technical
    1402
    assistance to enable them to produce the food by which they can live. Otherwise, instead of helping save them from the lure of Communism, we shall make them more susceptible to it.
    Having read the Report, having heard the men on the spot in New York talk of the work which they have done over the years, and being convinced of the worth of the work, I willingly welcome this Supplementary Estimate. I ask my hon. Friend whether he can deal with the points which I have mentioned, if not tonight then at some other time. If it were possible for the Government to increase this sum, either now or in the future, and also to ensure that it was granted for at least two years ahead, they would be taking a wise course.
    8.39 p.m.
    Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Though I had expected the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to open the debate by giving a short explanation of this Supplementary Estimate, I recognise that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who has a real enthusiasm for this cause, has done la valuable service by introducing the debate in the way that he did. I do not think that anyone on either side of the Committee would cavil at the provision of this sum of £300,000 which is, in effect, being advanced out of the sum made available for the next financial year.
    This has been done from year to year. There is nothing new in it, and we welcome it again on this occasion. Had we had the opportunity, we on this side of the Committee—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Louth would have agreed—would have welcomed the provision of a considerably larger sum of money.
    The hon. Member for Louth touched on some points which I should like to reinforce. But there are other points about which I should like some information. It is a matter of concern to us all that the Technical Assistance Board is in such financial straits that it is necessary for Her Majesty's Government to make these advances year by year. When we consider that this work is of such supreme importance, it becomes a serious matter. My hon. Friends feel, as I do, that the work of the Board is the very basis of our positive work for peace, and to find

    1403
    that there is this danger of a financial shortage year by year should give rise to serious thought.
    I wish to ask the hon. Member whether he can say what are the prospects of more secure financial support for this body in the immediate future. I understand that the American Government have not yet declared their decision. If the hon. Gentleman can tell us that there has been any change in that direction we shall be glad to hear it, because that is one of the factors making for the present position of financial weakness.
    There is also the fact, which again I am sure will be agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, that unless a better guarantee for the future can be given, not only is the actual volume of work which could be accomplished by the Board endangered, but it may be that the Board will work more extravagantly than otherwise would be the case. Could it plan its work over a period of years, instead of working year by year as inevitably it must do at present, that might well prove more economical in the long run, and more effective use might be made of the funds than is the case today.
    That is proved correct when one examines the problem of recruiting qualified technical staff, which is the main purpose for which these funds are used. Unless a better guarantee can be given about the period of security of employment, I suggest that there is a danger that the quality of the staff employed may not be as good as otherwise it might be, and that we shall not attract the best type of qualified personnel needed for these schemes.
    When speaking about United Nations funds for which they are directly responsible, the Minister of Health and other Ministers have said that they feel that the main work in underdeveloped territories—whether carried out by the World Health Organisation or the Food and Agriculture Organisation or whichever body—should be financed by the funds of the Technical Assistance Board rather than from the budgets of these bodies. It has been argued that it is desirable that this work should be effectively coordinated, and that there should not be separate schemes by the various Specialised Agencies without effective contact with each other.
    1404
    That is obviously true. We cannot work efficiently to conquer disease unless, at the same time, we work to conquer illiteracy. The same is true in the major field of all the Specialised Agencies. Therefore, in principle, one would immediately agree that it is desirable for the Technical Assistance Board to have power to co-ordinate its work.
    If, however, the funds available to the Board vary from year to year, how can that work be efficiently carried out? How can the Board accept that responsibility of co-ordination if it has not the necessary funds? Until the Board is given greater security in the matter of the funds available to it, is it not natural and obvious that the separate agencies should press for the considerable expansion of their own regular budgets which, in the way in which they come forward, are rather more reliable?
    My argument is that, in all probability, there is real economy to be obtained by giving greater security to the Board for its funds. It is no good the Treasury saying that this cannot be done. It is done in other fields. It is done so far as the Colombo Plan funds are concerned, and, in fact, it is done with regard to the colonial funds which we discussed earlier today. If, therefore, it is already done in so many other fields, why cannot it be done in this field?
    If it were said that other countries do not do it, then I should be tempted to argue that we should give a lead and should encourage them to do it. But, in fact, other countries are increasingly attempting to meet this problem. Denmark, for example, is making her pledge, not only for this year, but for 1956 and 1957. Italy has pledged to make an annual contribution up to 1961. The Netherlands is pledged for a three-year period, and Switzerland for a two-year period. Indonesia, of all countries, is also pledged for a three-year period. Indonesia is not a country which can make financial gurantees for too far ahead, and, surely, we can do it more easily than she.
    I ask the Minister to make fresh approaches to the Treasury to give the necessary authority and not to be too disturbed about the comments of the Public Accounts Committee—which, I think, is coming round to the view that it may well be a financial economy to plan ahead for a period of years—even though it may

    1405
    argue that it will weaken the control which this House can exercise over it.
    There are one or two other points I wish to make. I wish to refer, as did the hon. Member for Louth, to the conclusion of the Federation of British Industries which, as the hon. Gentleman said, reinforces this point of view. The Federation, too, urges that financial provision ought to be made for a period of years. Another very valid point is that it is surely very important that we should not only make as great a contribution to this work as we possiblycan—quite frankly, I am sure that hon. Members on this side feel that, considering the size of the job to be done, this is really an infinitesimal contribution—but also that we should do everything we can to engender public understanding of the work.
    That is something which is very lacking today. Cannot something more be done to associate the people of this country with this work? I am sure that it has been the experience of many of us who have spoken in the country about this problem that people have said, "Can we ourselves do something about it?" We should like to find a way in which they could help. It is obvious that the personnel needed for these schemes must be trained personnel. It is no use offering bystanders, to go out and watch. That would not help; it might, indeed, hinder.
    What else can we do? I think that it would be worth while examining the very constructive schemes put up by Norway and, I believe, Sweden, by which they are attempting to obtain the cooperation both of the general public and of their Governments, in joint voluntary and statutory contributions towards joint schemes, with the full co-operation of the recipient countries. Norway has arranged for selected villages in India to be the main recipients of certain schemes financed by local public efforts, together with the statutory efforts made by the Norwegian Government.
    I believe that the United Nations Association is attempting to work out something comparable in this country. I am sure that I and all my hon. Friends would welcome it, and would be glad if we could get support for such a scheme. I am sure that we should be anxious to provide whatever help we could, both by
    1406
    ourselves as individuals and through the many movements which we represent. Trade unions and other bodies would be very interested, and we should like to know if there is any way in which they, also, could make their contributions, as the Co-operative movement is already trying to do. I therefore ask the Government whether they have had any of these schemes drawn to their attention, and whether they feel that there is any way in which they can encourage their development, or, at any rate, whether they will give such schemes sympathetic consideration.
    Hon. Members on this side of the Committee very much welcome the contribution which is being made. We are merely anxious to see that the very best possible use is made of the funds, and that every possible opportunity is taken to increase the funds available for work of such fundamental importance—because in all the work for peace that we may try to carry out there is surely nothing as constructive or potent for building up the relationships we want as work which is carried out under the auspices of the United Nations, especially through the various Specialised Agencies, with the very small contributions—far too small—from the Technical Assistance Board.
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. Nigel Nicolson: Debates upon this subject are beginning to have rather a familiar pattern. More or less the same hon. Members on both sides get up one after the other and ask the Government to increase their contributions to these Specialised Agencies and to alter the methods of making those contributions. There can be very little discussion upon the use to which these moneys are put, and it would not be in order for me to develop that argument now.
    We have not been treated ungenerously by the Government. They have increased their contributions year by year from £450,000 in 1952 to£800,000 in the present year. They have always filled our begging bowl when we have preferred it to them, but it is a pity that we should have to proffer it at all, and that so little original impetus to the work of these Specialised Agencies comes from the Government. It would be unfair to say that they have given way inch by inch under pressure; they have given way foot

    1407
    by foot—but how seldom have they made a stride on their own account and given a lead to the rest of the country by putting this work in the place it deserves, in the forefront of the work of the United Nations itself?
    I wonder why the United Nations organisation is not a popular body in this country. Little is known about it, in spite of the efforts of the United Nations Association. That is partly because of its political failure and partly because few people have any idea of the scope of its non-political work in all parts of the world. One of the reasons for that lack of knowledge is the fact that it figures so thinly in Government speeches on foreign policy.
    In the United States I found that not only politicians but the common people are infinitely more aware of the work of the organisation than we are, and that it figures in almost every political speech on foreign affairs. Although it goes very much against the grain with me to criticise my right hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect, I suggest that the Foreign Secretary might refer in his speeches to the United Nations organisation in some way that indicates a little enthusiasm for its non-political work.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that the Foreign Secretary comes into this Vote.
    Mr. Nicolson:I bow to your Ruling, Sir Rhys, but surely it is relevant to the contribution of funds to the United Nations that we should be aware in this country of the purpose for which those contributions are made. I will, of course, leave that point.
    We were probably right to use our vote against setting up a special United Nations fund for economic development, since the Americans refused to come in. We are probably right in consistently protesting against any suspicion of extravagance in the overhead administration of the Agencies. Those have been recently pretty well our main contributions to the debate in New York.
    I most strongly support the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) about the necessity of
    1408
    making a longer-term promise of our contributions, so that the Agencies may know where they stand. Each speaker has referred to the passage in the F.B.I. report referring to this particular proposal. The report puts the matter very strongly and clearly as follows:
    "No organisation could be efficient on the basis of not knowing its scale of activities until they actually arrive. From the staff point of view alone, such a situation makes for insecurity, and must deter good men. Believing that technical assistance is good policy, we believe it should be given the chance to be efficiently administered, and we urge Her Majesty's Government to give a lead to others by announcing the scale of support it will give to the Expanded Programme for at least two years ahead, subject, of course, to Parliamentary approval."
    It is most unlikely that Parliament would withhold that approval.
    In a previous debate we were told that if we made a promise of a definite sum for three years ahead we would be bound to that sum, and that the Treasury would thereafter be more reluctant than ever to increase it. It would say, "We have already promised our maximum." It is the minimum promise which the Specialised Agencies want to have. So far we have year by year increased our contribution. It is often said that we should now pledge ourselves to £3 million for three years. At the moment we are giving £800,000 for one year. The increase is not all that great.
    A second reason is that it is unconstitutional to make such promises, that there may be a change of Government or a change of Foreign Secretary who may have different ideas, and that it would be wrong even by so simple a proposal as this for one Foreign Secretary to bind his successors. But it is constantly being done. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has already given a good instance. When I consulted the Report of the recent Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee which examined grants in aid, I found numerous occasions upon which pledges had been made for a number of years. The University Grants Committee is one example. Others are the Commonwealth Economic and Research Services, the British Institute of Management, and even the development fund to assist rural activities.
    Each one of these worthy organisations is pledged a sum of money, in some cases for five years ahead, upon which it knows

    1409
    it can rely. Cannot we do the same in the case of the Technical Assistance Programme? We are virtually doing it in the case of the other agencies. All that we have the opportunity to debate in this House is our contribution to U.N.I.C.E.F. and Technical Assistance. Our contributions to all the others are fixed sums allotted according to the size of our national income and in relation to the incomes of other member States of the United Nations. The sum involved is fixed. It goes through without question. Would not a fixed contribution to these two agencies, U.N.I.C.E.F. and Technical Assistance, meet with as little opposition as the others?
    I finish with one further question. About a year ago the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) asked a question of the Foreign Secretary to discover whether or not we make a net gain on our contributions, whether more money is spent in buying goods and services in this country than we contribute in the way of our annual grant to the U.N. Technical Assistance Agencies. The answer was then given that we did make such a net gain. Later, the question was put in another form, I believe by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East. He was then told that the information was not available. There is a contradiction between those answers, and it is of great importance to us that we should know which is the right answer.
    If it is true that for every £1 that we contribute in the way of these grants we benefit to the tune of 25s. by purchases in this country, we are not even financially the net losers. We are the net gainers. Even if we are the net losers, if the purchases in this country amount to less than £1 for every £1 contributed, the money could not be better spent. But could we have a more clear definition of what, in fact, is the case?
    The Americans announced the day before yesterday that they are about to launch a new programme of technical aid to Asia. They call it a Marshall Plan for Asia. Although we have had no details yet about the way in which this money will be spent, it is suggested that it will be a wholly American agency, a new agency set up alongside the Colombo Plan, the Point Four plan and
    1410
    all the Technical Agencies of the United Nations. A very large sum is apparently involved. I think it would be a great pity if with every new sum that was contributed to the work of assisting the backward nations of the world, a new agency were to be set up.
    I ask my hon. Friend whether he could not use our good offices with the American Government to persuade them to channel this most generous contribution through the existing organisations. It strikes me that it would be a pity if the recipient countries in the Far East were to think themselves beholden solely to the United States for the aid which is given. I say that in no ungenerous spirit, but because it is always much more difficult to receive than to give. United States aid in the past has always been associated with military aid or political objects. Of course, those motives are present in the American mind, and they are not unreasonable motives. But it would be a great help to the United Nations and a better way of channelling this contribution if the money could form part and parcel of the overall funds available through the United Nations.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth reminded us, the United States is providing about 60 per cent. of the total funds of the Specialised Agencies. That in itself is not a healthy position. We are dependent upon the whim of one Government—a Government which, as we know, is apt to change every four years. We are No. 2 on the list—at the head of the also-rans. Is it a very honourable or a necessary position for Great Britain to occupy? Can we not move some way up in order to bridge this enormous gulf between the United States contribution and the contributions of the rest of the world?
    This is not the time to debate fully an increase in our contribution. We are voting a comparatively small sum tonight. But every hon. Member whom I have heard speak on this subject in the House has ended in exactly the same way as I end. This worthy work is not yet fully acknowledged. We are not making the contribution from this country which we could make. I hope that when we debate the subject once more there will be not only an increase in contribution but a change of heart as well.
    9.8 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Moyle: I welcome the opportunity of supporting the work of the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations, particularly the Technical Assistance Programme. The request for a supplementary grant of £300,000 gives me the opportunity to do so.
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) referred to the report which has recently been published by the Federation of British Industries. Two years ago I somewhat chided the Federation of British Industries, in a similar debate, because they had failed to awaken to the importance of this new development. At the same time I said that the Trades Union Congress might realise to a greater extent than it had done at the time the immense importance of this new development. Indeed, against the gloomy background of the hydrogen bomb and all the frightening developments of nuclear energy, it seems to me that the one gleam of hope which emerges in the new movements of the post-war world is this development of a global welfare scheme.
    In my opinion, it cannot be evolved except through the agencies of the United Nations. I can see no hope of any co-ordinated movement on a world basis proving in the slightest degree effective unless it is encouraged and directed by the United Nations through its Specialised Agencies.
    I understand from those much more competent than I to assess local opinion that the under-developed countries are not enthusiastic at all for financial aid from a certain country, because, firstly, they are not anxious to receive any economic aid if there are strings attached to it. But when, for example, assistance either in the form of finance or technical skill or management is offered, and when it comes through the Specialised Agencies it is at once received without suspicion.
    The second reason is that immediately any aid is given by any one country, whether it is the United States or our own, it is at once conceived to be not an act of charity in the truest sense of that term but designed solely for the purpose of securing an opportunity for further trade development. If, on the other hand, work of this kind is organised and
    1412
    generated through United Nations organisations, with the understanding between member countries that such work is done without any special regard for a country's own economic or trading interest, the receiving countries feel much happier in co-operating in work under such conditions that can only be guaranteed by the United Nations.
    I can quite readily acknowledge the great work of the United States in this field. President Truman did a great work in 1949 in encouraging at the time a very active Secretary General of U.N.O., Mr. Trygve Lie, who saw the importance of this work in relation to under-developed countries. That must not be forgotten. While we are discussing the expanded Technical Assistance Programme, I should like to pay tribute also to the work of the international team of economists who are responsible for that first-class work, the annual "World Economic Report" which gives us a measurement of this terrifying problem of poverty to which half the population of the world is subjected. Not only are half the people of the world under-fed and suffering from malnutrition, but are incapable of reading or writing, are constantly ill, or are under a measure of slavery, if not of complete bondage.
    I feel greater confidence in this movement of social and economic welfare in aid of people in those less developed countries as a contribution to world peace, than I feel in mere defensive measures, negative as they are—though I admit their necessity. I want to re-echo the words of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) and say that there is in Britain almost a lack of appreciation of the importance of this work. It is not merely because of its humanitarian nature that one is encouraged to support it. It seems to me elementary to recognise that this work is of immense importance to British commercial interests because, as we know, the old adage that trade follows the flag is long since dead and it is "trade follows the expert" now.
    I want to see the Government encouraging British industry. I want to see them not merely contributing financially or encouraging the United Nations to do its best with what finances it receives from member countries but, through our

    1413
    universities and technical colleges here, encouraging people in the less developed countries to train their own technicians to assist them in achieving a better standard of living. We have the "know-how," the technical skill, and the administrators, but we have only just begun to understand the A B C of this great movement which has tremendous potentialities. I hope that the Government will let us know what it can do to encourage not only F.B.I. but the other agencies concerned to do all they possibly can to strengthen the work of the Specialised Agencies. I support the views already expressed in the debate about the importance of securing something like a three-year periodical contribution from this country in support of the Expanded Technical Assistance Programme and its objects.
    9.17 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope):May I first of all deal very briefly with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson). I want to do that first because he invested the Government with an attitude towards not only this particular facet of the United Nations activities, but towards U.N.O. as a whole, which should not go unrebutted. He said categorically that we did not give a lead over U.N.O. matters. I strenuously dispute that.
    Mr. N. Nicolson: I was talking about non-political work.
    Lord John Hope:Never mind about that. That is the impression my hon. Friend gave me, and if I am over-doing it then so much the better for everybody, but it seemed to me that he felt we were not giving a lead over United Nations matters. He also made an allusion to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary which I rather regret. I can assure him, and anybody else who has any doubts about it, that the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for all these schemes is very real. There is no man who knows more about them, and there is no man who knows more thoroughly from experience how necessary they are. But he has so much to do with other subjects that when speaking in this House about the mortal perils against which we are fighting, it is a little hard to blame him for not speaking about E.T.A.P.
    Mr. Blenkinsop:I thought it was rather unfortunate when the Foreign Secretary, referring to the Far East the other day, did not refer in his statement to the United Nations Specialised Agencies as one of the main factors for economic working in the Far East, although he did refer to the Colombo Plan.
    Lord John Hope:I should have thought that in any case his vital interest in them might have been taken for granted by the House of Commons after all these years. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) also asked whether we make a net gain over this. I can give him figures which I hope will settle any difficulties from which he is suffering. From the inception of the E.T.A. programme in 1950 up to 30th June, 1954, there was spent in the United Kingdom £1,889,082 and there was contributed by the United Kingdom £2,035,000.
    The hon. Member for Louth and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) both quoted the Report of the Federation of British Industries, and their quotations were most helpful. It is a remarkable document. It is true, as they said, that the experts who went out indulged in a certain amount of constructive criticism of how this fund is being administered, but they also paid great tribute to it. I do not complain that both hon. Members dwelt upon the criticism rather more than on the praise because that was the most useful line to take, but it would not be fair for this debate to end without the final sentence of the Foreword being quoted:
    "…we have no doubt that a great deal is done that is very good, that administrative efficiency is improving, and that many seeds are planted, some of which will germinate. We commend to British consulting engineers, contractors and manufacturers the desirability of maintaining closer touch with this work."
    In one or two speeches the question of publicity was mentioned and it is important that we should apply our minds to that as much as we can. This Report by the F.B.I. will go a long way towards filling that gap. As they say in the Report, they knew nothing about what was going on until they went there and looked. We will do our best to see what we can do at our end of the scale to make it as widely known as possible in this country. The answer to the question put by my hon. Friend is that we are to have a meet-

    1415
    ing with the F.B.I. on 24th March which, I am sure, will prove useful.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East referred to the bone of contention shared by many hon. Members of the Committee concerning a regular basis of contribution. It would be ideal if that could be attained, but all the big contributors have decided that for the moment the present system is far and away the most preferable from their own points of view. It is true that some of the smaller contributors manage to pledge a contribution a little further ahead but, in terms of promptness of payment—a point which ought to be stressed—this country has a record second to none. There is no question of our being an also-ran about promptness of payment, which is a not unimportant item in the total story. As far as the system is concerned, however, I am afraid the answer must be that for the present we must stay as we are.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: What about the future?
    Lord John Hope: I cannot possibly say now, any more than could the hon. Gentleman if he were at this Box, that we can reach the ideal in the near future.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman at least say that he or his right hon. Friend will make approaches to the Treasury on the matter?
    Lord John Hope: Yes, most certainly; I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the point is very much in mind.
    The hon. Member also asked me about joint schemes between the public and the Governments in Norway and Sweden. I am not certain what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but so far as I can discover, no such schemes exist. Everything that is done in the Scandinavian countries is done by the Governments, and there is no question of matching pound for pound between private contributions and Government contributions.
    Mr. Blenkinsop:If I send the hon. Gentleman details, which I have in my hand, of these schemes—I think they are very interesting and might be a model to us—will he consider them?
    Lord John Hope: I will certainly do so. We shall be most interested to have from the hon. Gentleman what we have
    1416
    been unable to discover from any source, including the Norwegians and the Swedes. I do not want to suggest that nothing is happening, but we should very much like to know what is taking place.
    I want to say a word or two about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth, who opened the debate so helpfully, if somewhat unexpectedly from my point of view, although that was no one's fault but my own. There is one point that I want to make to him with as much force as I can command. He felt that the £800,000 that we are contributing was a very insignificant drop in the bucket of total expenditure against Communism. It is true that, when we compare it with the total that the country is spending in that struggle, it is not very much. Nevertheless, it is most important that the Committee should recognise that the work that the organisation is able to do is not limited by the amount of funds available. At the moment as big a limiting factor as anything else is the availability of experts. We shall continue to do all we can. Even now we are ahead in the field and have produced more experts—first-rate men they are, too—to help in the work than any other country. In that connection at least, no critic can fairly accuse this country of not pulling its weight.
    My hon. Friend asked me if I would get in touch with the Board of Trade about publicity, the provision of experts, and so on. We are certainly attending to that matter and will continue to do so. Over the whole field of publicity I admit that there is a great deal that can be done. The F.B.I. pamphlet has opened the eyes of many people who knew nothing whatever about the matter. We will ensure that everything possible is done to let the public know precisely what is happening in what is not just a rather dry, dull administrative project but an extremely exciting, most beneficial and more than worth while adventure in humanitarian advance.
    Whereas criticism, when it is justified, must be made and ought to be made, I think that the more both sides of the House of Commons can let the world see that this is essentially a team effort of the whole country, the greater will be the service that is done, and the more quickly shall we all reach the end that all of us, wherever we sit in the House, agree is the desirable end if civilisation is to be preserved.
    It being half-past Nine o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply)to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for grants in aid of expenses of the United Nations and of technical assistance for economic development.
    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts outstanding in such Estimates for the Air Services for the coming financial year as have been put down on at least one previous day for consideration on an allotted day, and the total amounts of all outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days, and of all outstanding Excess Votes, be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Statements of Excess:

    Air Estimates, 1955–56
    That a sum, not exceeding £282,370,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1956, for expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:

    £

    7.

    Aircraft and Stores

    227,500,000

    8.

    Works and Lands

    50,500,000

    9.

    Miscellaneous Effective Services

    4,370,000

    11.

    Additional Married Quarters

    100

    £282,370,100

    Question put and agreed to.

    Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments. Supplementary Estimates, 1954–55
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,945,362, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES
    Class I

    £

    1.

    House of Lords

    10

    4.

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    15,000

    5.

    Privy Council Office

    325

    7.

    Charity Commission

    2,381

    £

    9.

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    1,900

    10.

    Friendly Societies Registry

    800

    11.

    Government Actuary

    10

    15.

    National Debt Office

    10

    17.

    Public Record Office

    10

    24B.

    Civil Service (Equal Pay Scheme)

    234,000

    Class VII

    …

    £

    1.

    Ministry of Works

    …

    720,000

    12.

    Peterhead Harbour

    …

    1,600

    Civil (Excesses), 1953–54
    That a sum, not exceeding £148 7s. lid., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1954.

    Schedule

    Class and Vote

    Excess of Expenditure over Estimate

    Appropriations in Aid

    Excess Vote

    Class I

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    7. Charity Commission

    556

    6

    7

    417

    18

    8

    138

    7

    11

    Class VI

    11. Ministry of Supply (Assistance to Industry, Scrap Recovery, &c.)

    75,038

    8

    5

    75,028

    8

    5

    10

    0

    0

    Total Civil (Excesses)

    £148

    7

    11

    Question put and agreed to.
    To report Resolutions and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Kaberry.]
    Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
    Resolved,
    That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st March, 1954, the sum of £148 7s. 11d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

    £

    6.

    Ministry of Fuel and Power (Special Services)

    10

    7.

    Atomic Energy

    10

    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st March, 1955, the sum of £38,323,612 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolved,
    That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, the sum of £1,668,239,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    To report Resolutions and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Kaberry.]
    Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

    POLICE PENSIONS
    9.33 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move,
    That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
    Hon. Members will see that there is a further set of Regulations on the Order Paper and it will be necessary for me, in dealing with these Regulations, to refer to the other set. It may be for the convenience of the House if both sets of Regulations are discussed together.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew):I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the Scottish Regulations were discussed in the same way.
    Mr. Ede: I am not quite sure whether it would be convenient for the Scottish Regulations to be discussed with these.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I meant to say that these two English Regulations could be discussed together and then the two Scottish Regulations could be discussed together.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Both sets of English Regulations are consequential on the National Insurance Act, 1954. That Act provided for National Insurance benefits to be increased, the increase starting with effect from 25th April next. Those dependants of the police officers who are covered by National Insurance will receive the benefit of those increases in the ordinary way under the National Insurance Act, but the dependants of some police officers are not eligible for National Insurance pensions and allowances.
    This state of affairs arises because police officers were excluded from compulsory State insurance before July, 1948, when the National Insurance Act came into force. A considerable number of such officers have not been able, for various reasons, to qualify since July, 1948. The obvious example is that of a man who had already retired then and who may still be living and may continue to live for some considerable time yet.
    Such dependants may, however, be eligible for a pension under the Police
    1422
    Regulations either wholly or partly based on the benefits provided by the National Insurance scheme. They do not actually receive National Insurance benefits, nor even benefits by direct reference to the National Insurance scheme. Therefore, when increases are given in National Insurance benefits, they do not automatically apply to the dependants of such police officers.
    The purpose of the Regulations is to provide a corresponding increase for those dependants who benefit under the Police Regulations and not under the National Insurance Act. The second set of Regulations does this, and nothing more, for all the existing police pensions affected. It does so by reference to the Police Pensions Regulations of 1949, as amended—and they have been substantially amended four times. The result is necessarily somewhat confusing. I think that all hon. Members would agree that it is desirable in the circumstances that there should be consolidation.
    Unfortunately, it is not possible to consolidate the Regulations governing pensions already in issue. That is so because of the statutory safeguards for existing pensioners which are to be found in Sections 2 and 3 of the Police Pensions Act, 1948. It follows that consolidation is possible only for future pensions. The first Regulations apply only to pensions coming into existence on or after 25th April next when the increases in the National Insurance pensions take effect.
    Advantage has been taken of the opportunity provided by these amendments to tidy the Regulations generally and in two respects in particular. First, some provisions of the 1949 Regulations are now spent. Those provisions have been omitted.
    Secondly, in the working of the Regulations, a number of minor deficiencies and inaccuracies have come to light and these have been corrected. I think that two are mentioned in the explanatory note to the Regulations. I can assure the House that these amendments are all of a minor and technical character. They are numerous, and I do not think that hon. Members would wish me to go into any of them in detail. My right hon. and gallant Friend has consulted the Police Council in accordance with the provisions of the Police Pensions Act, and the Council is in agreement with these Regulations. I think, therefore, that the House

    1423
    will be satisfied that there is nothing in them which is contrary to the interests of those affected.
    If there are any particular points which arise or any questions which hon. Members wish to ask I will, if I am given the opportunity, do my best to answer them.
    9.41 p.m.
    Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I do not wish to refer to the suggested increases and the adjustments, but to obtain some information about medical appeals which are referred to in the Fourth Schedule of the Regulations, in page 49. This relates to the right of a police officer to appeal against the decision by a watch committee, or the responsible police authority, on the advice of the medical officer attached to the police authority, and it is a matter about which there has been some difficulty.
    It is not so much that there has been a difficulty about the appeals, but, rather, about the selection by the Home Office of the officer who hears the appeal. In Liverpool, we have commented on this on a number of occasions. We recommended that where a policeman appeals, and the Home Office select a medical officer to hear the appeal, or to ascertain whether the position is as stated by the medical officer attached to the police authority, it would be wise if the person appointed were completely detached from the area from which the policeman comes.
    On occasions—I do not say on recent occasions—we have known instances where the medical referee has come from only a few doors away from the officer employed by the police authority. That has sometimes created a difficulty, in that a man who may well have been himself attached to a police authority as a medical adviser may find the decision going against him. Or it might be the other way round, and the appeal is turned down.
    I am wondering whether a suggestion which we made, and which has been carried out locally, is being carried out nationally. We suggested that the medical officer selected to hear the appeal should be someone completely detached from the area of the doctor responsible to the police authority.
    I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary can give me any information
    1424
    about that, or whether there is an instruction to that effect in the Home Office. But in Liverpool it has been accepted that someone away from the area—say, from Manchester—should hear the appeal. I think that the hon. Gentleman should examine this matter to see whether it be wise that in every case of that sort, to ensure complete impartiality, the person appointed should come from asfar away as possible from the local authority concerned.
    9.45 p.m
    Mr. Ede: The Joint Under-Secretary has given us a very lucid explanation of a very complicated set of Regulations and of the alterations that are being made. I welcome those which clear up the difficulties that have arisen in the interpretation of the old Regulations, and I can only hope that we have now come to the end of this correction of some of these highly technical matters.
    There was a time, of course, when the Police Pensions Act made the police a very attractive Service. Now I fear that is no longer the case, because other legislation has since given other sections of the community advantages which they did not previously enjoy as compared with conditions in the Police Force. It is good to know that these Regulations have been agreed by the Police Council, and I think that we can take it that if the members of the various ranks of the Police Force who are there feel that these are suitable Regulations, the House need have no hesitation in accepting them.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
    Draft Police Pensions (No. 2) Regulations, 1955 [copy presented on 3rd March] approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]
    9.47 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move,
    That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
    I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is your wish that the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations should be discussed at the same time and

    1425
    that I might move them immediately following. The present Regulations consolidate the Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, and, indeed, carry forward certain Scottish points. These are the points which are contained in Regulations 27, 34 and 35. Regulation 27 deals with the position that arose on the abolition of the rank of lieutenant, and gives to those subsequently appointed the entitlement which applies to chief inspectors, but retaining all the rights of those who were serving as police lieutenants.
    Regulation 34 deals with the peculiar situation which arises with regard to Orkney and Shetland, and Regulation 35 deals with the question of unattested service prior to 1924 of policewomen in Glasgow. That means that in respect of these three classes they retain the rights which they had before the Regulations were introduced. Otherwise, these Regulations follow exactly the same course as has already been described by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Regarding the further Regulations, they also are precisely similar to the English Regulations which the House has just approved.
    9.49 p.m.
    Mr. James H. Hoy: I do not intend to discuss these Regulations which are rather complicated, and I will confine myself to asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman two questions. The first is with regard to the older type of widow whose pension has not been increased over the years and who finds herself in a rather unenviable position. Do these Regulations bring about any change in the payments made to that type of widow?
    Secondly, I wish to know whether there is any alteration in the earnings rule with regard to police constables. I raised this question some time ago with the Department when a retired policeman complained about the fall in the value of money and about the fact that his earning allowances had not been varied in an upward direction. He wanted to know if, when the next Regulations were coming along, something could be done to make it possible for him to earn much more than he was allowed to under the old Regulations. Those are the only two questions I wish to ask, and I shall be
    1426
    obliged if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can give me a reply.
    9.50 p.m.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: I think that we all welcome these Regulations. I know that they have been agreed by those who are most concerned with them, but there are one or two questions which I should like to ask. The Joint Under-Secretary mentioned those Regulations in respect of which changes had been made. He mentioned Regulation 27, which makes provisions consequential upon the abolition of the rank of lieutenant, but in doing so he did not say why it was necessary for it to be incorporated in these Regulations.
    Commander Galbraith: It is merely to preserve the rights of those who were dependants of those lieutenants before the grade was changed.
    Miss Herbison:The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also mentioned Regulation 34, which made certain provisions with regard to the Orkney and Zetland police forces. It may be that I and my hon. Friends should know why they are in a different position from the rest of the police officers in Scotland, but we do not know, and we should like to be told. Regulation 35 was also mentioned. This refers to the unattested service prior to 1924 of policewomen in Glasgow. Again it may be that I and my hon. Friends should know the position, but we do not know and we should like to have some information about it.
    Regulations 9, 11 and 20 were referred to, and we are told that larger discretionary increases in widows' pensions and children's allowances are made by these Regulations. I should like to have a little more information than I can get from studying these Regulations. I want to know what is their real effect and how these larger discretionary allowances will help. Although I do not know a great deal about the matter, I welcome the fact that these allowances are given.
    9.53 p.m.
    Mr. J. Grimond: I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State two questions relating to Regulation 34. Hesaid that the English Regulations had been accepted and agreed by the associations concerned. Does that apply to Scotland? I believe that the men concerned are

    1427
    those who have been in the police service for so long that in certain cases they were not covered by previous Regulations. My impression is that there are several men who have retired from the police force and have been unable to get a pension. As I understand it, this Regulation will not affect them, but I should be very glad to be told definitely whether it does improve their position in any way.
    9.55 p.m.
    Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) asked about the older widows' pensions, and whether or not they had been increased. Many of these widows will receive the additional 7s. 6d. In regard to the special case which he raised about earnings, if he will allow me I should like to look into the matter and communicate with him afterwards.
    The hon. Lady asked me in regard to Regulations 27, 34, and 35. There is no change in the Regulations from what they were when she was in the Scottish Office. They are purely consolidatory. I mentioned them because they differ from the English Regulations in that they preserve rights which exist in the Scottish Regulations on matters to which the English Regulations do not apply.
    So far as Orkney and Shetland are concerned, until 1938 in the case of Orkney, and 1940 in the case of Shetland, the Police Acts did not apply, and therefore it was necessary to bring in something that gave the utmost possible benefit to members of those Forces in the interim period. The Regulations preserve to them the rights that they previously had.
    Miss Herbison: I asked about the larger discretionary increases relating to widows' pensions and children's allowances. Could I have information about them?
    Commander Galbraith:That is in connection with Regulations 9, 11 and 20. These Regulations merely repeat the existing code. Nothing more nor less. The situation is exactly the same as when the hon. Lady was at the Scottish Office.
    Miss Herbison:There is reference in the Explanatory Note to "larger discretionary increases." That is why I questioned the matter.
    Commander Galbraith: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like me to go into it fully. Under the existing Regulations police authorities have discretion in certain circumstances to increase a widow's pension by 42s. 6d. a week during the first 13 weeks and 32s. 6d. thereafter or, if no pension is payable, to grant a pension at those rates, which are the current National Insurance rates of widow's allowance and pension. The National Insurance Act, 1954, raises these amounts to 55s. and 40s. The draft Regulations provide for similar increases in the amounts payable under Regulations 9 and 11. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady's question.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
    Draft Police Pensions (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations, 1955 [copy presented 8th March] approved.—[Commander Galbraith.]

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (SELECT COMMITTEE)
  Select Committee appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are wholly appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer, and to obtain further information as to so much of the current policy and practices of those industries as are not matters which—

  (a) have been decided by or clearly engage the responsibility of any Ministers;

  (b) concern wages and conditions of employment and other questions normally decided by collective bargaining arrangements;

  (c) fall to be considered through formal machinery established by the relevant Statutes, or

  1429

  (d) are matters of day-to-day administration:

  Mr. Albu, Mr. Ernest Davies, Viscount Hinchingbrooke, Sir Ian Horobin, Dame Florence Horsbrugh, Mr. James Hutchison, Mr. Noel-Baker, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Ramsden, Mr. Renton, Sir Patrick Spens, Mr. George Strauss, and Mr. Wade.
  Five to be the Quorum:
  Power to send for persons, papers and records; Power to report from time to time.—[Sir C. Drewe.]

  Adjournment
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.

TELEVISION
  Commercial Stations (Coverage)
  Commercial Stations (Coverage)
  Interference (Sound Radio)
  Interference (Sound Radio)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Shared Lines (Rental Charges)
  Shared Lines (Rental Charges)
  Sheffield
  Sheffield
  POST OFFICE STAFF (RETIREMENT AGE)
  POST OFFICE STAFF (RETIREMENT AGE)
ROADS
  Traffic Congestion, Leather Lane
  Traffic Congestion, Leather Lane
  New Schemes
  New Schemes
  Improvements, Lanarkshire
  Improvements, Lanarkshire
  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, LONDON AIRPORT (INQUIRY)
  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, LONDON AIRPORT (INQUIRY)
  ATOM AND HYDROGEN BOMBS
  ATOM AND HYDROGEN BOMBS
  GERMANY (MILITARY SECURITY PROCEEDINGS)
  GERMANY (MILITARY SECURITY PROCEEDINGS)
  JAMAICA (SUGAR INDUSTRY)
  JAMAICA (SUGAR INDUSTRY)
MALAYA
  Resettlement Villages (Education and Medical Services)
  Resettlement Villages (Education and Medical Services)
  Electorate
  Electorate
  Emergency Regulations
  Emergency Regulations
  Public Service (Malayan Staff)
  Public Service (Malayan Staff)
  SINGAPORE (MILITARY FORCES)
  SINGAPORE (MILITARY FORCES)
  TANGANYIKA (BUKOBA COFFEE SALES)
  TANGANYIKA (BUKOBA COFFEE SALES)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (BANNED PUBLICATIONS)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (BANNED PUBLICATIONS)
  COLONIAL IMMIGRANTS (CRIMINAL OFFENCES)
  COLONIAL IMMIGRANTS (CRIMINAL OFFENCES)
  BRITANNIA AIRCRAFT (TEST FLYING)
  BRITANNIA AIRCRAFT (TEST FLYING)
  FROZEN BEEF STOCKS
  FROZEN BEEF STOCKS
SCOTLAND
  Protection of Birds Act (Order)
  Protection of Birds Act (Order)
  Glasgow Corporation (Cumbernauld)
  Glasgow Corporation (Cumbernauld)
  Government Contracts (Scottish Law)
  Government Contracts (Scottish Law)
  TRADE ASSOCIATION COURTS
  TRADE ASSOCIATION COURTS
  NEW VALUATION LISTS
  NEW VALUATION LISTS
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Entertainments Duty
  Entertainments Duty
  Tax Reserve Certificates (New Issue)
  Tax Reserve Certificates (New Issue)
  RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES (UNITED NATIONS REPORT)
  RESTRICTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES (UNITED NATIONS REPORT)
AGRICULTURE
  Sheep Worrying
  Sheep Worrying
  Fruit Trees (Damage by Birds)
  Fruit Trees (Damage by Birds)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  MRS. MONICA FELTON
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government, with regard to Chapters VI and VII of the publication Treatment of British Prisoners of War in Korea, if they will publish a definition of the difference, if any, between the endeavours of Mrs. Monica Felton and those of Sir Roger Casement to suborn British prisoners in hostile hands.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the decision whether or not to institute proceedings in cases of this kind is constitutionally a matter, not for Her Majesty's Government but for Her Majesty's Attorney General. I am authorised by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General to say that, in his opinion, however much one may deplore Mrs. Felton's activities, there is no evidence that she tried to suborn British prisoners of war. In Casement's case, on the other hand, there was clear evidence, which Casement himself did not dispute, that he had actively endeavoured to persuade British prisoners to fight against this country. I need only refer the noble Lord to the particulars of Casement's overt acts of treason set out in Volume 12 of the Criminal Appeal Reports, which are sufficient to distinguish that case quite plainly from Mrs. Felton's.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. May I just mention to the House that for some time in the First World War I was head of the Prisoners of War Department and there is at least a strong resemblance between what was then done by Sir Roger Casement and what has since been done by this woman.
  1124
  It seems to me unjust that the one should have hanged and that the other should go scot-free, if that is the implication of the reply.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said I think it is right that I should refresh his memory and that of your Lordships, about the overt acts charged against Casement. May I take one as being typical of all except the last?
  "On or about the 31st day of December. 1914, soliciting and inciting and endeavouring to persuade certain persons, being British subjects and members of the military forces of our Lord the King and being prisoners of war then in prison at Limburg Lahn Camp in the Empire of Germany, to wit"—
  I omit the names—
  "to forsake their duty and allegiance to our Lord the King and to join the armed forces of his said enemies, and to fight against our Lord the King and his subjects in the said war."
  I think it should be made clear that that was the evidence which was given and, as I said, which was not disputed by the defendant Casement. If the noble Lord reads the relevant pages, which are 27 to 31, of the document to which he has referred, he will see the difference. The important point is that mentioned in the initial words of my Answer: that in this country the question of whether a person is prosecuted or not is not a matter for the Executive, the Government as politically formed, but for the chief prosecuting authority, Her Majesty's Attorney General.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble and learned Viscount for his Answer and, if I may say so, humbly agreeing with it, I should like to ask him one question. I am not sure that our law does not need a little reconsideration, in view of the fact that complications arise where this country is engaged as a member of the United Nations. I will not say more than that, but I should like to be told that the whole matter is under consideration from that point of view.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for raising that point. I am glad to be able to remind him that the predecessor but two in the office of the Attorney General, the right honourable Member for St. Helens, did express the opinion that the Treason Act would apply

  1125
  to the Korean conflict, so I do not think anyone who is contemplating acts of that kind should take comfort from any doubt there may be. I assure the noble and learned Earl that we have the matter fully in mind and will give it further consideration, should that be necessary.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount again for his very explicit reply, but the conduct of this woman has been so utterly revolting that I shall feel compelled to study it carefully before I decide whether some further action cannot be taken to carry the matter further.

DEFENCE
2.42 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTCN)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTCN) rose to move to resolve, That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1955 (Cmd. 9391). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it is a great advantage that in this House we have our Defence debate not only after we have had the Defence White Papers and the Memoranda issued by the Service Departments with their Estimates but also after we have been able to study the general and particular debates in another place. That makes a debate on Defence in this House rather more in the nature of a post-graduate exercise. It certainly relieves anybody who is opening it from such a detailed exposition of all that is in the White Paper and the Estimates as would otherwise be necessary.
I think I can serve the House better if I try to give a broader picture of the facts and factors on which our defence policy and strategy are based, and try to show why we are doing what we are doing. That is specially important this year when there are new factors which involve far-reaching changes. This year, only a few weeks before the Defence White Paper was produced, the United Kingdom Government had the great advantage of full discussions with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers on all these, matters. It was indeed gratifying to find how unanimous was our thinking at that meeting, and how united our resolve. Noble Lords will have read the communiquè subscribed by all the Commonwealth Governments who took part in our defence discussions in which we reviewed
1126
our plans for the defence of each area. I should like to quote one most pregnant paragraph from that communiquè it reads as follows:
"The representatives of the Commonwealth countries concerned with these regional defence plans recognised that the advent of thereto-nuclear weapons involves fundamental changes in the strategic approach to defence problems. They agreed that the overwhelming superiority of the Western Powers in nuclear weapons offers at the present time the most effective and practical assurance that world peace will not be disturbed by any deliberate act of aggression. They agreed that their defence policies should be founded on the principle that world war can be prevented if the free democracies are resolved to maintain in readiness forces sufficiently strong to deter any potential aggressor."
My Lords, the Defence White Paper which I am asking your Lordships to approve to-day, is based on these maxims. Our policy—which, indeed, is the policy of all the Commonwealth Governments who stand together to-day and who would be together in case of need—has a twofold aim: first, security through the strength of the deterrent; and, secondly, real, comprehensive disarmament. First, let me say a word or two about disarmament. I have said advisedly "comprehensive" disarmament, and here again I would quote from the Commonwealth communiquè where that was clearly laid down:
"It is the aim of the Commonwealth countries to work for a disarmament agreement, which includes forces and weapons of all kinds and is both comprehensive and effective."
I emphasise the words "comprehensive and effective." It would be a complete illusion to suppose that there can be any halfway house; that would be either surrender or destruction. Disarmament must cover all weapons. To tell the Communists that they were free to attack with conventional weapons, in which, as in manpower, they have a huge preponderance, would be to invite aggression and to guarantee them victory.
This work for disarmament is nothing new. All last year we worked at it—I was going to say week in, week out. That is almost literally true; we worked hard for weeks. The Conference in London, in which Canada worked tirelessly with us, was followed almost as soon as it was finished, as noble Lords know by months of discussion at the United Nations. Russia was recalcitrant until just at the end, when there was a new

1127
gleam of hope. Did this mean a new attitude? Well, the United Nations resolved that we should continue. We did not need that stimulus to continue. We are continuing in London now to work on constructive, comprehensive proposals, because nothing less will suffice. So I say, in regard to this vital matter of disarmament, let us go forward hopefully, but realistically—illusion would be delusion.
May I recall to the House—because I think they are relevant to so many of the difficulties with which we are faced today—some words of Lord Salisbury, then Prime Minister, spoken more than eighty years ago. His is a name that, generation after generation, commands respect in this House, and he said this:
"Peace and good will will not be the result of some clever contrivance which men, by much debating and many experiments, may hope to hit upon. If they obtain it at all it will be by routing out the selfishness which good fortune nurtures and the recklessness which springs from misery."
We, at any rate, shall strive unceasingly for real, comprehensive disarmament.
In the meantime, and concurrently, we must follow the other part of the twin policy, the pursuit of security through strength. It is strange, but true, that the new horrifying discoveries of science, with all the possible devastation and annihilation they present, yet offer the best hope of security and peace. The temptation to an aggressor is the probability that he will succeed. That is nothing new; it was so in 1914. In 1914, the German General Staff promised the German Emperor a quick success. He believed it, and in that conviction Germany struck. It was the same with Hitler. Both were wrong. Perhaps both forgot the maxim of Napoleon, that in war the value of the moral to the physical is as three to one.
Until the advent of the nuclear weapon, the Communist world, with its vast preponderance of manpower and conventional weapons had exactly the same temptations. Now, that is changed. To-day, the United States has a vast superiority in the new arm. A major aggression could to-day be met by instantaneous, overwhelming counter-attack such as the Prime Minister has described. In that lies the deterrent. That is, therefore, the basis of our new strategy and our plans. The aggressor cannot win.
The range and the destructive power of these terrible new weapons discounts distance and wide spaces; continents become almost as vulnerable as islands, and—another complete change—the exterior lines become more valuable than the interior lines. To all of us who have served in any war, that is a completely novel idea. We remember that in the First World War (and it was almost as true in the Second World War) we nearly came to disaster because Germany with her interior lines of communication, was able to shift troops from one front to another. Now these have a new and different significance. The inner circle is no longer the great protection; indeed the outer circle is the more important. The ability to have, behind the outer circle, many widely dispersed bases from which aircraft can move in and concentrate on any target inside the interior lines of communication has entirely altered that aspect of strategy.
Again, this new form of warfare largely reduces the value of a preponderance in vast armies and conventional weapons. They have to move forward and be sustained by vast lines of communications and supplies and all the logistics of war. But under the impact of widespread and devastating nuclear retaliation the ability of those vast armies to deploy and to maintain themselves becomes enormously reduced, and that gives a new significance and a greatly increased value to what we call the forward strategy. Even if saturation point should be reached—that is, a situation in which, though one side is still superior in its supply of weapons, the other has enough to cause irretrievable devastation—there can still be no hope of victory. The best an aggressor could hope for would be co-destruction, co-annihilation in place of co-existence. The retribution which lies in the deterrent remains certain, inexorable, though all might be engulfed. So it may come to pass, in the Prime Minister's prophetic words, that safety will be the sturdy child of terror and survival the twin brother of annihilation.
Bearing in mind this new fundamental of security and strategy, how much the free world owes to America, to that partnership with America, which is the fundamental of United Kingdom and Commonwealth policy! On that partnership we in the Commonwealth are united.

1129
How right the late Government were to make the atom bomb, and how right we are now in the decision to make the hydrogen bomb! I think there are very few who support the, argument that we should rely solely on America.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That was rejected by the late Government when they made the atom bomb. That would not be partnership; we should neither pull our weight nor wield our influence if we left it all to our partner. Moreover, in spite of all the co-ordination which can be achieved in the Grand Alliance, we have our own responsibilities for the safety of this country. We must be sure that we can take care of targets which would be vital to our own safety. We must have a bomber force which could destroy the airfields from which, and the aircraft with which, an enemy could attack with these thermo-nuclear weapons. We must therefore have the bombs and the bombers.
I said earlier that these nuclear weapons have given a new significance and importance to our forward strategy. It has always been an essential feature, indeed the fundamental strategy, of N.A.T.O. policy and planning to hold an enemy as far to the East as possible. That is vital to Western Europe but it is equally important for our own safety here. That is why all the N.A.T.O. countries must maintain their full complement of troops and tactical aircraft. If we failed to do this, the Communists would be tempted to try to overrun Europe with their huge armies. If that happened, not only would our peril on this island be greatly increased, but could Europe ever be liberated again? I doubt it. Certainly Europe could be liberated only by the intensive use of nuclear weapons, and that would mean our causing the devastation of the very lanes we sought to liberate. That is why the N.A.T.O. shield on land and in the air remains vital. That is why the ratification of the London and Paris Agreements and the consolidation of the Western European Union are so essential. That is why the great majority of us, in spite of all that has happened in the past, are prepared to welcome the German contribution in this difficult task.
1130
We must try to build a force by land and air, at the same time retaining command of the sea, which will hold the line until the full effect of the thermo-nuclear counter attack has been felt. In this, as in so many other respects, in Europe, in the Middle East and in the Far East, we cannot think of war, should it ever come—which God forbid!—in terms of past wars. It is all utterly different from the old days. Then you could take your time. In two great wars we were pretty slow at the start. We had a bad year or two or even more, but then the tide turned. Now all is changed, and there is no longer that time factor in our favour. Readiness is of supreme importance. I have spoken of the deterrent at some length because that is the key of our strategy and the one hope of sanity and peace in this distracted world to-day. I have explained our forward strategy, its continued importance, the reinforcement it receives from the nuclear potential, and its value to our own defence by keeping an enemy far from our shores. All this new strategy interacts for us and our Allies.
Let me turn, for a moment, to the internal defence of this country in face of attack. The first line of defence must rest upon the fighter aircraft, and in the foreseeable future will continue so to do even when guided missiles come along to reinforce the fighters. Radar, of course, also retains its full importance. But in modern global war, certainly in this country, the anti-aircraft gun would have a value only for special tasks—for defence against low-flying attack. Enough, certainly, must be kept for that. In what we are doing there is nothing in any way inconsistent with what General Gruenther said yesterday about targets open to low-flying, or relatively low-flying, attack in Europe. But only a limited amount of anti-aircraft guns would be required for this purpose. It has therefore been decided—I am sure rightly—to abolish the Anti-Aircraft Command. That, as noble Lords will remember, was an integral part of the whole of the chain of air defence, and a very vital one, in the last war. The traditions of the anti-aircraft regiments, both Regular and Territorial, are indeed fine, but I am sure the officers and men of these regiments will be the first to realise that we must all concentrate on what is really necessary, and they will want to devote themselves to new opportunities of effective service. It is in the

1131
force of the counter-attack that our main defence lies. Next to that, we must rely primarily upon our fighter aircraft. The full story of the development of these aircraft is set out in the White Paper on The Supply of Military Aircraft. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Air will be speaking to-morrow, and he will be able to deal more fully with this aspect. I would only say now that, on the facts stated in the White Paper, which have been amplified by Ministers in another place, I think we can say with confidence that our ability to meet an attack has been established. So much for the first line of defence—active defence.
I come now to the second line of defence—if the bomber gets through. That is Civil Defence, as it is called, which is, equally a part of Home Defence. In Section VIII of the White Paper (I am glad to see that it is called "Home Defence" there) we have tried to set out the problem as far as we can assess it at the present time, and the proposals we have to make at this stage. In counter-attack, the deterrent, in forward strategy, in air defence, in what we scrap and in what we are increasing, I do not think anyone can say that we are not forward-looking. I submit that that is equally true of the new plans for Civil Defence.
The first echelon (I am not sure that that is the right word), or the first line, is the Civil Defence Services on the spot. They will always be in the front line. Then what I may call the third line, behind, will consist of all the formed and disciplined bodies which may be in this island during the battle of the air, the Regular soldiers, the Territorials, the reservists of all three Services and the Home Guard. But we felt that, between these two, we needed a link, and in order to forge that link we have decided to create as the second line a new formation—the Mobile Defence Corps. The proposal for this is fully set out in the White Paper. Noble Lords will see that we hope to get forty-eight battalions, each with a strength of about 600; and to pass about 10,000 men a year through special training depôts. I think I am justified in saying that this inter-linking plan of Home Defence is not only new but forward-looking and realistic. It gives everyone a chance of making as effective a contribution as he or she can. It, too, has its
1132
deterrent effect in showing preparedness and firm resolution.
My Lords, most of what I have said has been directed to the prevention of global war, "hot war," as it is called, and our preparation to meet it should madness or wickedness ever force it upon us; that and our steady pursuit of effective disarmament, in which we shall not weary or waver. But we must be always on watch and in action in the cold war. Indeed, it may well be that, in the immediate future, the more Communist countries realise that they could not succeed in a global war, the more they may seek, by infiltration and subversion, by covertly—or, indeed, overtly—fomenting trouble or strife, to undermine the strength of the free world. In that, our Armed Forces have their part to play. The House heard with pride of the tribute which the Foreign Secretary, when he visited our troops in Malaya, paid to the morale and the success of our Forces there. In Malaya and in Kenya our troops could have no more difficult country to fight in.
But it is not only in action that these forces of ours can play their part. As the Minister of Defence said in another place, the British soldier is often Britain's best ambassador; and that goes for the sailor and the airman, too. It has been truly said that global war would be total in every sense. That is equally true of the cold war. The cold war, indeed, is like smog—it is all-pervading and it has to be fought and won in every sphere. It is not just a matter of military and physical security. In this twilight contest, the mind is as important as the body, and there must be faith and will. Doctors tell us that when a patient is sick or debilitated the will to resist is as important as any prescription. So it is in the fight against Communism. There must be economic security, as well as physical security, and we are trying to help in that all the time—for instance, with the Colombo Plan.
Even that, however, is not enough. There must be a burning faith in freedom. In this often bloodless battle, like Cromwell's Ironsides, men must know what they fight for and love what they know. And surely we of the Commonwealth of Nations, with whom liberty is the breath of life, and free institutions the core of our existence, can do much

1133
to kindle and fan this flame of faith in others. The struggle will be hard and long, but, given faith and perseverance, I do not believe that the ultimate issue is in doubt. In this new Elizabethan age, the deeds and the words of Sir Francis Drake are much in men's minds and on their lips. May I remind the House of some words of Drake's—the prayer he wrote for his sailors and soldiers on the eve of one of the earliest and most successful of combined operations? They were these:—
"O Lord God, when thou givest to thy servants to endeavour any great matter, grant to us also to know that it is not the beginning, but the continuing of the same until it be finished, which yieldeth the true glory."
If we continue united in that spirit and resolution, we may indeed achieve the true glory of peace; and peace not only in our time but in the time of our children's children. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1955 (Cmd. 9391).—(Viscount Swinton.)
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be glad to acknowledge the competence, the lucidity and the restrained manner in which the noble Viscount, I ord Swinton, has moved the approval of this notable White Paper on Defence. It would be strange if in certain quarters it did not give rise to anxieties and perhaps some controversies, but I hope that on our side of the House we shall endeavour to meet the noble Viscount in much the spirit in which he has presented the White Paper to your Lordships for approval. I should like to deal shortly with some of the smaller points in the latter parts of the White Paper before I come to deal with what obviously the noble Viscount recognised as the most important part of his presentation. However we approach this White Paper, however rumours and bothers arise, the country can rest assured that the great working-class population of this country is, and will be at all times, concerned, and concerned to the last man, with the defence of their country and the maintenance by that defence of the principles of liberty, and that they are more than ever anxious to do so because they see how much conditions of freedom in this country go towards making their case for progress in the social changes they
1134
desire. Whatever we may say in approaching the question of general defence, I hope we shall always bear that in mind. Noble Lords in all parts of the House will be able to give testimony of how that worked out in the unity which existed during the last great war we had to go through together.
In regard to some of the technical and structural parts of the White Paper, I could not help feeling, as I listened to the debate in another place the other day, that a good many matters dealt with there would have been far better dealt with in detail on the Service Estimates than in the not always pleasant atmosphere of the debate on the White Paper. I understand that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air will answer any special points tomorrow, but I have not given him notice of the one or two points I am going to raise because I did not feel that they were of sufficient importance. For the last two years, I have asked that we might have a major inquiry into the general position of our armaments finance, into the manner in which it is allocated amongst the defence Services and into the extent to which any specific check needs to be exercised upon the rising costs of production of the very large programme we have to fulfil. It seems to me that so many changes are going to be made in the general structure of our defence as a result of the policy laid out in the White Paper that what I have asked for is all the more necessary.
It is true that we have some reason to be gratified that the net expenditure for all three Services will be less than last year, after taking into account the appropriations in aid we receive by the generosity of the United States of America, but the amount is comparatively small—between £50 million and £60 million—and the changes in the White Paper may lead to such big alterations that I wonder (I do not say this at all critically, but because I want to know) whether that financial adjustment has been made more or less upon the pressure naturally brought from time to time by the Treasury, or whether it is an actual net saving from the comprehensive longterm planning of the new defence policy to be followed. Without labouring the point, I should still like to press the plea which I have made for the last two years, that there ought to be a comprehensive

1135
inquiry. We have never had such a huge expenditure in so-called peace time before. We are expending something like £1,500 million a year on armaments. When I read some of the economic critics, and when I realise, as one who has been in office during a great war, how fundamental a factor in the defence programme is the general economic position, I feel it is essential that we should ask for such an inquiry to be made.
I should like now to say a few words on a question which we have discussed before in this House, and to which I dare-say some reference will be made in the debates on the Service Estimates—namely, what is the exact future rôle of the Forces? I recognise that there is a good deal more in the White Paper this year than there was last year. If I may say so, in the First Lord's Paper on the Navy Estimates the old Chiefs of the Admiralty and their successors, with whom I was so proud to be associated for so many years, have made a vastly improved statement on the situation compared with that made in their Paper last year.
There is still a great deal of rather curious thinking going on about the actual rôles to be performed in the new conditions in which we now have to plan our military defences. In reading yesterday's debate in another place, I observed that an old friend of mine in the Navy put forward a plea for the amalgamation of the Navy and Air Force into some kind of united maritime force. I must say that I am concerned about that idea getting too big a hold before we have properly considered the position. There is no doubt at all that the performance of Coastal Command under the operational directions of the Navy—it was taken over fairly well on in the last war—was a magnificent example of united action against the submarine menace and certain other characteristic operations. But at a time when we are in this great N.A.T.O. Alliance, for which I feel so much personal responsibility, having signed the military constitution of the Alliance in Washington in 1949, it is important to recognise that whatever is proposed about the organisation of the Services must have reference to the main strategic policy of our possible Allies.
In spite of some of the things which have been said from time to time by the
1136
various sections of the professional Services, I am bound to observe that, compared to the time when I was negotiating with Mr. Lou Johnson for the military signature to N.A.T.O., there has been a vast change. There was then an attempt to get rid of a good part of the United States Navy aviation section. At that time, the air force of the United States forces remained with the army. But today this vast and most powerful force in the world is strictly divided into the three main services of army, navy and air force. In the new and modern conditions of warfare, such as the noble Viscount has referred to, the navy aviation section is being used to such an extent in planning as to be a most important factor for us to take into account before we are led too quickly to say that the aircraft carrier is no use, that naval control of aircraft or protection of the sea lanes will be no use in future, and that all must go to the air force or for a combined operation. Were we to do that, I think we should have difficulty in fitting in with the considered findings of the actual planning and production at present of the American forces.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, about the change in the military values of interior and exterior communications. He will remember that I always had a particular fancy for the value of our exterior communications in the last war. I well recollect saying to Admiral Darlan in 1940 that if he would sail his fleet and use the positions of exterior communication we should probably come through much better. But in fact, in the judgment of a good many professional critics, the Navy still has a position in the future in mounting attack, as well as in exercising sea lane defence from those exterior positions. That is a matter that can perhaps be debated in more detail when we come to a discussion of the various professional Services.
The other thing I want to mention, in case I cannot be here for the Navy debate (and it may be possible for someone on the Government Front Bench to say a word or two about it) is this. It seems to me, as an old naval Minister, that we have been rather behind the Americans in relation to the development of the modern long-distance and long-endurance submarine. While I understand that a good many experiments have been going on—and I would pay tribute to those who have

1137
been engaged in them—the submarine of the future will be of such vast importance in any period of atomic warfare that I had hoped we might be making more rapid progress in that direction. Certainly the Americans seem to be well ahead of us in that respect.
I observed with great interest what the noble Viscount had to say about the partial reorganisation already started on our Army displacements, and especially what he said about the considerable reduction in the proposed establishment of our anti-aircraft forces. No doubt the professional advisers to the Government have studied the matter carefully. I hope it is all right. I do not offer any sort of wrecking criticism of it. The low-flying aircraft coming in certainly requires anti-aircraft reply to it, and the suggestion that we may not get any low-flying aircraft attack of that kind against our homeland is perhaps not wholly borne out by the prospects.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not make any such suggestion. On the contrary, I made it clear that, whereas obviously the great nuclear attack would come from high-flying aircraft, which the anti-aircraft guns could not reach, certainly there was the prospect of attack by relatively low-flying aircraft—for example, against airfields and special targets on which precision bombing was necessary. For that purpose I said the anti-aircraft guns would be retained.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I hope it will be made clear that the extent to which anti-aircraft is to be retained will be adequate to meet a threatened attack, because in these days attacks of that kind are possible from long distances, and the extent to which the Russian naval and naval aviation forces have been extended is such that an attack of that kind might well come from there. I am informed that there are 750,000 men in the Russian Navy, and there might be a supplementing of their attacks in that direction. General Gruenther says that the Continent is quite different. I do not think that is so. In any event, for all these purposes we in this island have to regard ourselves as being nearly a part of the Continent, since we are so near and so exposed in relation to the mass of the attack that can be brought against us.
The next point I want to mention is this. I am disappointed (I do not know
1138
whether it is a matter of particular secrecy, and no doubt it will be pointed out to me if I am wrong) that I cannot discover from the White Paper exactly what we are spending on research and development. One of the most important decisions that was ever taken was taken by the Government to which I belonged in 1945, when for the first time we got out of a naturally stoney-hearted Treasury a fixed amount for research and development. I have no doubt that the sum now being spent is considerable; from what I gather from the White Paper, I should estimate it at in the neighbourhood of £160 to £180 million. One of the things that ought to be brought within the review of the inquiry that I want set up, if and when such an inquiry is set up—and I should like to be told in the course of the debate—is the actual amount of research cost allocated, and how much is allocated to each of the Services concerned.
I should like to say a word or two about the remarkable speech on supply in another place the other day by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd. I do not want to comment in general upon the speech, but I do want to tell the noble and gallant Lord who is presiding over our Air Ministry at the moment, and who will speak later in the debate, first of all, that my colleagues and I, and especially my noble and learned Leader, are grateful to him for his courtesy in arranging for us to see in the Eastern counties the other day an actual demonstration of what, I suppose, is our most refined modern fighter, the Hunter. It was an instruction and education for us to talk to the pilots. I had heard se many criticisms of the plane, that I was a little anxious about it. The formation flying which we saw there, and the general confident tone of all the pilots to whom we talked as to the handling of the plane, gave us increased confidence.
However, my noble and learned Leader and I feel perhaps a little anxious about one assurance that was given in the other place by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd—I think the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will allow me to quote it as it was a ministerial statement. He said in regard to the Hunter:
"If war were to begin tomorrow the Hunter could go into action as an extremely effective fighter, comparing favourably with any other in general service in any other country."

1139
That is a fine statement, if it is completely accurate. I think my noble and learned Leader—I have not consulted him—would say that that was not the impression that he received: that there is an immediate availability of the aircraft pending the elimination of particular faults, not so much in the structure of the aircraft, but as to the perfection which is required of the gun. However, I do not want to make any trouble about it. We were generally most encouraged by what we saw of the plane itself, but I am anxious that that should not go out to the country at large as a statement made by the Minister of Supply if it is not 100 per cent. justified.
We welcome what the noble Viscount said with regard to—as I, with him, prefer to call it—home defence. I am not quite sure why so much time has had to elapse before we could be specific in our statements with regard to the second and the third echelon of defence. I remember that in 1949 and 1950 we were already planning for the formation, as soon as we had the forces available, of mobile links to be used in the home defence of our country. It was certainly much more difficult to do it then, when we could hardly muster the elements of a brigade in this country after we had met our commitments overseas. But I am glad to know that the scheme will give this kind of aid in home defence in the future, and I will leave any further comment upon that to my noble friends who will be following me in the debate either to-day or to-morrow.
Your Lordships have been very patient with me, but I must detain you a little longer, because I want to turn to the general opening which the noble Viscount made and refer to the subject which is dominating the minds of the country at the present time—thermo-nuclear weapons, their effect upon us, their effect upon the world at large, their effect upon present international relations and the like. I do not think anybody can deny that this White Paper, in its complete frankness—I have seen it described in places as "ambiguous"—with regard to the intention concerning the use of thermo-nuclear power in the future, marks the beginning of a new epoch in arrangements for the defence of this country or, in conjunction with other countries, for warfare in any part of the
1140
world. It is also true to say that the Prime Minister, in his extraordinary speech in another place the other day, faced quite frankly what the dangers and the terrors of the use of that weapon would be.
It is rather terrifying for those of us who have loved for so long the thought that we in this country were on the side of the highest morality and greatness in these matters, to think that this new and most damaging weapon against humanity should have been used first by the Allies in 1945, in circumstances which I have always deplored. The decision was taken by a mere handful of people, without the knowledge of many responsible Ministers. And now the White Paper establishes us as the first to take the actual decision to use nuclear energy weapons in any future war. That must give us cause to think. Indeed, it is fair to say that the authors of the White Paper, in their presentation to Parliament, said—if I may paraphrase their words—that it was undoubtedly a great shock to human conscience to think that this was actually going to happen or might happen because of the policy here adopted.
I was struck by a phrase used the other day by my old friend Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett in another place, in advancing a general argument with which I did not agree, when he said, "The sanction of nuclear weapons has grown so tremendous." That was how he opened the argument he went on to make. That view has been steadily built up in the last nine or ten years. From time to time I have complained in this House that year after year has gone by without any reference to these matters by Ministers, and policy has been made largely by public statements by leading military officers. Strangely enough, there has been a fresh statement to-day by General Gruenther on the general wide use of the thermonuclear bomb. Of course, he very carefully said that that will be a matter for Ministers, for the political people, to decide. I do not know whether your Lordships listened last night, as I did, to the B.B.C. news. There is a slight difference in my recollection of what was said on the wireless last night and the presentation of it which I have seen in the Press to-day. The General said—and perhaps the noble Viscount will check

1141
my words—"Of course, any commander-in-chief of a force must always consider it his first duty to save himself and his forces, and therefore there may be circumstances in which I shall have to take the decision myself."
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: A general does not think of himself—he thinks of the army under his command. The same applies to all high-ranking officers.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I appreciate the noble and gallant Earl's interpretation of it and I am sure that he must be right. On the other hand, I can only give the House my impression of what I heard in the wireless broadcast. I think the noble Viscount will agree that it is essential that we should go into this business as most of us want to go into it, with the whole of the people behind us, and we should indicate quite clearly what is to be the general procedure in dealing with such a vital matter. Side by side with General Gruenther's statement in the newspapers this morning there is a statement made by Mr. John Dulles yesterday about nuclear weapons now becoming increasingly conventional. It is just as well to get rid of any nonsense there may he about the difference between conventional damage and non-conventional damage, because in the last war conventional damage was pretty horrible. Nevertheless, it all shows the trend of things.
May I quote front one of those fine provincial newspapers which often report things which are carefully edited in the London national Press? The East Anglian Doily Times this morning reports as follows:
"Mr. Dulles said it was known that certain types of atomic missiles were becoming conventional weapons within the U.S. armed services. These weapons were of relatively small dimensions, but with considerably more explosive power than was contained in conventional weapons. He imagined that if America became engaged"—
I hope the Ministers are listening to this part especially; I am quoting Mr. Dulles now—
"in major military activity anywhere in the world those weapons would be used, because they were becoming more and more conventional and replacing what used to be called conventional weapons."
1142
We have here a country full of people whom we have to persuade as to the rightness of the action we take. We have been gradually led up to this position by the constant pouring out of professional military leaders' opinions and at times decisions, instead of having that very important safeguard inherent in our democratic systems, both here and in the United States—the people's will expressed through their elected Ministers and statesmen in their representative Houses of Parliament.
Therefore, those of us who were responsible and who felt that the one great principle had to be observed must be excused if we say to the noble Viscount and his colleagues that we could not let our country remain without at least the same armaments as had been acquired by those who were our potential enemies. That meant that it was necessary for us to enter into the manufacture of nuclear weapons. We could not possibly contemplate leaving that to be done entirely by our American allies, because that would have interfered with our independence and freedom of action. Yet it is important, if we are to carry behind us the people, whose morale and unity must be there if the struggle comes, that we should say to them much earlier than we have done, and very clearly, what it is that we intend to do.
I have said that the White Paper is very frank, but there is one point which is not yet completely clear to me. I have read the speech of the Minister of Defence in another place in winding up the two days' debate there. He made a very good speech, from the Government's point of view, but I feel that there is to-day so much anxiety in the country about the whole situation that noble Lords on these Benches must support the efforts which are being made in another place to have the most urgent possible action taken. We concede absolutely the rightness of the case stated that we must have the weapons; we concede absolutely the fact that, unless we have those weapons, we may be put into a much more dangerous situation than would otherwise be the case. But, in face of the horrifying thing about which the noble Viscount spoke, we feel that it is essential that we should try on the highest possible level to get an agreement. That agreement, I concede, must be comprehensive and effective. The question arises, however, as to

1143
when the effort is to be made. On that, I confess that I am very anxious.
First, let me say this. Here in this House we can be far less partisan on these matters than sometimes one has to be when one is in a purely elected House. I have admired the devotion, the patience and the skill with which the Foreign Secretary has been seeking in various places in the world the removal of obstacles to the possible establishment of world peace. He has done very effective work and it would be churlish not to say so. The Prime Minister, when we made our suggestions to him in another place just over twelve months ago, certainly had peculiar ill-fortune in his attempt to get the high-level discussions on this matter that we desired should be held. It was unfortunate for him that he had that illness. I may say that I have not met a single member of my Party who has not rejoiced that the Prime Minister showed such courage in getting over the serious illness he had at that time—because it must have taken courage as well as the doctors' skill to get over such an attack as he had. But no one can blind himself to the fact that when the attempt to get high-level discussions was made the Prime Minister's approach to General Eisenhower was met by what amounted to a blank refusal. Nor can we hide from ourselves the fact that obviously in the Prime Minister's mind is the idea that he would have been able to hold straight conversations if necessary between himself and some leader from Moscow; but the reason which he gives for then delaying to do so—namely, because of certain actions of the Russians—I think, is not to be so much appreciated.
I think it is fundamental that we should have an immediate approach to get negotiations going in the world. I would refer your Lordships to the quotation made on Monday in another place by the Leader of the Opposition there from a leading article in The Times of that day. I thought The Times took a very big and broad view of the situation: that we should not be deterred, by fear either of gibes or of danger of misunderstanding by our Allies from establishing the leadership of this nation in pressing for such agreements as would bring us peace. If it is a question of the German position,
1144
let me say that I and my colleagues have supported the Government in this matter all the way through, and we would support their policy in regard to German rearmament. I think it was on November 26 that the debate on that question took place. I refer noble Lords to what was said in that debate, if I need a "character" in the matter. But when it conies to dealing with the urgent anxiety in the minds of our people about this question, it is imperative that the Government themselves should take action to hold conversations at the highest possible level at the earliest possible moment.
Now may I ask for a word of reply from the Government Bench later on in the debate on another matter which was raised by my Party Leader in another place, and that is the anxiety felt by the population—an anxiety which, by the way, has since then been accentuated by the Motion put on to the Order Paper in another place by women Members of Parliament—about the growing dangers to the world at large, and to human beings in particular, from the ever-increasing number of thermo-nuclear experiments and their effect upon both the composition of the world and the genetics of the human race. That is a very important matter. We asked in another place that there should be an attempt to try and hold up experiments of this kind on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and that there should be a conference of highest level scientists to give us more information about it and see what could be done to avoid these dangers. I did not feel quite so complimentary towards the Foreign Secretary regarding his answer to that question as I have felt regarding many other of his actions in the last three and a half years. I do not see why that question should not be taken up. Again, it is significant that in The Times this morning there appears a leading article supporting the request of Mr. Attlee for a conference and ending in these words:
"An investigation in some form must be urgently made, for the anxiety itself is urgent."
My Lords, I apologise once again for keeping your attention so long. In conclusion, I would only say that it is obvious that if we are going to get very far in an adjustment of these international matters, it is vital that the leaders and the people of this country, as well as of other countries concerned, should take a more

1145
spiritual and brotherly view of the whole, situation. In all the countries concerned there is badly needed a spiritual revival, and perhaps in none more so than in the countries behind the Iron Curtain, where it is so difficult for those who preach the gospel of peace to be effectively heard. But the more I have read articles on this matter in the last two years and the more I have read of the divisions of opinion, the more I have marvelled that the great benefits of science which are offered to us should become now a threat of the greatest danger to humanity. The line which has been taken by Moscow and which has largely imposed itself upon other statesmen reminds me of a kind of poker game, in which gradually the smaller States and countries are ignored and it comes down to the final holders of the trump cards. The jackpot, bound to come to somebody when the bluff is called, is death and destruction if you lose, and possibly death and destruction if you win. It is time the peoples of the nations concerned realised that there is something more than materialistic science in the world, and that ultimately, unless they can deal with their fellow men upon some foundation of faith which will lead them to higher things, we are headed straight for destruction.
3.53 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I do not rise to speak on the general subject of defence, for there are many in this House who can do so with far greater authority and knowledge than I can claim. I propose to confine myself to one aspect of the Defence White Paper—namely, the decision of the Government to make hydrogen bombs. I think that decision raises moral and ethical questions of the first importance. Only a day or two ago The Times, in a leading article, described this as "a moral crisis," for undoubtedly there is in this matter a tremendous crisis. This decision may easily have been the most important decision ever taken in the history of this nation: the future survival of the nation may depend upon it.
Some little time ago, after the first shock of the atomic bombs had passed away, there was some tendency to minimise the damage which could be done by these nuclear weapons; but in the case of the hydrogen bomb there have been no signs of this tendency. The White
1146
Paper has, I think, been advisedly but brutally frank. It states that the use of these bombs would cause destruction, both human and material, on an unprecedented scale. Your Lordships may have seen, a few clays ago, a diagram in the Manchester Guardian illustrating the extent of the destruction if a bomb should be dropped on the City of Liverpool. Not only would it completely destroy that city, but if there were a light westerly wind behind it its radioactivity would kill everyone who had not taken precautions—I stress that proviso—in a path between Liverpool and the North Sea. That is a wide area, including great cities like Manchester, Leeds, Bradford and Halifax. The mind is unable to grasp the full horror of the ruin which would be caused by the use of these appalling weapons; and it is still more difficult for us to realise that, within three or four years, these weapons may be used against this country, bringing complete ruin to our cities and to our countryside.
The first duty of a Government must therefore be to devise means by which its people can be saved from this horrible fate. At one time, a few years ago, the solution seemed to be comparatively simple—namely, that an international agency should be set up which would control the use of nuclear weapons and would gradually obtain possession of these weapons; and, if necessary, would use them against an aggressive Power. At one time that solution seemed fairly simple. I remember advocating it on at least two occasions in this House, when I drew your Lordships' attention to the dangers which would come from the atomic bomb; and I know that the noble Viscount opposite has on more than one occasion brought this matter before the House. To-day, however, that solution is no longer possible. It is not only America which possesses these bombs and has the secret of their making. Other nations also possess them, and there are a sufficient number of bombs in existence to-day to make it easy to conceal them. In the present state of tension no nation would trust the other nations to have destroyed all their bombs, however strong the pact might be to that effect. Russia certainly would not trust the United States or Great Britain; the United States and Great Britain would not trust Russia, and China would trust neither Russia nor the Allies. That policy has

1147
therefore, most unhappily, to be abandoned.
But if this kind of control is no longer practicable, it is more important than ever that there should be some protection against the use of these bombs. From every direction there comes the urgent demand that the use of these bombs should be prohibited. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, did not exaggerate in the least when he said that throughout the whole country there is widespread anxiety about this problem. Like most of your Lordships, I receive almost daily resolutions and letters, passionate in their intensity, calling for some action. When an Englishman is deeply stirred he will find some relief of his anxiety in passing resolutions, by writing to Members of Parliament and by blaming the Church because it has not done something.
I hate and detest as much as any of my correspondents the making of these hateful weapons: I would to God they had never been invented! If the world is destroyed by their use it would be the defeat of the purpose for which God made it, as a home in which men of all nations and races might live together in fellowship. But it is very difficult to bring most of those who make these protests to the realisation that the decision as to whether or not the bombs are used does not rest with this nation alone. The decision will rest with those who will be quite uninfluenced by protests and petitions. If sermons were preached from every pulpit during the rest of the year against the manufacture and use of these bombs, and if Members in every constituency were given a mandate to vote for the abolition of the use of nuclear weapons, the Communist States would continue on their chosen path, regardless of remonstrances and reckless of human life.
The decision whether these bombs shall be used, as I say, will not rest on this country alone. There are many who recognise this but who yet go on to say that, whatever other countries do, our duty is plain—namely, to have nothing whatever to do with something regarded as inherently evil. They ask that the State should set an example to the world; that it should destroy any stock of weapons it may possess and pledge itself not to make them. In support of this view two
1148
arguments are advanced, one of expediency, the other of principle. The argument of expediency is that if the nation abandoned these weapons it would remain unharmed as a neutral. I cannot seriously accept this argument. We should be far more likely to be the first victims of war, destroyed by Russia or occupied by the United States of America in case their enemy should seek to use this island as a base for their attack. And, in any case, without these weapons the United Kingdom would soon become a defenceless satellite of one of those two great Powers, fearful of incurring the displeasure of either.
The other reason advanced for refusing to make these weapons is much stronger: that they are so horrible, and so contrary to all that is right and best in man, that it would be better for the nation to suffer anything rather than make them; that it would be better for the nation to die, rather than to save itself by wholesale destruction of its enemies. I will not hide from your Lordships that I feel tremendously the force of this appeal. It is an argument which must appeal to every Christian and make an agonising challenge to conscience. But I am sure that no democratic Government could agree to this demand unless it was certain that it voiced the deliberate conviction of the great majority of those it represented. The strongest pacifist could not claim that this is the case to-day; and even if the Government consisted of pacifists it would not be entitled to leave the nation defenceless unless the whole nation had so demanded.
Quite apart from the State, this is a challenge to the individual conscience, and I am bound to ask myself: which course is the more likely to prevent the use of the bomb—to make the bomb or to refuse to make it? I am greatly influenced by the fact that the Conference of Commonwealth Ministers, practically everybody of responsibility in this country, on both sides of the other House, and practically all the leaders and statesmen of our country, are agreed in saying that at this moment, whatever may be the position in the future, the hydrogen bomb is a deterrent to war, and that our possession of it, hateful as it is, may prevent that bomb from ever being used. Our statesmen, and others who take this position, argue that the mere fact that a peace-loving nation like our own

1149
possesses these bombs may prevent the bomb from ever being used for fear of the retaliation which would follow. I am greatly impressed by this argument. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, referred to it as the one hope of sanity in this troubled world. It is possible that this hope may prove tragically wrong; but certainly at the moment the possession of the bomb seems to be the one possibility of preserving peace in the years immediately ahead. If so, it would be madness to close the door to this possibility.
Yet fear by itself is a frail and temporary deterrent. It will not long restrain a nation obsessed with hatred and burning for revenge. The chief justification for making the bombs must be that they will provide a shield beneath which the work of peace-making can be continued. The breathing space afforded by the Allies' present superiority in this weapon must be used to the full for peace-making. A desperate and continuous effort must be made to create an atmosphere in which peace will be lasting. I hope that our leaders and statesmen will be prepared to take great risks in this matter, and that, in the search for ways which lead to peace, they will be patient under rebuffs and misunderstandings. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, who has recently done so much for the peace of the world, will use his wisdom and skill in every effort to reach a peaceable understanding with the Soviet nations. Almost any road is worth exploring if it leads to peace. Almost any risk is worth taking if it will help to disperse suspicion and feat which lead to war. The making of the bomb, therefore, is not an end in itself, so far as this country is concerned, but a means to win time for peace-making. This appears to be its chief justification. As part of this peace-making the nations must be made fully aware of the destructiveness of this weapon. The more fully the nations understand the ghastly nature of these weapons, and the horror and great darkness which would fall over the earth if they were ever used upon it, the stronger will be the determination of the nations to see that they are never used.
In this country, through the White Paper, the speech of the Prime Minister and in other ways, people are generally aware of the ruin which these bombs would bring, though many still hold optimistically to the view that "It can
1150
never happen in our country or in our time." But if people in this country know about the results which would follow the use of the bomb, I wonder whether the same is true of those living behind the Iron Curtain. No doubt they are told that they possess the bomb with which they can destroy other nations, but I wonder whether they realise what it would mean if the bomb were used upon their own country. Far better that the peoples of the world should feel the menace of fear, rather than continue eating and drinking, as in the days of Noah, until swept away by the flood. It is doubtful whether the gruesome possibilities of the bomb have penetrated to those who are living on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
It ought to be possible—I put it no stronger—for men of science of all nations to draw up a simple statement of the ruin which nuclear warfare would bring to the world. That is a proposal, I understand, which has been made by the Leader of the Opposition. But it would be vital that such a statement should be translated into every language, and, somehow or other, circulated to every land. If this proves impossible however; if such an agreed statement cannot be drawn up; if the Communist Powers refuse to allow it to be circulated; then the democracies, by propaganda, by the wireless, by every possible means, should enlighten the people of the world of the destruction which will fall upon them if their rulers use these bombs. Side by side with this, there must be perpetual search for peace and repeated overtures of good will. Fear and good will combined will help to build up a horror of war and a passionate desire for peace throughout the world. Until that day comes, our nation must stand armed, not solely for the preservation of our own freedom, or for our own safety, but in the hope that its resolution and its peace-making may deter any nation from the wickedness of using these weapons of awful destruction.
4.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, the most reverend Primate never fails to impress the House, but I think that to-day he has made the most impressive speech that we have ever heard from him. So far as I myself am concerned, I will not attempt to lessen

1151
its effect by making any comment upon it, except to say that it exactly expresses my own views and, I very much hope, the views of a great many noble Lords. I look at the list of speakers and I see that it is very long. It contains the names of a great many noble Lords who are well entitled to take part in this debate. I am therefore going to try to be very short and to restrict myself to a single question—a very urgent question, and a question which I do not think has found sufficient attention in the White Paper. It is this. We are spending £1,500 million upon the three Defence Services; we are spending, so far as I can make out, between £600 million and £700 million upon research, production and development. The question which I ask is this: are we likely, in present conditions, and in a Welfare State with no unemployment, to obtain in, say, five years' time, the number of skilled men who will be able to make effective use of these terrific inventions and discoveries?
I look at the White Papers of the three Departments, I follow the debates in another place, and I find that each Minister in turn points to the shortage of trained skilled men. It is not sufficient to say that we have 788,000 men and women in the three Services. What matters is the highly trained, skilled men who will be able to work these technical Services in the future. If we look at the recruiting figures—I am referring to the figures for the Regular Services—we find that year by year they are falling. I have the figures here. Taking the three Services together they have fallen from 99,500 in 1951 to 73,200 estimated for this year. But that is not the whole story, because, of these long-service recruits, many—the majority I am told—are found to be unsuitable for highly-skilled training during their service.
Now spokesmen of each of the Service Departments have called attention to this shortage. The First Lord of the Admiralty could not have spoken more seriously about it. The Secretary of State for War has drawn attention to the fact that in some of the highly-skilled trades in the Army no less than 70 per cent. of the personnel are short-service National Service men, who will fade out of the Services in a few months or, at most, in a year or two's time. In the Air Force we are told that in the radio engineering trade group—I suppose one of the most
1152
essential trade groups in the Air Force of the future—the manpower is far below the strength it ought to be. Even more striking than the observations in the White Paper, there is the evidence given to the Select Committee on Expenditure in another place by the Air Officer Commanding Technical Training. This is what he said.
"Regular airmen with enough ability and high enough educational standard will not come along; we just cannot get them".
He went on to say, after pointing out that with the National Service men it is possible to get only a comparatively few weeks of skilled service out of them when they have done their various types of training:
"It would be cheaper to give them £1,500 a year, if we could keep them."
I do not think I need elaborate this state of affairs. I will only say that unless, somehow or other, in the years immediately before us we can get many more skilled men into the three Services than we are getting now, a great deal of this immense programme of machines and development, wireless and so on, will be wasted.
How are we to deal with the situation? First of all, we ought, without further delay, to remove the more glaring disabilities that fall upon Service personnel as compared with civil personnel. I could give noble Lords many examples of what is in my mind, but I take only one: I take the case of educational facilities for Service personnel to which I alluded a year ago and upon which I shall ask two or three questions this evening. I do not think I need argue it at great length. There is the fact that in modern conditions Service families are constantly moved from place to place. That is particularly the case with the Air Force, where families are moved two, three and four times in a year. In view of that, I ventured to suggest to the House last year that the Government, as good employers, should provide facilities in boarding schools for cases of this kind. I pointed further to the fact that this is no revolutionary proposal, because it is already in operation in the civil departments. I quoted the case of the overseas departments—for instance, in Branch A of the Foreign Service, £150 a year is given for each child in a boarding school. I want to ask the Secretary of State for Air, who

1153
I understand is to reply to this part of the debate, why is this, differentiation made against the Service Departments? If it is possible to provide these grants for the families of the personnel of the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office and the Board of Trade, why is it not possible to give them to Service families? From letters I have received in the last year, I know how bitterly this question is felt by many Service families in all three Services.
Last year, when I raised the question (perhaps I was over-optimistic), I thought that I had impressed the Secretary of State for Air; I thought that a great many noble Lords agreed with my point of view and, that being so, I thought that something would have been done to meet this grievance long ago. Yet what is the position? So far as I can understand the question has been going backwards and forwards between one Department and another; it has been considered by an inter-departmental committee; there has been every kind of idea expressed about it. But nothing whatever has been done. I must say that unless glaring grievances of this kind are removed, and without delay, we cannot possibly hope to attract to the three Services the kind of men who are absolutely essential in this chapter of nuclear warfare, with all its demands upon the best scientific and technical brains of the country. That is the first proposal that once more I venture to make to the House.
The second is of a rather wider kind. I believe that even if such grievances are removed, there will still be the big new problem of how we are to get the scientists and technicians, in competition with industry, in the years to come. Hitherto we have rather avoided this question. We have looked the other way and we have hoped that this or that palliative, by putting the pay up a little bit or making some other concession of some kind to this or that Service, would do what we want. I do not believe that that will be the case. I believe that this is a new problem of tremendous complexity, which should not be dealt with by some small departmental committee, or by this or that Service Minister. I believe that it is essentially a question that the Minister of Defence himself should regard as one of the key issues of the future, and that here and now he should make the widest possible
1154
inquiry and estimate of what is likely to happen, say, in the next five years.
In the old days it was the kind of question that would have been dealt with by the Committee of Imperial Defence, with the Prime Minister in the chair and the Ministers of the various Departments concerned attending tie inquiry. I understand that that kind of machinery is now obsolete. That being so, I imagine that the proper kind of inquiry should be an inquiry by the Minister of Defence himself calling into his counsels representatives of industry, of science and of the universities. To-day I do not attempt to dogmatise upon the form that the inquiry should take. By nature I am always somewhat loath to set up a new Committee, and I leave it to the Minister of Defence to choose his own methods. What I venture to say to him to-day is that unless this question is faced immediately, this great programme contemplated in the White Paper will be either, at the worst, frustrated or, at the best, delayed. I have now made the points I wish to make. I hope that I have not taken up too much of the time of the House. I hope also that more attention will be paid to what I have said about educational facilities in the three Service Departments than apparently has been paid to the subject in the last twelve months.
4.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, as this is the first time on which I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House I crave the indulgence which I understand you give on such an occasion. The reason I have asked to speak in this debate is that it is only two months ago to-day since I ceased active duty after twenty-odd years in the Royal Air Force, having fallen foul of the doctors. I welcome this White Paper, since it is the first time in this century that a British Government have paid any attention in peace time to the old military maxim that offence is the best form of defence. We all know that unless we have 100 per cent. protection in air defence—and that is something which Fighter Command cannot guarantee—we must find some other way of preventing this hideous weapon from coming in our direction. There is no doubt that the nuclear bomb has prevented the vastly superior Communist ground forces in the West from overwhelming us long ago, and with any

1155
luck it will continue to do so. To state that we will not use this bomb unless it is used against us is surely to invite an attack by those greater forces, which would soon sweep to the north coast of France and the Atlantic. And we know what that means.
I am told that a maiden speech should be short, somewhat like a first solo flight in an aircraft—one circuit and a landing only—and I intend to be short by referring to only one paragraph in the White Paper, paragraph 46 on page 11, which mentions, all too briefly, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. In December last year the R.Aux.A.F. were told that squadrons would more than likely be reduced to flights, and that pilots, all those suitable, would be affiliated to Regular fighter squadrons at some other station where they would carry out training on the latest type of fighter, since the Auxiliary squadrons themselves could not be equipped with the latest types for some time to come, and also because—not as was said at the time by certain sections of the Press, that the pilots were unable to fly the aircraft, which I think was a gross malignment of confident and serious men—the actual number of hours which those pilots can put in over the year does not reach anything like the minimum required to reach the standard of training which our fighter pilots must have to-day.
The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, had a Motion down to debate the subject next week, but in view of a statement which has since been made by the Air Ministry he has withdrawn his Motion. That is why I venture to speak about it to-day. It has now been decided that the Auxiliary squadrons should be kept up to their full establishment of fighter aircraft; that they will keep their present Meteors and Vampires, which are unable to compete with the high-flying bomber but which the Air Ministry state could be used against low-level attacks. Further, their suitably qualified junior pilots under twenty-five years of age will, as was suggested in the first place, be affiliated to some neighbouring fighter squadron to carry out practice training on Hunters and any other future aircraft that may arrive.
Although I was a Regular officer, during the years 1941 and 1942 I had the honour for eighteen months to command No. 613 City of Manchester Squadron,
1156
Royal Auxiliary Air Force, and a finer body of officers and men I should not, and could not, wish to meet. The squadron had a wonderful team spirit which had been built up over the years, since, unlike Regular squadrons, the officers and men had remained together over a long period, which, as we all know, is not possible in the Regular squadrons owing to necessary postings. If certain pilots of these squadrons are to be affiliated to fighter squadrons, this can only mean that in war time those Auxiliary squadrons will be deprived of those pilots automatically and straight away. That cannot be good for the morale of the Auxiliary squadron, nor do I think it will have anything but an adverse effect on recruiting. These squadrons amply proved their worth during the Battle of Britain and afterwards, and I feel that they deserve better treatment than they are getting.
I do not understand how affiliation with the fighter squadrons is going to work, because Regular R.A.F. stations work on a week-time basis, from Monday to Saturday, whereas Auxiliary squadrons, of necessity, work at week-ends only, because the pilots and ground crews have to be back at their normal civilian jobs on Monday morning. Does this mean that Fighter Command is going over to weekend flying? If it does not, then it obviously means that some members of the station will have to be there at weekends, and this cannot, in the long run, do other than cause friction between the two, which is the last thing that is wanted. Furthermore, it is intended that these junior pilots should go to these fighter squadrons only every other week-end. That might be all right if we could guarantee the weather week-end in and week-end out; but we all know what the weather is like in this country. Pilots will not be able to go if they are at all frightened that they may not get back to their own station on the Sunday night, in order to be at the office on Monday morning. This will inevitably cut down even further this small amount of training. Will the Auxiliary squadrons be assessed—as I am afraid they are going to be; and maybe this is the point—on the standard that these young pilots achieve, with an idea in the end of abolishing them? They are squadrons with a wonderful spirit, and in my view the last thing that this country can afford to do is to dispense with that spirit.

1157
Having talked to many officers on the subject, I should like to suggest to your Lordships three rôles alternative to that already suggested. The first is that they should become all-weather squadrons equipped with Meteor 11s or Meteor 14s; and, surely, it would be a fairly easy step eventually to the Javelin. If it is not possible to obtain navigation radar operators from Auxiliary squadron sources, there must be many ex-National Service navigation radar operators who would be willing to be absorbed into the Auxiliary Air Force.
My second suggestion I make from personal experience, in that last year I spent six months as land/air warfare officer or Air Adviser to the Army, Western Command. One of my duties was to lay on air co-operation with the Army in its week-end exercises, in the case of Territorials, or weekday exercises, in the case of Regulars, and for their summer camps. This was virtually impossible, inasmuch as there is no Tactical Air Force in this country, the Second Tactical Air Force being in Germany. Fighter Command agreed, albeit grudgingly, to send an occasional flight of aircraft to do ground attacks on troops on the ground, but I would say that, in the main, apart from being a good show for the Army troops to watch, it was of no real training value whatsoever.
I should, therefore, like to recommend, as my second point, that the Air Minister should consider using certain Auxiliary squadrons, those which are strategically best placed, in the Tactical Air Force rôle—or Army co-operation, as we used to call it. There is a precedent for this. Although most people consider that Auxiliary squadrons pre-war were all fighter squadrons, that was not so; there was, in fact, one Army Co-operation Auxiliary squadron. Therefore, this is no new suggestion. Furthermore, it gives the lie to the suggestion that the Auxiliary Air Force would fail to get any more recruits if the fighter rôle were removed from it—indeed, I believe that the Army co-operation squadron was more sought after than the fighter squadrons. After all, some of these Auxiliary pilots like to remain there until their flying days are over, and not be cut short too early, as they are if they are in the fighter rôle, where, as we know, twenty-five and above is considered old.
1158
My third and last suggestion is this. I understand that a new aircraft, the Sea-mew, is being given to Coastal Command for inshore reconnaissance for detecting enemy submarines near our own coasts. I suggest that certain Auxiliary squadrons might be used for this rôle. They would at least be literally defending their own shores. Whilst on the subject of Coastal Command (this is my last point, and I will come in to land, I hope, not too bumpily—and it is a point which has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough), there is a strong rumour going round the Air Force to-day that Coastal Command is shortly to be taken over in toto by the Royal Navy. I will not go into the rights or wrongs of that, but I am only saying that that rumour is causing great uneasiness, particularly among the personnel of Coastal Command. It is affecting their morale in the same way that the morale of the Auxiliary squadrons is being affected at the moment by the phase of uncertainty through which they are going. I am sure there is absolutely nothing in this rumour, and I would suggest to the Air Minister that, in order to prevent further harm being done, this rumour be categorically denied as soon as it is humanly possible.
4.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I feel that I must on your behalf congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, on his maiden speech. It was packed full of knowledge and was temperately and clearly put. It was also full of suggestions to overcome the difficulties that he mentioned, and I hope your Lordships will have many opportunities of hearing him in your Lordships' House, especially on questions of defence. The fact that he has spoken, and that it has fallen to me to thank him, on behalf of the House, for his speech, brings back many memories to me. It was only fifteen years ago that he, a skilled pilot, was deputed by the Air Ministry to take me round the headquarters of the air forces of the French and our own in France. I went out about the 4th or 5th April. That was a momentous time in 1940. We visited many stations, and especially the French. I will not bore your Lordships with details of all those experiences.
The following night I was dining with the Commander-in-Chief when a message came in to say that Lubeck had been

1159
visited in a reconnaissance by the Air Force on the return from one of those useless errands of dropping leaflets all over Germany. At Lubeck they saw all the roads leading into the town lit up, and every lorry and car had its headlights on. The quays were lit up, and the ships were also lit up. There was a scene of intense military activity, as if troops were moving overseas from Lubeck. They told me that at dinner, and also that it had been reported to London. I remember wondering how many minutes it would be before the message came through. All I can tell your Lordships is that those troops and vehicles were not bombed, nor was any attempt made to bomb them. This was the beginning of the invasion of Norway. I hope that that sort of thing will not occur in the future with nuclear weapons. I know the seriousness of the position and the difficulties, but are we going to wait, next time, until the enemy have dropped the bomb and destroyed us, or are we going to know that, when they do that sort of thing, we can hit them without sending long telegrams and getting no answers? I beg your Lordships to remember the danger of that sort of thing, particularly now, with the nuclear bomb in existence.
There was another point in the noble Earl's speech which interested me enormously, and that was the fact that, not long ago, on a Motion moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, there was a debate in your Lordships' House on the reform of this House. If I remember rightly—and I do not want to misinterpret him—the noble Marquess the Leader of the House said something to the effect that one of the great advantages of the hereditary system was that it brought young men in the House, and that they were of great use in running its business. If that is a correct interpretation of what the noble Marquess said, may I add that these debates ought to be by the young men and not by men of my age. They know subjects that we do not understand, and I believe that to have had the contribution of the noble Earl who has just spoken is a tremendous advantage. I felt that his speech was full of knowledge.
My next point is a little different, but it concerns a subject which I consider of the utmost importance. The whole theme of the noble Earl's speech was on the
1160
Auxiliary Air Force squadrons. I remember that in 1919 (again I hope that I shall not weary your Lordships with these old stories) Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, who was Secretary of State for Air, came to see me with regard to the Paper we were preparing to show how the Air Force was to be formed. It was made into a Cabinet Paper. We were debating it on a hot summer's day. Mr. Winston Churchill was there, and also his predecessor as Secretary of State for Air. We were discussing the question of forming the six territorial squadrons. They could not keep that name, because it would have confused them with the Army. I was very keen indeed that they should be formed. They were being formed at the same time as the Royal Air Force; they were almost of the same seniority. One of the reasons why I did not affiliate them to any squadron was that they were just as much a separate squadron as the squadrons in the Regular forces. I was very keen to connect the Regular Air Force with the citizens of this country, so that in time every family would have had one or more men in the Auxiliary Air Force. Another reason for the Auxiliary Air Force was that I thought it would be invaluable. After what the noble Earl has told your Lordships, it requires no words from me to make you realise the spirit those squadrons had as operational squadrons in the last war. At the end of last year, there was a certain amount of misapprehension, and the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Air, has gone a long way in trying to put that right. I hope the suggestions of the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, who knows much more about this subject than I do, will be considered.
Now may I turn for a moment to the White Paper? I should like to congratulate the Government on the White Paper. It is, by a long way, the best White Paper I have seen since the war. It discloses some facts very clearly. I will not go through all of it—others can do that much more competently than I can—but there are two points that I wish to make about it, both, in my opinion, important. The first thing I must point out is that the Government have stated in no uncertain terms that the nuclear bomb, which everybody knew would have to be used in the next major war, will be used if it is forced upon them.

1161
In the White Paper the Government talk about the urgency and priority of many points. They talk about the importance of the Hunter type of fighter, the Swift, the Javelin, the Jaguar and other machines. I cannot give all the names correctly, but the Paper refers to all those new delta-wing type of fighter. One of the Papers on aircraft production issued about the same time stated what a wonderful machine the Hunter was; that it could take on anything that could attack it; that it was going to be one of the finest in the world. We also hear a great deal, in the White Papers, in the Press and in statements made, about guided missiles. One could almost feel that we were safe; that the guided missile was going to replace the antiaircraft guns altogether. It looked as if we were well on the road to getting an effective defence. The most important sentence in the White Paper so far as I am concerned, however, is the one to the effect that the Valiant type of bomber, a machine in which I flew over two and a half years ago, must have priority. I hope that all the equipment for that machine is available. How many of those squadrons are formed in the Air Force to-day? It is no good having the atomic or hydrogen bomb if it cannot be delivered.
General Gruenther, in his speech yesterday on the Continent, said that of 50 per cent. importance was the means to carry that bomb. Have we got that? Have we no other medium bomber, as it was called a year or so ago? When will the Valiant and the Vulcan come? Have we any others? The general feeling about that Paper, good as it is, is that it leaves the public with the impression that we have a defence equal to that which we had in the days of the Spitfire, the Hurricane, the anti-aircraft guns and radar in the Battle of Britain. I agree that we won the Battle of Britain. It added enormous prestige to this Empire and saved it. But I want to say to your Lordships something which cannot be contradicted by anybody, either in this House or anywhere else: that offence to-day is a thousand times more important, and defence a hundred times less important, than it was at the time of the Battle of Britain. Due to supersonic speeds and the unlimited space in the air, offence can come through every
1162
time. It does not require a great many machines to deposit the nuclear bomb.
I ask the Ministry of Defence to give every support to the Secretary of State for Air who I know is keen on doing his utmost to press those machines forward. I know that he wants them. No man knows better that they are absolutely vital. Other Air Force officers think that the White Paper rather implies that defence is now very good. I desire only to say that offence will be more than ever imperative now. The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench, both mentioned Coastal Command. We built the Air Force for unity. The noble Viscount talked about amalgamating the Royal Air Force again. Would it not be as well to amalgamate the two air forces as they were and as it was laid down by Parliament they should be amalgamated? They were not split up until ten years after I left them. Should that not be done? I should not have raised this question if the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, had not raised it, but since the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, mentioned it, I felt that I had to refer to it, too. I hope that the Secretary of State who will reply for the Government at the end of this debate will be able to assure the House that this question will not be raised again after all the inquiries we have had and after the wonderful work that the Air Force did in the last war.
4.57 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, this White Paper on Defence is the most complete and frank document that has ever been placed before the country. I greatly welcomed the statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough—who, I am sorry, cannot be in his place at the moment—that he was sure that all classes in the country were behind Her Majesty's Government in the defence of these islands, but I certainly cannot support him in regard to his request for a financial committee to go into the question of the distribution of finances to the three Services. Surely that is already covered through the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, I would say that such a committee is completely unnecessary.

1163
I should like to offer my congratulations to Her Majesty's Government upon taking the people into their confidence and making clear above all doubt the appalling situation in which the free world stands to-day. We have seen from the White Paper that the Soviet Union and her Eastern European satellites have some 6 million men under arms, backed by enormous reserves. I would say that anyone who thinks that this massive force, far superior in numbers to ourselves and our Allies, can be countered except by the use of nuclear weapons is living in a fool's paradise. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, complains that the atomic bomb was dropped in the last war on the advice and knowledge of only a small group. Surely, as a Minister of the Crown, he should have had that knowledge, and, of course, he had a collective responsibility. I thoroughly agree with the appreciation by Her Majesty's Government that Europe cannot be protected from invasion and occupation unless the full weight of our nuclear power is used immediately aggression takes place, whether this aggression is by conventional or by nuclear weapons. In spite of what has been said in some quarters, surely the use of these nuclear weapons is preferable to an attitude of subservience to militant Communism, with national and individual humiliation.
I was delighted to see from the White Paper that the Royal Navy has at last been given an indication of its rôle in nuclear warfare. Not only has its rôle been clearly defined, but care has also been taken to point out that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are really complementary to one another. From time to time arguments are advanced that the Navy should take over Coastal Command, or that the Navy should have only small ships, and that aircraft carriers are useless, and so on. The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, has voiced a fear that the Admiralty may shortly take over Coastal Command. I do not think amalgamation will take that form. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has also advanced the theory that the Air Force should take over the air force side of the Navy. But I do not think fusion will come in that form either. I suggest to your Lordships that there is a growing
1164
realisation amongst many Naval officers and Air Force officers that the functions of the two Services are becoming so bound up together that a fusion may be necessary, and perhaps desirable, some time in the future. I do not think anyone would suggest that such a fusion should take place straight away. I think it may well come by the process of evolution.
We are told in the White Paper that the manned bomber may eventually be supplemented by the ballistic rocket, and possibly manned fighters by guided missiles. We shall certainly require the guided missile at sea, and probably the light bomber as well. I think I am correct in saying that in the near future air-to-air ballistic rocket weapons are to be maintained and serviced by the Royal Navy at the Gunnery School at Whale Island. I mention this matter to show that fusion of the two Services is already taking place in minor ways, and I feel sure will continue as time goes on. But the fact remains that the long and, particularly, the short sea routes cannot be protected except by a combination of naval and air power. I am sure that the closer the two Services come together the more efficient and effective will be the protection of our trade routes, which in the long run must be the ultimate objective of our air-sea forces.
I am sure the Navy will take comfort from the very clear statement by the First Lord of the Admiralty, when opening the debate on the Naval Estimates in another place, on the future of the Navy. It is perfectly clear that warships will be just as necessary in the future as they are to-day, although their tactical conception may be entirely different. I would say that the recent manoeuvres in the Mediterranean have shown quite clearly that this is true. I certainly do not wish to enter into the arguments for and against aircraft carriers, except to point out the one outstanding fact, that in the carrier we have a movable aerodrome which may prove of inestimable value if our shore-based aerodromes have been destroyed. We must not forget that after a spate of nuclear warfare we may find ourselves in a state which I think is commonly called "broken back" warfare, when conventional weapons may well be used effectively to maintain our supplies across the seas. I suggest that we must never in any circumstances neglect our conven

1165
tional weapons, and even the aircraft carriers, vulnerable as they may be, will be necessary for some years to come.
The country owes a great debt of gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for producing such a realistic document as this White Paper, which has shirked nothing and which explains in simple language the whole ghastly state into which the free world has drifted. I support wholeheartedly the policy contained in it, with perhaps one reservation: I doubt whether time is wholly on our side, and I think we should proceed ahead with the utmost speed in the production of our new weapons, and at the same time try and create the atmosphere which may lead to peace.
5.5 p.m.
LORD SHERWOOD: My Lords, I should like to congratulate not only the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, but also ourselves in this House on the fact that he has now joined us. The noble Earl has a most distinguished record and is held in high esteem in the Royal Air Force; he is a great asset to your Lordships' House. I shall refer to him later in regard to some of the points raised in connection with the Auxiliary Air Force, because I see that we have a great deal in common on that very important subject.
Many of us who have taken part in defence debates in another place know full well the difficulty which is felt by the Opposition, in that, unlike those who sit on the Government Benches, who have at their command all the so-called knowledge of what is happening in other countries, we in Opposition do not know; and therefore our estimates of what the strength of our enemy may be cannot be as accurate as theirs. I remember well a defence debate in another place during the course of which I was strongly rebuked for naming Germany and Italy as the enemies against whom we had to protect and to arm ourselves. The Government were then most friendly with the Italian Government and I was rebuked for saying that they were our enemies; well, I was not so far wrong. The Government were then friendly with the German Government; again, I was not so far wrong. One must have something in view.
A curious thing has happened now, when everybody seems to have formed the view that Russia is our enemy. I, as
1166
a Liberal, find myself, not for the first time, in disagreement with that view. I do not think Russia is the enemy. The enemy to-day is a nationalist sovereign body having at its command and under its influence a nuclear bomb. That is the enemy—not Russia. That is the weapon and that is what the Government have got to face.
I would say to them: do not pin all your ideas on building up armaments against Russia; as has been so well said by many speakers, including the most reverend Primate, the real menace which faces civilisation to-day is the nuclear bomb. At the moment we know to a certain extent who holds it. America has the most stocks. We are told that to a limited extent Russia also has it, but that she will have many more in four years time. I should like to ask the Government whether they are quite certain that Germany has not got it. After all, they were very near it after the last war. They are not entirely dependent on their own country, but it can be made in other countries. Is it certain that they have not got it too?
I agree entirely with the Government's policy. I agree that we ourselves have got to make the nuclear bomb—there is no escape from it, hideous though the thought may be. We have decided to go ahead. The arguments which have been put against this decision are that it means we are making ourselves—and we are, remember, the most vulnerable target for this weapon—more vulnerable. I think the arguments against that view are that already the Americans have arrangements for launching nuclear weapons from this country, and therefore at this moment, according to the views of other countries, we are vulnerable and might be aggressive.
Then there is the view that if a nation makes them it immediately becomes vulnerable. These bombs are not as big as many people think, and they can be despatched from countries which we may not even know are doing it—we may not be quite certain who the enemy is. The weapon which may be sent against us may be sent by fanatical people, either religious or political. Remember what happened with the Jesuits and the Mohammedans in regard to religion, and, politically, what happened with the Germans, who believed in their political

1167
faith. Fanatical people present an impossible problem. Their creed is one of the most terrifying of all. It is that you must first destroy everything before you can build up your own. Destruction has no fear for them: they believe in their creed, as Germany did in 1914 and 1939. Then there is the other dangerous fanatical creed—that of those who believe that even their own destruction is worth while in order to destroy what is considered evil. That is a dangerous frame of mind, but not an uncommon one. The deterrent effect cannot usefully be counted upon with such people.
Let it be made clear that this weapon can never be used on the decision of Generals, Admirals or Air Marshals. The decision must be made by politicians at the highest level. I was disturbed recently to learn that an American General had stated that he had the right to use this weapon when he needed it. Control must be at the highest level and not by those in uniform. How are these ideas to be defeated? We know that in every country there are both people of extreme nationalist views and those who still believe that there is some advantage and benefit for man in the continuance of civilisation. It is our duty to get on terms with those latter people. There is much debate now about a high-power conference, when it should be held, who should attend and whether it should be between the four great Powers or the United Nations. That is not the question at all. What is much more alarming to-day is the immense interference with trade. Until that is broken down, no progress will be made.
Noble Lords speak of the Iron Curtain which has come down, but there is an iron curtain in England which does not allow an Englishman to go out with more than £100. There are other iron curtains in tariffs, in duties, in currencies and other existing regulations. Until it is accepted that the Foreign Secretary comes below the Treasury and trade, there will be no further progress towards solving this question of international politics. We on these Liberal Benches have always held that view, and we do so more strongly to-day. The solution does not lie in a meeting between Sir Winston Churchill, Mr. Malenkov and President Eisenhower. There must be the understanding that people have the
1168
right to live. We view with dismay the slowness with which trade barriers are being pulled down. We regret the speed at which in many places they are being put up.
Turning to defence, I believe that on the basis of the White Paper the taxpayer must feel that he has been "sold a pup" when he considers the amount of money spent on armaments and the results achieved. It is a deplorable picture. We speak now of "conventional" weapons, which seems to me a very quaint description, for it turns a flame-thrower into something as respectable as a Hoover. There is no such thing as a "conventional weapon." The term represents an idle way of thought. The Navy now has a mass of Admirals, 90 per cent. of them ashore. There are masses of Generals and many untrained troops. There is a large Air Force, with many Air Marshals, but with very few machines of any value. That is the picture of defence now offered by Her Majesty's Government, one of the most deplorable pictures they have ever produced. They try to suggest that the Labour Party and various other causes are responsible, but they have had power enough. There has been every opportunity for them to improve the state of our defences; yet at the moment they are poorer.
Speaking with no personal feeling against those involved, I say that the present system in this country has made our Service Secretaries of State third-rate people. We have a Prime Minister primarily responsible for the defence of this country, with his added personal power which no one can deny is greatest of all. There is also his personality. Then there is the Minister of Defence, until a short time ago a very able General, whom no one could call a politician. Even if he resigned because he could not get his own way, there was not even a stir in the Press. These three Ministers, the Secretaries of State for the Services, come third rung down the ladder in submitting their views. Because of the system they have failed to get their views through. One can see the effect in production. Consider the question of our present aircraft resources. We had, as Minister of Aircraft Production, the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook. He was a very powerful Minister who got things done. Yet Her Majesty's Government have long been

1169
content to have as the Minister responsible the Minister of Supply, who has had many other responsibilities, some of the highest political nature—for example, the "unscrambling" of the iron and steel industry. The production of aeroplanes came last. He had to do his Party business from every point of view. He could not resign from that. Therefore, you have now got no aeroplanes of any real value at all.
I read that the Minister got up in another place and sail that "We have the finest night fighter force in the world." We have the only night fighter force in the world, so it is easy for us to have the best. There is no night fighter force in Germany; none in France. They do not use it in America. They do not use it or need it in Russia. To fob off the public by saying that you have the finest night fighter force shows the weakness of your case. It shows weakness to bring that forward as being the best you can offer for all the days that you have been in power.
Now I come to a matter with which the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, has dealt, a subject upon which I feel very strongly—the Auxiliary Air Squadrons. Lord Gosford spoke with full knowledge from the Regular Air Force point of view. I speak from the fullest knowledge from the Auxiliary Air Force point of view, and I could not be in greater agreement with the noble Earl. The Auxiliary Air Force was a great conception of Lord Templewood. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, was really the man who, with Sir Philip Sassoon, made it possible to put the matter through and get the money in order that the force should be formed. It had to be put through, and the noble Viscount ought to be proud to-day of the part which he played and of what that Auxiliary Air Force achieved before the war, during the war and after the war. I have knowledge of all those periods, and I appreciate that it is a matter of great difficulty to re-form such a voluntary force after the war. But it has been re-formed—and now what has happened? It has been forgotten.
I note that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Air, is not present but I wish to say this. He wrote and sent round a letter to many of us explaining what his idea was with regard to the Auxiliary Air Force. In my opinion it was the death knell of all the standards
1170
on which we built the Auxiliary Air Force. It did away with it all; it put an end to every fundamental effort to try to bring in the right kind of citizens and to get them to give their services at the week-ends. Our aim was to get people who were highly respected in their districts. Lord de L'Isle and Dudley's proposals were going to destroy all that. But he now has changed his plan; a new plan replaces that which he first put forward. Of that first plan I should like to say more if he were here. I think it was thoroughly dishonest, because he said to us in that letter that we were not able to fly Hunters and the new machines. Three years before, in the squadron I raised to take to war—the 504 Nottingham Squadron—we were told by the Labour Government that they were hoping to get us Hunters in a year's time. It was not suggested that we were incapable of flying them. Of course we were capable of flying them. But the Government were incapable of producing them, even for the Regular Air Force. That is where responsibility lies. Do not let Secretaries of State try to say that something is wrong when it is not the real reason.
What you are going to do with the Auxiliary Air Force is very difficult. The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, expressed some ideas, all of which I understand. But I would say that the present idea of Her Majesty's Government will not succeed, and I would rather the Auxiliary Air Force were disbanded, with all the honours which it has gained and the record of service which it gave to this country during the period when it existed, than be allowed to deteriorate by becoming a second-rate force flying only secondhand machines. That will not get you the right men. I cannot go and ask people in Nottingham to give up their week-ends and serve, nor can I ask their wives to allow them to do so; I cannot ask them to risk everything they have and give up all their pleasures merely to become second rate and not first rate, as they would expect to be. Therefore, I would rather that this Force were disbanded and re-formed in some other way.
If you thought of re-forming it I think there would be great difficulty. I do not mind there being no aircraft in this country; I do not mind that the rifles are not in existence; I do not mind if

1171
we have no ships. What I do mind, however, is that we have no brains that are really thinking out these Service questions. I do not believe that after a war like the last war, and with these new weapons that have come into being, you can continue on the same lines as before. You have to think again. After all, thought-out schemes were brought in, as many of your Lordships may remember, when in 1906 Lord Haldane dealt with the Army after its failure in the Boer War. Lord Haldane's appointment was considered a very odd one indeed by both military people and civilians. Yet he built up by brain something which enabled us to win the First World War. We brought in for the Navy—there was no Air Force then in existence—Mr. Winston Churchill, who was then a young man. He did a great deal to make it possible for the Navy to do what it did in the First World War. The position which Mr. Churchill, as he then was, held, was considered to be one which called for a Secretary of State with brains. Get a plan, and the machines and the engines will come after. But there is no plan to-day.
We in the Air Force were luckier than anyone else between the wars, in that we had two people with brains to deal with that Force.
One was the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who, everyone must admit, never wavered in his conception of what would be needed for the war in the air which came twenty-one or twenty-two years later in 1939. He never wavered and he pressed forward with his plans. We were lucky to have him, and the country owes him a great debt. Between the wars we also had another Air Minister with brains—I did not recognise it myself at the time, but I must admit it now—in the person of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. He had the misfortune—though I hardly dare say this in this place—to be a Member of this House at a very critical moment; therefore the strong views and the energy he had could not be put across in another place, and as a result he failed. But, after reflection and with the knowledge which I have gained, I think we in the Royal Air Force owe a great debt to him which I never recognised at the time. Do not let the Generals and the Admirals and the Air Marshals think only of the nuclear bomb. Let them
1172
think of making the Services to which they belong as efficient as they should be in every way—and I am not certain that any of them is. Too much attention is paid by Service men to political questions. Let them be quite clear about what their duties are. I am certain that once all three Services are efficient we shall regain the respect in which the whole world held us in 1940.
5.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before proceeding in what I have to say I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, for his great courtesy in making it possible for me to speak at this moment. Hitherto, I have not ventured to address any remarks to your Lordships in Service debates because I was only too much aware of the limited nature of my experience. An analysis of the military situation by an ex-platoon commander of the 2nd Battalion of the Rifle Brigade, however much it might be a masterpiece in itself, would hardly rank as coming from that reservoir of experts about which we have heard so much in your Lordships' House in recent weeks. Although I was for a time Under-Secretary of State for Air, in joint harness with the noble Lord who has just regained his seat—a very happy connection, if he will allow me to say so, under the patronage of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso (as he is now)—I feel that a great deal has happened since that time which renders obsolete what little knowledge I ever possessed.
This is a debate which ranges much wider than technical questions. I am, perhaps, one of the youngest of the generation of those who can still remember what it was like before 1914 and how secure we were then behind the impregnable rampart of the Royal Navy and in political control of so large a portion of the world outside Europe. The history of the years since that time has been largely a story of how one material advantage after another has been wrested from us, seemingly for ever. In the last war it was still true that the geographical position of this country as an island, in addition to the courage of our people, enabled us to win in the end; but even that advantage is now only of relative importance.
I am not one of those who believe that the human race will be destroyed by the

1173
nuclear bomb. I do not think that America would be destroyed and I do not think that even Russia would be destroyed. I am sure that vast areas of the world would be unaffected by it. But in the event of a major war, I have no doubt, and I believe many other people have no doubt, that the place where we are now sitting and debating would be destroyed; and if anything remained of our country, it world be something so mutilated and scarred that those who survived—they might be few—would hardly recognise Britain as the country which they had known. Therefore this people, as no other, is dedicated to the cause of peace, knowing that a false step or a false move means for us annihilation, something which will call from us, for many years to come. I fear, a degree of patriotism and vision which probably no other people has ever in the history of the world been called upon to show. It is for that reason that I venture to speak wholeheartedly in support of the Government White Paper.
I do not believe that, in the long run, the possession of deterrents will prove a secure basis for peace for the human family of nations. I believe that in the long run there will be no security unless and until the source of atomic and nuclear power is in the hands of an international agency; but at the moment that solution, the only permanent solution, is not even within sight. Until then, I am perfectly convinced that the policy of the White Paper is the only policy to follow and, what is more, that it is a policy which will call for support of a devoted kind from those who have the vision to see its inevitability. I believe that we are at the beginning of a period in public opinion of this country when all the support that can be mustered behind the Government and this policy, from whatever source it comes—and most welcome when it comes from sources not ordinarily associated with the Government—will be required if the steadfastness of the people is to be maintained.
In contrast with our past position, our position at the present time is so unenviable that ready counsellors of various kinds will be found to suggest to us easy intellectual solutions, easy ways out of our problems, as they think. Already those counsellors are beginning to proliferate, each, I believe, with a different recipe for disaster. There is a great
1174
recrudescence, of the demand for neutralism or pacifism. I had thought in 1945, when the last war was ended, that that heresy at least had been exorcised during my lifetime, because if there is one fact which is more certain than another it is, in my view, that the strong streak of pacifism in British public opinion before the last war was one of the major contributory causes of it. If we are to go back to that, this is where I, at any rate, "came in."
I feel perfectly certain that, far from being a means out of our present difficulties and danger, pacifism and neutralism are a sure road to another world war and a sure way of getting this country bombed. That has to be said and said again to the people of this country. We can influence events with our Allies and with our potential opponents precisely because we are able to take our part in them. This country has trodden the path that leads to glory, and back along that path there is no return. We cannot forswear, by abdicating our means of self-preservation, the power to influence events in the world, to counsel wisdom and restraint to other people, a counsel which would be listened to precisely in the proportion in which we are unflinching in facing our responsibilities. So that way out is one to be avoided.
There are those who say that, while we ought not to be pacifists or neutral, we ought not to make the bomb ourselves. Their attitude is: "Leave that dirty work to our Allies; shelter behind their protection; but do not let us touch the accursed thing ourselves." I wonder what good that would do. It has been pointed out again and again that our friendship, which I believe to be valued on the other side of the Atlantic, is valued precisely in proportion as it is worth having. We are not to be for the rest of our lives satellites of, and subordinates to, one protagonist or another. Still less are we to be so if we believe, as I profoundly believe, that we are able to influence events in the direction of peace by influencing the policies of both great Powers. As the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion pointed out with great force, experience has taught us that, closely as we are bound to our Allies, over a period of years there have been, and there will be in future, various

1175
matters in which their scale of priorities is not the same as ours. There may come moments when we wish, in order to protect ourselves, to attack targets, or to assert policies which are not those that preoccupy our great Allies on the other side of the Atlantic. If we are to forswear the manufacture of what may be the decisive weapon in modern warfare, the ability to survive will depend on wills other than our own; and I trust that this House and Parliament will never consent to a position of subordination which that course of action would imply.
The rôle of this country is its historic rôle. There never has been a time in modern history in which Britain has not been the smallest of the great Powers and the greatest of the small Powers; and the possession by the greatest of the small Powers of the hydrogen bomb is one of the great hopes for the future of mankind at the present time. If we are to manufacture it, there are other counsellors who say: "Well, let us have the bomb, the whole bomb and nothing but the bomb. Let us abandon conscription and conventional weapons of all sorts. All these ancillaries of power have been rendered obsolete by the new invention which we are now to embrace." In a sense, that is the most dangerous policy of all. We must be prepared for war either with or without atomic warheads. To put ourselves in a position where we have either to use this most frightful of modern weapons or, alternatively, to run away altogether is to make it relatively certain within a measurable distance of time both that there will be a war and that the weapon will be used; and it will give us no kind of ultimate safety.
The dominant factor in the present military situation, as I see it, is not so much the hydrogen bomb as the Soviet Army. We should not be making the hydrogen bomb at the present time if the Soviet Army were not so disproportionately large. We should not require or have to think about the use of nuclear weapons against any other possible antagonist. The thing that makes the danger which we all fear, and which we all want to avoid, is the possession by the Communists of an army vastly greater than they require for defence; and the knowledge, which all those who have watched Communist policy over forty
1176
years and have studied Communist literature, have, that Communists, by the very essence of their doctrine, believe in the desirability of world revolution and violence as a means of achieving it. The coupling of those two facts renders it inevitable that we should be afraid, and that we should summon to ourselves whatever sources of power we may possess.
But the danger does not rest only, or even primarily, in the fear, which is undoubtedly a real one, or the danger, which is undoubtedly a present one, that the Communists may drop a hydrogen bomb or nuclear bomb on London. They could achieve the same result in almost as short a time by advancing to the Channel Ports and bombarding us with V1s and V2s; and they could reach the same result, and more cheaply, by constantly nibbling away at our resources with conventional weapons, always going so far, but never far enough to excite nuclear retaliation. In the end, they would place us in the position where we had no means of self-defence and no means of escape. It follows that we must of necessity undergo the severe discipline of preparing for war in both of these immensely expensive fields, and over a long and perhaps an indefinite period of time. It may well be that such a preparation will impose a great strain upon our people. But I believe that, when the facts and the issues are explained to our people, the strain will be borne with that fortitude which they have always shown.
Let us, however, console ourselves with the reflection, which I do not believe to be vain, that the Communists are under a similar and, perhaps, direr strain. We are often told that capitalism and free society destroys itself by virtue of its own internal contradiction. If that be a criticism of a society which prides itself upon having the means in its own body of renewing itself in changing circumstances, it is a criticism which we need not deny. But let us not forget that the weakness of Communism lies in its inability to face its internal contradictions at all. And inside the Communist Powers there are internal contradictions, probably as difficult to overcome, which, given time, will inevitably prove their own destruction. We may have been witnessing within the last few weeks, in the resignations to which they were subject, signs of such strain. But no one who has

1177
witnessed the great body of the Communist organisation lurching from purge to crisis, and from crisis to new purge; nobody who observed the immense folly of the Russo-Finnish War in 1939, or the suicidal idiocy of the pact with Hitler, can believe that Communist policy either is infallible or, left to itself, will fail to meet with its own disaster.
Therefore, I say, let us not fear the cold war. It is the policy of the long haul; it is the policy of infinite danger; but in steadfastness of purpose and clarity of vision will lie our safety. Given time, the Communist societies will either destroy themselves, by virtue of their own internal contradictions, or they will so modify their character that they will be able to demonstrate in friendship with us which is the best way of life. We have a long way before us. Before the war I used to indulge in the doubtful pleasure of mountain climbing. For a long time, when you are on the rope, you know that there are about fifteen different ways in which you can land your companions in disaster, and only if, over a long period of hours, you avoid them can you get safely home. We may be in for a period of twenty-five or forty years' strain and stress; but I believe that the resources, the imagination and the vision of our people will be adequate for whatever is demanded of them.
5.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, on his maiden speech, and I hope he will often come and take part in our debates. I want to make only one or two points in connection with what I suppose is the most important aspect of the debate to-day—that is, the decision of Her Majesty's Government to go ahead with the manufacture of the hydrogen bomb. A decision of that kind, to manufacture a bomb of that magnitude, is a thing which one does not comprehend at once. I do not think the British public have quite taken in the effects of those bombs. They have read about them, and have heard of the awful effects of the atom bomb dropped on, Japan. I saw in the Press recently that two Japanese women have come over here and have given some account of the awful happenings in Japan. What to me is far worse than that is the after-effects. One woman thought she was well, and
1178
yet six years later developed symptoms and died in great pain. There is also the actual fear of monsters being born as a result of this radioactivity. I want to stress the importance of the new weapon of destruction, which to my mind supersedes any other factor. It is not just a bigger and better bomb; it brings in new factors and a new menace. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, pointed out, we in this island will be vulnerable from any such attack. If there are some survivors left sitting on ruins, there will be little for them to survey except rubble and rubbish. It is for that reason that I must confess I was dismayed when I heard of the decision of the Government to manufacture the hydrogen bomb.
I should like to say a word on what I consider the moral aspect of the bomb, which is an important one. The noble Viscount who opened the debate quoted a remark which I think he said Napoleon used to some of his marshals. I hope I quote him correctly, but I think he said that "To be morally right is three times as valuable as to be physically right." I think it is vital, for our own safety as well as our consciences, that we should be completely clear on this major and most unfortunate issue. It seems to me that if we take the decision to manufacture this bomb, we accept the implication of what is going to happen when we drop it. Where we may drop it, I do not know—nobody knows—but hundreds of thousands of people are going to suffer, and it seems to me that there is only one justification which can salve our consciences on this matter, and that is, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, the absolute necessity of self-defence. Nothing else can justify the manufacture of such a horrible weapon with such terrible implications for the human race.
I am afraid we are in the position where if we manufacture this bomb we cannot say that we have the ultimate word of when, how or if it should be used. The noble Viscount who has just spoken has poured great scorn on neutralism, but I think there is a good case for it in a situation of this kind. I believe that if this country had stood out as a neutral, we should have had round us half the world at this time. But we did not do it. What makes me uneasy is that we have got into the position of being the junior partner in a partnership, without the ulti-

1179
mate word of what is going to be done with the bomb, and yet we may find ourselves forced to use it on other people and, which is perhaps even worse, of having the bomb used on us. The very fact that we have provided bases for the American Air Force in this country to loose the bomb from here in a way exposes us as an obvious target for any aggressor nation wanting to get a blow in first. As has been said, if we are a target there will be little left of us.
What is going to happen? There are these two giants in the arena, the United States and the Soviet Union, both equal in different ways. What is going to happen, supposing a war should break out in the Far East? I read in the Press that at this moment there is a ship loaded with some sort of fuel which the Americans want to stop reaching China, and which China obviously wishes to receive. It may well be some instance of that kind—Nationalist China intercepting the ship and the Communists trying to get it back; some sort of invasion of the coastal islands; an admiral or a general a little too fearsome or too rash, who launches a big attack on the mainland—and before we know where we are a war may have developed between the two protagonists. Are we automatically bound to use our hydrogen bombs? I do not know what is the unwritten agreement of the Government with the United States, but that is a position which I must say frightens me and fills me with dread and discomfort of every kind—the fact that we are making this huge weapon and we have not the last say as to when it shall be used.
If we go ahead with the weapon, whatever happens we should somehow have complete control, so that we shall not be brought into a war, or not be made to use the bomb, in any circumstances which our Government, supported by our own people, have not determined and decided. I believe that means that, as a first priority, we must, if we make this bomb, ask the Americans to withdraw their training forces from our shores. Unless we can do that, we are inviting aggression and inviting an attack which I think would be utterly disastrous. I do not want to keep your Lordships further discussing this White Paper. That is the one point I wish to make. I think that before we enter into the full implications
1180
of this policy we must consider where it may lead us, and remember that if a war does come and if we are involved there will be no victor—there will just be ruins on every side.
5.58 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I wish to endorse from this side of the House the congratulations which were extended to the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, on his maiden speech. I was interested to hear him speak of the R.A.F. and its difficulties. Like the noble Viscount who sits on the Bench below him at the present time, I can remember the fairly early days of the R.F.C. and the amalgamation of the two forces. I am glad to know that the present R.A.F. will have a good advocate in your Lordships' House in the future.
Before I embark upon the contents of the White Paper, I wish to make a few remarks on the question of the Territorial Army. I understand that the Territorial Army will be fully dealt with to-morrow, but as I am not speaking to-morrow I thought I might be able to raise tonight one or two matters which are causing disquiet among the members of the Territorial Army. Noble Lords will notice that in the White Paper, in the figures given on page 28, Annex I, the normal volunteers have increased by 5,000, and the volunteers from National Service have decreased during the year by approximately 1,000. There must be some reason for this, and one wonders whether the boys who have done their National Service are rather tired of Army life and do not seek to do further recognised service—the short-term service—in the Territorial Army. At any rate, I am impressed by the fact that, on balance, the Territorial Army has increased in volunteer personnel.
I understand, however, that there is a feeling of discouragement and frustration amongst the experienced officers and N.C.Os. in the Territorials. Major reorganisations have taken place, as well as many minor adjustments. Some of these amalgamations, and certainly some disbandments of units and parts of units, may not have made for efficiency; and sometimes they have created difficulties. I know of an instance where, under re-organisation, one battery of a county regiment has been formed in another county over a hundred miles away from the headquarters of the regiment. The

1181
difficulty of running the administration and training of that particular battery in that regiment must be apparent. It is outside the county boundary and for the commanding officer or senior officers to go to and from that battery is a matter of some difficulty.
The senior officers and N.C.Os. are aware of these difficulties. They know they must be, and will be, overcome, but there is a feeling of some depression among the Territorial senior officers and others that there is not a proper realisation of the voluntary efforts which these particular officers have to make in order to keep units alive and effective. Doing this work is no easy matter. It calls far expenditure of time and labour, and it should be properly appreciated by the powers that be. I want to impress upon those in authority that the Territorial Army service is of inestimable value at the present time. There is no doubt about it; it should be recognised in a big and full way, and rewarded accordingly.
There is another matter which possibly affects the personnel in the Territorial Army. I understand that last year Territorial Army volunteers were virtually promised an increased bounty up to £25 but that, although this was agreed to by the Army Council, it was turned down by the Treasury. The additional bounty has not been received. That is somewhat of a poor show on the part of the Treasury. I hope that this year, in view of the £1,500 million which we are spending on the Forces, this matter may be put right. Officers get no bounty at all. Another thing which is troubling people is the question of retirement. I understand that upon retirement a stereotyped letter from the Secretary of State is sent with a formal notice of retirement, a very ordinary affair for an officer who has possibly done some twenty or more years' service in the Territorials. It has even happened that, when that letter has been received by the officer concerned, a small account has been enclosed with it for a minor detail, a badge or something of that sort, which has not been handed in and paid for. That sort of thing is frightfully irritating, and I hope that it will not prevail in the future. In the Territorial Army the nation is getting a very good and efficient reserve. We do not want the Territorial Army to be run "on the cheap." Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State, if he reads, as he probably will,
1182
the OFFICIAL REPORT of this debate, will note what has been said.
I want, in a short moment or so, to deal with other aspects of the White Paper. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, gave a graphic description of the contents of the Paper and of the intentions of the Government. The most reverend Primate described the White Paper as being "brutally frank." And it is: it is a very grave document indeed. I wonder whether, in the last year or so, at any rate, a more momentous and grave document has been discussed in your Lordships' House. It is tragic that there should be cause for such a document to be issued by the Government of a Christian democracy in these times. It will produce, or has produced, profound anxiety at home. In connection with this anxiety, it would be desirable, I think, for the Government to produce a short explanatory document dealing with the first part, paragraphs 1 to 32, of the White Paper. This is envisaged by the Government in paragraph 6, where they say:
"It is essential that these facts should be known not only to our people but to all the world. All should realise the magnitude of the disaster war would bring."
Again, in the final paragraph of the White Paper, it is said:
"The Government believe, however, that the country is entitled to know the gravity of the possible threat and to be given an indication of the lines on which they are working to meet it."
Not all our people see the White Paper. It is read by a comparatively few. Therefore, I hope that it may be possible in some short pamphlet form, either through general circulation or possibly by the Press taking greater notice of the importance of this Paper, for our people here to be given an opportunity of realising exactly what the position is and what the Government intend to do in regard to disarmament and trying to establish peace throughout the world.
I should have liked to read to the House certain sentences in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the White Paper. They are extremely important, and the people of this country should know about them. They are drastic; they show exactly the power of the weapons which may be used in a global or even in a minor war. I hope that some such suggestion as I have made may be carried out. I am glad to see, in paragraph 8, reference to dis

1183
armament. I am certain that we must pursue the course, not only of manufacturing the hydrogen bomb but of making, as a nation, some sort of contribution to the discussions on disarmament.
Mention has been made, not only by the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, but by other noble Lords, of the position of this country. We have no quarrel either with the United States of America or with the Soviet Union; nor do we seek one. But by our geographical position we find ourselves midway between two great Powers who may eventually be at enmity with each other. For that reason, it has been truly said this afternoon that we are most vulnerable—in fact, unpleasantly vulnerable: a diplomatic mistake might embroil us in a war. We may even be committed in existing circumstances to aid our American friends. This fact may put us into a position of the direst peril. A moment or two ago my noble friend Lord Huntingdon mentioned the presence in this country of American personnel, camps and aircraft. That fact creates for us a grave risk which may outweigh the benefits accruing from their presence here. An unexpected night attack with hydrogen bombs to put out of action the American bases here might destroy not only those objectives but ourselves as well.
The White Paper envisages counterattacks with nuclear weapons against any aggression with conventional or other weapons. A surprise night attack might leave us helpless and hopeless in the morning. We could not counter-attack, we could not retaliate, and in the morning our schemes for defence would have disappeared in the "dew" or "mist" of radioactivity. If Russia is called upon to fight, or fears that this may happen, she will not restrict her attacks to the use of conventional weapons; nor may we know at what time or on what day she will attack. I am told that fifteen hydrogen bombs would completely paralyse or wipe out this country. Perhaps in his reply to-morrow, the noble Marquess may be able to say whether or not that information is correct; and also whether a smaller number of bombs might be sufficient to close our shipping routes, our ports and our harbours, and so paralyse our naval and commercial shipping.
What rôle should Britain play? In present circumstances, there is only one
1184
rôle which I think we can play. We can carry out our intentions with regard to defence—we must still continue to think of that. But in my view we can endeavour to extend our powers of international good will, upholding our prestige for fair dealing, and using our best endeavours to bring the "sparring partners" to a peaceful settlement of their jealousies, rivalries and misunderstandings. We have been Allies in war with both of them. We have all experienced the horrors of war, and I am quite certain that our people want no more. We in this country have no aggressive intentions; we are a tolerant race, and are therefore well fitted for the task of world peace making.
Earlier this week a debate took place in another place, and I want to appeal to the Prime Minister to forget, if possible, his past disappointments and frustrations in regard to negotiation with other nations, and once again seek to meet those in authority in the Soviet Union. In my view, no time or place is inappropriate in the cause of peace and good will, and if delay takes place before a meeting can be held (as is apparently the Government's view) then, in order to strengthen the hand of the Prime Minister and to bring a realisation of our desires nearer to fruition. I hope that it will be found possible for the people of both our countries to meet together more often and to discuss the differences, if any, between us. Let our people meet together in trade, in sport, in co-operative life, through peaceful international organisations, through ecclesiastical activities. And, what is almost as important, let the children of the schools meet, for on them rests the future of the world and the road to peace.
Although the most reverend Primate has left, I should like to conclude with these words. It is my practice daily to read a chapter of the Bible. I do this in the morning. A few days ago (I think this is appropriate to our debate) I read some words in Proverbs written about 1,000 B.C., some 3,000 years ago, when apparently they had the same difficulties as we are having at present with wars and rumours of wars. The words, which occur in Chapter 21, verse 31, were:
"The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the Lord."
I commend those words to your Lordships.
6.20 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I wish to ask some questions, particularly with regard to civil defence, in the hope of getting an answer from Her Majesty's Government at the end of the debate. I have heard querulous people say that it is no good doing anything under atomic attack, so one may as well give up. That is not the feeling of this or the other House, and I am sure it is not the feeling of the country. We shall need to do a great many very difficult things, and civil defence is doubtless one of the most difficult. The view that it is impossible to do anything was contradicted by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery, who said that, unless civil defence measures could be produced in this country, a situation of the utmost gravity might result should we commit ourselves to the use of the nuclear weapon. The noble Viscount would not make such a statement unless he knew, as is the case, that such defence measures could be produced.
A number of those measures are set out in the Statement on Defence. I want Her Majesty's Government to make clear what those arrangements will be. Dealing with evacuation, I would point out that all parts of the country will not be equally affected, even in the case of considerable attack with many bombs being dropped on this country. One remembers the exaggerated views held by some people before the war as to what would happen if war came. When London was bombed those people found that their view was wrong, and in all probability the exaggerated views now held by some people will again be found to be wrong if we are so unfortunate as to come down to the abyss of nuclear war. At the same time, it ought to be made known as clearly as possible what Her Majesty's Government propose to do with regard to the provision of evacuation areas for the child population and younger people of the country in case of a threatened nuclear attack. Is there to be any large-scale provision of areas, presumed to be relatively safe, which can shelter the younger generation and the aged?
The Statement says that there will be an obvious need for tire and rescue services, and mentions the Civil Defence Corps, the Industrial Civil Defence Service, the Auxiliary Fire Service, the Women's Voluntary Services, the
1186
National Hospital Services and the National Hospital Service Reserve. I am sure those are the facts, for I am certain Her Majesty's Government would not have made a statement enumerating all these possible efforts if the whole thing was a pretext meaning nothing. A very elaborate organisation is to be set up to do the best possible in the very difficult circumstances of a war in which nuclear weapons will be used.
I have seen no reference to doctors in this connection. A nuclear war will be particularly hard on the medical profession, because in my opinion (and I have some special knowledge of this matter) the whole of the medical profession would be required to give their services. Nobody could possibly be exempted except for very special reasons. This would present a very serious problem. We should probably have to use students who were in the latter part of their training and their qualification, and, of course, a great many nurses. Does Her Majesty's Government agree or disagree that that will be the position? It is extremely important to realise that we can get safety and a relative degree of protection from the Civil Defence services only by employing, if not 100 per cent. of our doctors, at least a very large proportion of the total number in a country where many doctors are now already greatly overworked.
I had a great deal of experience in Civil Defence in the London area in the last war, and before the war began I gave a series of lectures on Civil Defence to doctors in that area, so I know something of the problem at that time. The problem in the future will be a more serious one, but I am convinced it will be soluble, and I hope the Minister will agree that it is a soluble problem and one of which we can make a very good job. How we are to arrange about doctors, nurses and hospital accommodation is another question. Which areas of the country shall we use as evacuation areas? We certainly should evacuate large cities like London, Manchester and Birmingham, and we should know which areas are to be used for evacuation, perhaps not designating names and places, but the requisite conditions. The whole country cannot possibly be subjected to attack unless by the hydrogen bomb, which is unlikely. I hope it will be possible for Her

1187
Majesty's Government to give reassuring answers to these questions and to make evacuation, at any rate for the younger people, a possibility during a war.
6.29 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, this debate has covered a very wide field. I propose to confine myself to one point: the statement by the Secretary of State for Air on future policy with regard to flying boats. I very much deplore the decision not to develop a further type of flying boat for military purposes after the Sunderland, although I am pleased to know that it is intended to keep the Sunderland in service for as long as possible. I consider the decision is a pity because it may mean the dispersal of a great fund of technical knowledge and of technical people in the aircraft industry who, for many years, have been concerned with the production of flying boats, a field in which this country at one time led the world. It is particularly unfortunate that this continuity should be broken at this time, because I believe we were reaching the threshold of a new era for the flying boat, when the flying boat was going to become the flying ship. The three great Princess flying boats are still in cocoons at Calshot. I hope it will be possible to find engines for them, and that either Transport Command or some civil operator will be encouraged to make use of these flying boats at the earliest possible moment. I am sure that they would be of great use for trooping and transport purposes of all kinds. I am also convinced that the flying boat can be of great use when a war takes place at the ends of the earth. Flying boats do not require very elaborate bases. It is now possible, I believe, to carry by air pontoons which will give them quite an adequate base. There is no question of providing expensive runways or airfields.
I believe it would be possible to design to-day a flying ship which could alight in the Atlantic, say, on four or five days out of seven, which could refuel on the water if necessary and then take off again. It would be possible to-day, I believe, to design a flying boat the performance of which would compare with that of land planes. As the flying boat gets larger, its disadvantages diminish. I should like your Lordships to imagine a scaling down of the "Queen Elizabeth," for instance, to the size of the present flying boat.
1188
Her hull would be as thin as paper and her anchors would be like those of a model boat. As a flying boat hull gets larger there is an enormous comparative saving of weight in its plating and structure. I believe that for military purposes it would be possible to have a vessel for convoy escort which one might call a "flying frigate." I do not want to be controversial upon this subject, but if the Air Ministry do not feel that they can go on with the development of the flying boat, possibly naval influence might be brought to bear, and the Navy might, in future days, develop the flying frigate, which I am sure has a future for antisubmarine work. As I say, I do not wish at the moment to indulge in any controversy about Coastal Command or anything of that sort. That is all I have to say. I hope that further thought will be given to this decision, because I am sure that it would be a great pity if this knowledge and workmanship were lost. America still believes in the flying boat and development is going ahead there. We ought not to fall behind.
6.33 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this debate has covered many vitally important matters relating to defence policy and the Defence Services. I think we shall all agree that it has been conducted throughout in a serious and responsible vein. There have been a number of notable speeches from noble Lords whose knowledge and experience lends authority to their contributions. There has also been an excellent maiden speech by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, on which I should like, on behalf of those noble Lords who sit on these Benches, to congratulate him. We also had, I think we shall all agree, an impressive contribution of great weight from the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York. I speak with no such authority, but I share the concern which we must all feel in confronting and deciding the grave issues that are before us. And it is for this reason that I shall occupy a little of your Lordships' time.
I do not think that any one of us can have studied the Defence White Paper without heart-searchings, or without appreciating to the full his personal responsibility in approving or opposing the major lines of policy which it sets out. I doubt whether any one of us

1189
would dispute the opening statement that:
"Overshadowing all else in the year 1954 has been the emergence of the thermo-nuclear bomb."
It is that startling discovery which governs the main lines of defence policy now before the House. A single decade has sufficed to carry the world from conventional warfare to the possibility of nuclear warfare. First, the atomic bomb; now, the hydrogen bomb; and soon, maybe, the cobalt bomb; and a parallel development in the means of delivery until we reach in a few years, perhaps, some form of inter-continental ballistic rocket. It is a frightening prospect for the human race.
These fateful discoveries and near-discoveries by the scientists are proceeding at a pace that baffles ordinary comprehension. Last year we were asked to think and plan in terms of a global war in which it had to be assumed that atomic weapons would be employed by both sides; and we had to contemplate a period of "broken-back" warfare, if no decisive result was achieved in the opening stage. That prospect has been made infinitely worse by the advent of the hydrogen bomb. We are now told that a war in which thermo-nuclear weapons were used would be a "struggle for survival of the grimmest kind." I have heard people express the wish—indeed, the most reverend Primate did so this afternoon—that the atomic and the hydrogen bombs had never been invented. I share that wish; but it is, of course, a quite futile one. The fact is that we cannot put the clock back. Once the scientists have wrested secrets from nature, the secrets cannot be returned to nature. But it is within the power of man, if he will use his power, to see that scientific discoveries are not used to destroy mankind.
As things stand, we must all recognise that in a thermo-nuclear war—that is to say, total war, in which all the modern weapons of mass destruction would be used—the result would be total destruction. But do not let us think that conventional war was a tolerable, if not a genteel, operation by comparison. I would remind your Lordships that, according to an estimate made by the late General Smuts, the casualties of the
1190
two world wars amounted to 80 million, of which at least 30 million were killed—an appalling human cost. The inescapable truth is that the world cannot afford another major war—either nuclear or conventional. That is what I, at any rate, profoundly believe.
There is no room for illusions about nuclear war. We must be realists. The Prime Minister has told us that there is no absolute defence against the hydrogen bomb; nor is any method in sight by which any nation or any country can be completely guaranteed against the devastating injury which even a score of them might inflict on wide regions. This statement is supported by a great deal of detailed information which has been made available in the free world by official sources and by scientists. In particular, there has been the Report on The Effects of High Yield Nuclear Explosion, which was issued by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on February 15 of this year. I do not know—and the most reverend Primate raised the same point—whether similar information is being made available to the peoples behind the Iron Curtain. It should certainly be given to them. They are entitled to know what nuclear war would mean, to them and to us.
I believe that if they were allowed to know, their reactions would be similar to those of the Western peoples, and that together we should form an irresistible force of world public opinion demanding a comprehensive disarmament agreement that would remove the instruments of war from all nations and lift the crushing burden of armaments which now oppresses all peoples. How can we help being suspicious of the Soviet Governments intentions when they keep putting forward with monotonous regularity a disarmament programme that would guarantee Communist armed superiority at each stage of the process of reduction? Were disarmament efforts to be thwarted by the West's insistence on a scheme which would guarantee the Western nations such superiority, is there any one of us who doubts that Western public opinion would not soon make itself decisively felt? Until there is agreed disarmament, we must surely do everything we can, by deterrent measures, to safeguard the world from being plunged into a war that would imperil all.

1191
If that is the correct policy for this country to pursue, then three things seem logically to follow. We must have the hydrogen bomb; we must have a bomber force capable of carrying and delivering the bomb; and we must be prepared to say that in the event of a major aggression we should be prepared to use nuclear retaliation. This three-fold policy is rejected, of course, by the genuine pacifist and by those who believe in unilateral disarmament. I respect their sincerity, but I do not agree with them. I do not accept the policy of unilateral disarmament or the policy of neutralism. But many others, like myself, have had to ask themselves: Are we justified in supporting this three-fold policy?
I have posed to myself three serious questions. The first is: is it morally wrong for this country to produce the hydrogen bomb, but morally right for us to be protected by the deterrent power of a similar bomb produced in the United States? I have often thought that, but for the American possession of the atomic bomb and the means of delivery, the Soviet Government might well have been tempted in recent years to press forward their advance in Europe beyond the frontier at which it stands to-day, and that the security of the free world, including our own country, might have become seriously jeopardised. In my view, if we really believe in Western collective defence, we must make our full contribution towards collective deterrence.
The second question is: was it right for us to produce the atomic bomb and is it wrong to manufacture its successor? Here again I can see no moral difference. If the West is to rely on a policy of deterrence, we ought not unilaterally to deprive ourselves of the chief deterrent weapon. But on the practical plane, once we have produced the hydrogen bomb, is there need for us to go on building up a stockpile of our own? An alternative was suggested in another place—namely, that the United States stockpile should feed both the American strategic bomber force and the British V-bomber force when it comes into being. If this could be arranged and duplication of production avoided, it would release British resources, scientific, technical, economic and productive, to be applied more intensely to research and development of
1192
other new weapons that belong to the common armoury of deterrents. That is an important consideration. We are, after all, Allies in the same great cause.
The hard fact is, my Lords—and we must keep it clearly in our minds—that both the United States and Soviet Russia have far greater resources than this country can hope to have at its disposal. It is impossible for us to keep abreast with them in the whole wide range of conventional forces, nuclear weapons and guided missiles. Defence is a costly business, and every new weapon adds greatly to the cost. We have made the atomic bomb by our own resources. We are making the hydrogen bomb by our own resources. According to the Prime Minister, we occupy a high place in fundamental science. It seems to me, therefore, that not only should there be a protected exchange of scientific data, but also there should be a practical working arrangement by which duplication of resources in production should be minimised, so as to secure the maximum of common results in research, development and manufacture of new weapons. What is important is not that the United States and Britain should compete along parallel lines, but that the West should keep ahead of the East in our efforts to build up effective deterrent power. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will make this a matter for frank discussion between two Allies who carry the main responsibility for deterring aggression.
My third question is: would it be wrong to threaten to use the hydrogen bomb against major aggression? What I had in mind was open aggression against Western Europe, which, if it were to succeed, would lead to whole nations on the Continent who are our Allies in the defence of freedom being overrun, occupied and enslaved by overwhelming Communist conventional attack. We can be sure that a similar fate would then soon threaten our own people. It seems to me both right and necessary that we should make it clear that, in the event of open aggression, the West would use all its means of instant retaliation. To do so, I believe, would be the most likely way of preventing such an aggression from being started. What I have said indicates that I regard the policy of

1193
defence by deterrent as the right one and as the one most likely to deter aggression.
If we can deter aggression, we can prevent a hydrogen war. But the hydrogen bomb by itself is not the great deterrent; there must also be the means of delivery. The sooner, therefore, we have a strategic force of modern bombers, the greater will be the power of the deterrent. There will be, I imagine, general agreement with the view of the Government that the first task of the Royal Air Force is to build up the V-bomber force and its weapons. We have been told that our atomic stockpile is accumulating. But if we are still in the process of making our first hydrogen bomb, it may be a long time before we have our own hydrogen stockpile, and this shows that the suggestion I have made has considerable force.
The position appears to be that the United States is the only country which is able to deliver to-day a full scale nuclear attack with hydrogen bombs at a few hours' notice. Russia, on the other hand, according to the Prime Minister's information, so far has tested by explosion only a type of bomb of intermediate power. But the Foreign Secretary said in another place on Monday that, as a result of the advance of science, an explosion is no longer the final expression of what is going on. He added:
"We cannot exclude the possibility of experiments being carried on without explosions."
It may be, therefore, that the Soviet Union have now a bomb of greater power—greater power, I mean, in relation to the bomb which they had before; not greater than the one that the United States have. We have reason to believe that Russia possesses something like 3,000 bombers capable of reaching this country, and that they are following up with 4-jet swept-wing heavy bombers which compare with the best strategic bombers (the B.52s) which the United States have to-day. Do we know whether Russia has the apparatus necessary to enable her long distance bombers to carry the hydrogen bomb? It is obvious that the Americans have it. It also seems reasonable to suppose that, as we are making the bomb and the bombers, we are also engaged in developing the carrying apparatus.
We have been told that the Valiant is now coming into squadron service, but we do not know at what rate. The Under-Secretary of State for Air has said that
1194
the Valiant has a better performance than the American B.47. If that is true it would seem that the Valiant is one of the best bombers in existence. But even better is foreshadowed. It is claimed that both the Vulcan and the Victor promise considerable improvements on the Valiant. In development flights they have flown at over 50,000 ft. at just under the speed of sound. The Vulcan is to come into squadron service in 1956, and is to be followed not very much later by the Victor—I think my times are right, but I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord, the Secretary of State, will correct me if I am wrong. If all these planes fulfil expectations—and these are important words—they should provide a firm basis for an effective strategic bomber force, which is what this country must have. The Under-Secretary in another place spoke about the need to build up a "powerful bomber force." I agree, provided the emphasis is laid on quality rather than on numbers. I am not going to ask the noble and gallant Lord, the Secretary of State for Air, to tell us what number of front line bombers he is aiming at, because I am quite sure he will not tell the House. I make no complaint. Governments come and Governments go, but security secrecy seems to go on for ever. But I am sure we are not able, for obvious and strong reasons, to plan in terms of the great bomber armadas of the last war. Quality—which mean the finest planes, manned by highly efficient crews—is vital; and if that governs the size of our strategic bomber force, it will he a far better striking force than it will be if we sacrifice quality for quantity.
The last point I want to make is this. To have the bomb and the bombers that can deliver it will form the heart of deterrence. But there must also be dispersal. I understand that Bomber Command are to have their main bases, and also a widely dispersed network of operational sites, at home and abroad. This is of the highest importance. We have to think in terms of a surprise attack, an attack without warning on the lines of the Pearl Harbour attack. We may be sure that the United States will not ignore the lessons taught by that attack. We must learn from it, too.
The value of the policy of deterrent lies in the certainty of the West's ability to retaliate immediately if a surprise attack is launched. Unless a surprise

1195
attack could destroy, or at least seriously cripple, the power to retaliate immediately, it would be a perilous gamble by the aggressor. The more we and the Americans had our strategic bombers dispersed at suitable spots in different parts of the world, the larger would be the number of points which the aggressor would have to attack simultaneously; the more difficult it would be for him to succeed in his widely diffused attack; and the longer would be the warning we should all get, since the zero hour for simultaneous attack would have to be fixed in relation to the most distant point, which is the United States, where a great retaliatory bomber force would be stationed. So, from the standpoint of a would-be aggressor, this vital problem would be extremely difficult to solve, and it is one which adds great strength to the policy of defence by deterrent.
A related factor is the radar warning system. The Americans and the Canadians have three radar chains and are now adding one in mid-Atlantic. We have our own network, which is highly efficient. Then there is the N.A.T.O. radar chain across Western Europe. The responsibility for each set is different. They all serve the same purpose: to warn the Western nations of the approach of an attack. I assume that there is the closest interdependence between the several chains, and that, in fact, they are functioning as a single warning system. But I would ask the noble and gallant Lord, the Secretary of State, to tell the House that my assumption is a correct one; that these reporting chains are operating as an integrated warning system, so as to ensure that no time will be lost in getting both the British and the American bombers into the air and on their retaliatory mission in the event of a surprise attack being launched against the West.
I have restricted my remarks to only a few of the broad issues involved in the policy and means of defence by deterrent.
1196
I would just add this. Unless something is done about it, progress in the weapons of mass-destruction and in the means of delivery will go on. Science shows no signs of coming to the end of the road in these matters. The question that presses urgently for answer is this: cannot political and diplomatic effort find the way to save mankind from the threat of a terrible fate? I do not know whether noble Lords have confidence that the world will be able to go on living in precarious safety for ten, twenty or more years of cold war, with armaments becoming ever more destructive and their burden ever more costly. The policy of defence by deterrence can never be more than a halfway house. We must go further and get real peace with security. To attain that goal nothing less than a supreme and sustained effort will suffice, because the nations dare not—I repeat, dare not—accept the ultimate dreadful alternative to world co-existence and comprehensive disarmament.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. In doing so, I should like to announce that the debate will be resumed at 2.30 to-morrow instead of 3 o'clock, owing to the very large number of noble Lords who wish to take part.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute past seven o'clock.